Skip to content

Category: Libertarianism

Nullification, Decentralization, Separation, Divorce, Dissolve, Dismiss the Regime

Why are many of the people on the left of such an authoritarian mentality? They are so authoritarian in their worship of the federal government and its illicit powers and feared losing the power so much they disrupted the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, and engaged in so much obvious cheating during the recent mid-term elections. (Not that Republicans weren’t engaged in cheating or at least questionable behavior as well, such as in Georgia.)

During the Kavanaugh hearings, Sen. Cruella Harris began interrupting Chairman Grassfed as soon as he began the hearings, and it went downhill from there, especially with “Dr.” Ford who “Must Be Believed At All Times!” and Kavanaugh screaming how much he loves beer and telling us what a moron he is by keeping calendars going back to 1982. (Who does that?)

Meanwhile, informed people with a brain actually objected to Kavanaugh based on his terrible rulings rubber-stamping tyranny, and his being a corrupt bureaucrat. But no, the fanatics on the left are concerned about abortion. That’s what they care about. And “Free Health Care for ALL!”and all that.

The fanatics believe that the Supreme Court is the God of government, that those 9 robed bureaucrats have the absolute final say on our freedom (and our enslavement). So it’s so important that they have to interrupt hearings, harass senators who voted for Kavanaugh, and cheat in elections. What a life.

But, as Tom Woods points out in a recent article, especially in his quoting of James Madison, the federal judicial branch is the final decision-maker on constitutional conflicts only between the branches of the federal government (judicial, legislative and executive), but NOT the final decision-maker on conflicts between the federal government and the states.

As Woods has explained in the past, the states, after all, created the federal government, not the other way around. The people of the states are the “boss” of the feds, and the agents of the federal government are the states’ “employees.” Unfortunately, that has been turned around by authoritarians (especially reinforced by Lincoln) who believe that whatever the federal government says, goes. “You will report to us your earnings, where you work or whom you employ, we will take a portion of your wealth whether you like it or not, we will spy on you and know the personal details of your private life and you will not know what we are up to, we’ll just mark everything ‘classified,’ and so on…”

So that stuff that the bureaucrats in Washington have been doing, that fools like Brett Kavanaugh have been rubber-stamping out of loyalty to the Regime and its racket, is unconstitutional, illicit, and criminal. This is why the writers of the Bill of Rights included the Tenth Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Which is not very well written, by the way. It should have explicitly stated that the people of the states shall nullify any federal government rule, law or order on them whose enforcement they conclude would be in violation of their liberty, persons or property. Otherwise, the Founders needlessly created a federal government and ratified a questionable Constitution, going against the very principles of their Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson and others endorsed that idea of nullification which many people on the left now ignorantly perceive as having to do with racism or “slavery,” even though some states engaged in nullification during the Civil War period when they nullified Fugitive Slave Laws (which Lincoln strongly endorsed and enforced, by the way).

As Woods wrote in an essay in his Liberty Classroom, “nullification was used against slavery, as when northern states did everything in their power to obstruct the enforcement of the fugitive-slave laws, with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin going so far as to declare the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional and void.  In Ableman v. Booth (1859), the U.S. Supreme Court scolded it for doing so.  In other words, modern anti-nullification jurisprudence has its roots in the Supreme Court’s declarations in support of the Fugitive Slave Act.  Who’s defending slavery here?”

But as I wrote in this article, we are now slaves of the federal government.

Incidentally, for those who are interested, Tom Woods wrote a terrific book on the history of nullification in America and how it should be used currently:  Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.

Concocting a centralized, ruling federal government was a mistake made by the Revolutionaries. Besides the social fascists and authoritarians on the left, now we have a Donald Trump who claims that his job is “running the country,” which, as Richard Ebeling pointed out in this very informative new article, is a “claim to abrogate the liberty of each and every member of that society to have the freedom to run their own life as they peacefully and honestly see fit in voluntary and mutually agreed-upon association with their fellow human beings for their respective betterment as they define it.”

One of the latest examples of the absurdity of this centralized power apparatus in Washington is that the bureaucrats are going to bring criminal charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, because he provided the means for whistleblowers to expose the criminality of the federal bureaucrats and their goons. Whistleblowers such as Bradley Manning with the Iraq War Logs, the Afghanistan War Logs, the diplomatic cables leaks, the “Collateral Murder” video, and all the rest.

As I wrote above, the criminals of the regime classify whatever they can to avoid embarrassing disclosures, evade transparency, get away with murder, and punish whistleblowers. Bradley Manning, by the way, was viciously persecuted by Obama’s regime, not Bush, with 3 years of solitary confinement pre-trial and a kangaroo trial and sentencing. (Although I think the main reason the SJW-in-Chief Barack Obama then commuted Manning’s 35-year sentence was because Manning is a “transgender.” Those are the things Obama et al. really care about.)

You see, as many people have noted now in the Obama DOJ and FBI’s surveillance abuses and how the Obama administration was so bad with civil liberties and freedom of speech and his war on the Press, we now have Cruella Harris and Pocahontas and all their moonbat followers drooling to take the apparatus of power back so THEY can once again use the spying powers against enemies and enforce their beloved police state on the people.

So, as I had written several times now, including this article from 8 years ago, the Amerikan sheeple need to let go of their dependence on the regime in Washington and we must go our separate ways.

More Articles

Matthew Silber writes about defusing a second civil war through peaceful secession. (In my view, the choices are voluntary, peaceful secession and decentralization, OR, let the society in Amerika collapse with chaos, violence and bloodshed. I prefer the former, not the latter.)

Thomas DiLorenzo asks, Where does the Constitution call for black-robed dictators?

Laurence Vance says that “libertarian” proposals to “reform” Social Security with new mandates are privatizing coercion. (With libertarians like that, who needs fascists?)

And Daniel Mitchell says that a Trump-Pelosi budget deal is a recipe for the worst kind of tax increase.

Government Apparatchiks Should Be Shamed into Quitting Their Evil Government “Work”

As a follow-up to my rant yesterday on the protesters who have been harassing government officials at restaurants, I am going to reiterate my support. And reiterate my condemnation of criminal thugs terrorizing Tucker Carlson’s family at his home, as well. Carlson is not a government official.

However, many of the protesters’ motivations are not in favor of dismantling the powers of the government that sics government enforcers onto innocent people, unfortunately. Many of the “protesters” and harassers are in favor of their own “liberal police state,” in which they want to sic the enforcers onto innocent people who disobey the left’s fascist mandates, intrusive regulations, and so forth. Liberals and progressives are as much police statists as the conservatives, warmongers and drug warriors.

But as I wrote yesterday, of course the citizens should bother, annoy, harass, make fun of, taunt, humiliate, and shame those government bureaucrats at public places, such as Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell. Those apparatchiks have been supporting and voting for terrible, totalitarian anti-liberty legislation such as NDAA that empowers government agents to arrest and detain indefinitely citizens without charges or suspicion, voting for the various laws involving the drug war in which innocent people’s homes are criminally broken into by enforcers who terrorize and ransack the homes of innocent people who supposedly disobeyed government prohibitions of having a plant, or other Soviet-like diktats. These bureaucrats should be harassed, taunted, and shamed into deciding to repeal all that totalitarian crap!

And yesterday I wrote that most of these bureaucrats are “life-long parasites, and/or apologists for the State’s evil,” including Sarah Huckabee Sanders, that I described as the White House propagandist, which is what she is. If you look at Sanders’s Wikipedia bio, it states that at age 10 she was already working on one of her father Gomer’s political campaigns.

So Gomer already had his daughter Sarah indoctrinated to worship the false god of the State early on, in my view, which is the case with many people in America, in and out of government. In college Sanders majored in political science and mass communications (i.e. government propaganda). In all her bios online I can’t find any evidence that she ever worked in the private sector. Just political campaigns and government. Yech.

And yes, many of today’s American Christians worship their false god, the government in Washington, as well as government rulers in general and their enforcers. And I think that includes the Huckabees, Sarah and her father Mike, a.k.a. Gomer.

Many are True Believers in this nationalistic “American Exceptionalism” theology that excuses U.S. government criminality in the name of trying to prevent people from getting drugs, and in the name of “spreading democracy” (another false god), i.e. warmongering.

Laurence Vance, who in my view is certainly more of an expert on the Bible and Christianity than Mike Huckabee, has written many articles and blog posts on Christians’ false worship of government as a god.

In his review of Mike Huckabee’s book, A Simple Government: Twelve Things We Really Need from Washington, Vance wrote:

Huckabee disparages redistribution of wealth, public assistance, abortion, Obamacare, out-of-wedlock births, public employee unions, government debt and deficits, tax increases, the estate tax, and government stimulus programs….On Social Security, Huckabee even calls for raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, delaying payments to the elderly by giving them tax incentives to keep working, and offering those who don’t need Social Security the option of a tax-free, lump-sum benefit payable at their death to their chosen beneficiary in lieu of collecting Social Security benefits. On Medicare, he calls for raising the age of eligibility. Yet, Huckabee falls short of labeling Social Security and Medicare what they really are – redistribution of wealth schemes that he condemns – and calling for their elimination. This is the problem with Huckabee and most Republicans and conservatives – they fall short, too short and too often. So, out of one side of his mouth Huckabee can disparage the things he does, but out of the other side he can support government-funded school breakfasts, “the right of every citizen to a free public education,” vouchers for Medicare recipients, elimination of the home mortgage interest deduction, the FairTax with its public-assistance, wealth-redistributing prebate, the Race to the Top federal program, a “reasonable deficit” of no more than 3 percent of GDP, and “hefty fines and prison time” for employers who choose to hire whom they wish.

With Huckabee being a Baptist preacher, one would think that he might call for missionaries to go to Iraq and Afghanistan and convert Muslims to Christianity instead of calling for U.S. soldiers to go and kill them: “We’ve had too many of our troops spending too much of their time painting schools and digging wells. They should be allowed to focus on killing Islamic extremists who want us all to die.”

In other words, today’s Christians and conservatives are like most True Believers in American Exceptionalism, blindly and obediently believing the government’s propaganda in the name of justifying wars of aggression and rationalizing murdering innocents overseas, and justifying the Amerikan police state. The collectivism of the 20th century continues to this day.

And also, why do the Exceptionalists never or rarely question the income tax? We never hear them criticize the government in its theft of private wealth and property, because most people are brainwashed to believe that their worshiped government authorities are entitled to the people’s earnings and wealth. And that includes conservatives and Christians who believe that crap.

And then there’s the drug war. While many Christians happily consume their own drug of choice, their beer and booze, they have no problem with siccing government police on peaceful people who happen to have some drug or plant that a bureaucrat doesn’t want them to have. On the drug war, Mike Huckabee is a True Believer in the Police State.

In Laurence Vance’s speech on Christianity, Libertarianism, and the Drug War, Vance wrote:

The burden of proof is on Christian drug warriors. Where did the Apostle Paul, in his travels throughout the Roman Empire, ever express support for any type of legislation or state action against vice, immorality, or sin? He certainly told Christians how they should live their life, and even provided lists of vices, immoral actions, and sins that Christians should avoid. Things like: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, covetousness, anger, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication, effeminacy, idolatry, hatred, strife, reveling, witchcraft, evil speaking, lying, and bitterness. But Paul never expressed a desire for the civil authorities to arrest, fine, or imprison anyone for engaging in these things. And neither do modern Christians. Just like they don’t call for the government to prosecute people for committing one of the seven deadly sins of pride, envy, wrath, sloth, avarice, gluttony, and lust. So what is so special, so egregious, about someone using drugs?

Christian(s) should only use persuasion. Persuasion, not coercion. Persuasion, not legislation. Persuasion, not legal action. Persuasion, not threats. Persuasion, not compulsion. Persuasion, not violence. Persuasion, not incarceration. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (2 Corinthians 10:4). There are, unfortunately, too many people in the United States—including too many Christians—who want to remake society in their own image and compel others to live only in ways that they approve of. Did you ever notice that there is no shortage of Americans—including no shortage of American Christians—willing to kill for the military, torture for the CIA, wiretap for the FBI, grope for the TSA, and destroy property for the DEA? It is not just libertarians who can appeal to the wisdom of Ludwig von Mises: “He who wants to reform his countrymen must take resource to persuasion. This alone is the democratic way of bringing about changes. If a man fails in his endeavors to convince other people of the soundness of his ideas, he should blame his own disabilities. He should not ask for a law, that is, for compulsion and coercion by the police.” That is the spirit of New Testament Christianity. And Mises was a nonreligious Jew, not a Christian.

The problem with many of these people is that they worship the government in Washington, the high-and-mighty rulers, and their enforcers and the military. False gods. But what bureaucrats and their enforcers have been doing to innocent, peaceful people have been evil criminal acts in the name of “enforcement” of bureaucratic edicts.

All this totalitarianism is exactly why the Founding Fathers created America, to protect the people from government violence!

So it is good that the people (aware of the risks of possible false arrest and false imprisonment, of course) harass, taunt, and shame Ted Baxter Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell et al. into rethinking their positions and votes and make them decide to vote and pass legislation to repeal and dismantle the Nazi-like police state, including DHS, TSA, ICE, DEA, NDAA, and so on. Congressional bureaucrats also need to be pressured to pass legislation to close down those U.S. military bases in all parts of the world that are not U.S. territories. They don’t belong there! Those are occupations, the wars our government has been starting against other countries have been criminal wars of aggression. But the Amerikan warvangelicals believe otherwise, sadly.

However, obviously it is not realistic to get power-grabbers to willfully let go of their unjust and undeserved powers over the people. As Jim Davies wrote, regarding the unrealistic possibility of a libertarian President,

…the change has to come bottom-up, not top-down. It must not – it cannot – be imposed from above, it must be demanded from beneath. Government will vanish not when a President announces it will cease to exist at year’s end, or whenever, but when it is universally seen to be so destructive that nobody will work for it. When all its employees walk out, there will be no need for an election, nobody will be over-ruled and nobody will riot.

Reasons to leave government employ are offered in TinyURL.com/QuitGov – pass that simple URL around – but that short site will not suffice on its own, to provide the in-depth education needed. For that, TOLFA or an equivalent must be offered to everyone – not just those now in “government service” but to all who might replace them when they quit.

Perhaps the protesters can harass, bother, taunt and humiliate the government employees, the apparatchiks of the vicious criminal regime (such as Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell and Sarah Huckabee Sanders) that they will decide to quit government “work” and instead go into the private sector, and others will follow.

More Articles

Charles Burris says that the deep state will be the ultimate winner of Tuesday’s election.

Sharyl Attkisson says that CIA’s surveillance state is operating against us all.

Jacob Hornberger on non-interventionism: America’s founding foreign policy.

Martin Pánek asks, It took six months to split Czechoslovakia, why should Brexit take six years?

Richard Ebeling discusses liberal capitalism as the ideology of freedom and moderation.

Gary Galles on how so many bad ideas manage to win on election day.

And José Niño says, Quit trying to turn JFK into a tax-cutting budget hawk.

Election 2018 Finished: Politics As Usual

The 2018 elections are over with, and now the media and Americans will be obsessed with the 2020 elections from now until November of 2020. And there’s no good reason for that.

For those annoyed with my posts yesterday with videos discussing whether these elections make any difference for liberty, and the notion that “every vote counts,” and “if you vote for third parties you’re wasting your vote,” etc., I am actually the realistic one here. When I voted for Ron Paul the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, I was voting for the only non-statist. And we knew that was the case because 99% of his votes in Congress up to that time and since then had been non-ststist — against the State, its power expansions, its intrusions, its criminality, thefts, molestations of innocents, warmongering, and so on.

That year the other two candidates of the major parties were George H.W. Bush, who was elected President and went on to start a war of aggression against Iraq for no good reason that caused blowback including 9/11, and loser Michael Dukakis who was a typical Democrat who wanted to empower the government to steal as much as possible from “the rich” (i.e. all the workers and producers of society) and impose one intrusion after another into private property. It’s been the same ever since then.

Since that 1988 election, I did vote through 1992 but not after that. It took those four whole years more for me to finally deal with the fact the these elections are rigged in favor of statists and against those who support the non-aggression principle, freedom of association, private property rights, i.e. liberty.

The dumb clucks in the mainstream media who are powerful in controlling who and what messages get air time and who and what doesn’t, have been silencing and smearing the libertarian message, frankly.

There are those who look down on non-voters. “Well if you don’t vote then you have no right to complain about things,” and so on. No, it’s the other way around.

The ones who DO vote are the ones who have no right to complain, because they are the ones who voted in the statists who continue to make things worse. (Like George H.W. Bush, his no-good son, and most of Congress.)

Sure, Donald Trump signed tax cuts into law, but his trade idiocy will reverse the economic progress stimulated by the tax cuts and deregulations. Trade protectionism imposes taxes on you either directly or imposes costs indirectly in its attempts to force or coerce you to buy American products (regardless of their possible poor quality and higher prices) in the name of allegedly protecting American producers. That despite Trump’s causing American producers to have to pay higher prices for the capital goods they need to run their businesses and manufacturing plants. And what are the results of that?

On this week’s elections, the Democrats regained control of the House and the Republicans expanded their control over the Senate. More gridlock is a good thing, rather than rubber-stamping of Trump’s police state/welfare/warfare state agenda.

Ted Scruz wins reelection in Texas, and Scott Walker loses reelection in Wisconsin. And Pocahontas and Gov. Charlie Baker are reelected in Massachusetts, which approved the transgender bathroom/shower law by 67%. In New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state, Gov. Chris Sunununu was reelected. Like Charlie Half-Baker, Sunununu also signed a transgender bathroom/shower bill into law.

Only 1.4% of New Hampshire voters voted for the Libertarian Party candidate, Jilletta Jarvis for governor. Not good. New Hampshire people, you need to strike “Live Free or Die” from those license plates now. “Statism Forever!” should be your motto, just like in all the other states. Private property rights? Never heard of it. “Liberty”? What’s that?

And now that the election is finally over with, the Mueller investigation will conclude with no indictment of Donald Trump regarding “collusions with Russia” in meddling in the 2016 election, because they never had any such evidence to begin with. But the Republicans in the House committees investigating the matters DO have evidence to indict James Comey, Rosenstein, Strzok, McCabe, James Claptrapper, and probably Brennan in their conspiring to meddle in the 2016 election, their criminally abusing the FISA spying authority to spy on the Trump campaign and falsely accuse or set up or frame Trump in aforementioned “Russia collusions,” and conspiracy to change the election outcome and “defraud the United States of America,” as well as perjury in their lying to Congress.

If Devin Nunes and the others don’t get going on the indictments between now and the first week of January, then all that will be swept under the rug and the American people will never know the truth, those who up to this time have been brainwashed by so much mainstream news media propaganda on “Trump-Russia-collusions.”

The Republicans in Congress can also pass another tax cut between now and January. Make it permanent, not temporary. The truth is, people have a right to keep everything they earn, spend it on consumer goods, invest it, save for the future, whatever they want, because what is theirs is theirs. Those who take it from them in the absence of a voluntary contract are stealing. And that’s what taxation is, but sadly many brainwashed sheeple believe otherwise.

And Democrats will open up new investigations on Donald Trump, without any evidence to support two years of allegations, and will attempt to have impeachment hearings, knowing full well that the Republicans who control the Senate will not pursue such crapola.

However, one good thing about Democrats controlling the House is that there will be no funding for a border wall. No government walls on the government border. This is America, not East Germany. “Oh, but it’s a wall to keep people out, not to keep people in.” Hmm, but what will future administrations in Washington do with that government wall, such as a Tom Perez administration or a Bernie Sanders administration?

And that’s a problem that Republicans have, very short-sighted and simple-minded. Do they know that most of the people who are in the U.S. “illegally” are those who have overstayed their visas or otherwise violated some bureaucratic rule, and NOT those who have snuck in through the border? Duh, Rethugs.

And besides denying the Ignoramus-in-Chief funding for a government wall on the border, the Democrats should also try to deny funding for further escalation of the police state, the drug war, and the military boondoggles they are getting now.

Articles to Remind People Exactly What You’re Voting for Today

Ron Paul says that censorship and gun control will not make us safe.

Zero Hedge with an article on fascist Orwellian AI “lie detectors” coming to airports and border checkpoints. (That’s right, sheeple. Vote for Democrats and Republicans who are giving us this ****.)

Jacob Hornberger says that Brent Taylor did not die for God, family and country.

And Nick Turse on America’s forgotten Vietnamese victims.

Libertarian Murray Sabrin Running for U.S. Senate in New Jersey

If you live in New Jersey, believe in freedom, hate the State and its institutionalized criminality against innocent people, and you don’t like incumbent Sen. Bob Menendez or the Republican candidate Bob Hugin a Big Pharma exec, then consider voting for the Libertarian Party candidate Murray Sabrin. As I wrote in this post on the New Jersey election, Murray has the right libertarian positions on many issues. Here is Murray on the 2nd Amendment. And here is Ron Paul’s endorsement of Murray Sabrin.

However, I am not particularly in agreement with Murray’s views on immigration. As I wrote in the post on the New Jersey election, “Dr. Sabrin does say he’s for immigration reform. I am not sure I totally agree with the specifics. I would repeal all laws pertaining to immigration, because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to get involved in immigration. Just leave people alone, as long as you don’t suspect someone of committing acts of aggression, theft or fraud. It doesn’t matter whether the individual is within the “borders” or on the outside and traveling in.”

And I also included in that post a quote from Tom Knapp, who happens to be on the national Libertarian Party’s platform committee. Here’s Tom Knapp:

When I sought appointment to the Libertarian Party’s 2018 platform committee, I made a few commitments (including):

To seek a committee recommendation that the Libertarian Party delete the final sentence of Plank 3.4, “Free Trade and Migration,” as follows: “We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.” Thanks to the committee for considering, and passing, this proposal!

I don’t think the LP platform says anything about “citizenship.” If it does, it shouldn’t.

But I was very disappointed by Murray’s recent Facebook entry on immigration. He wrote:

“I oppose birthright citizenship because it is not consistent with the fundamental concept of citizenship–a strong cultural and political tie to a nation’s legal and economic systems. Citizenship requires embracing a nation’s founding ideals. For America, that means embracing our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, especially all the rights guaranteed to a nation’s citizens. Coming to America legally is the best way to demonstrate that an immigrant will make our country his homeland to become a productive citizen.” – Murray Sabrin on the 14th Amendment

“I oppose birthright citizenship because it is not consistent with the fundamental concept of citizenship.”

But the “fundamental concept of citizenship”  is not consistent with the fundamental concept of liberty, freedom of association, and private property, very important libertarian principles.

“Citizenship requires embracing a nation’s founding ideals. For America, that means embracing our founding documents…”

No, America has in its Constitution the First Amendment that protects the right of freedom of thought and conscience of every individual. In America, you can have the freedom to think and believe whatever the hell you want, even crackpot communist kookery.

If someone doesn’t “embrace the founding documents,” then he is not allowed “citizenship”? Not allowed in? Should we kick out Bernie Sanders, Evita Ocasio-Cortez, and Donald Trump? (And most of Trump’s cabinet, most of the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court, and on and on…)

One commenter on Murray’s Facebook post stated that “The entire concept of citizenship is statist and un-libertarian.” And I totally agree with that.

I think a lot of people out there are America worshipers, and see this country as more of a private club than a territory in which the freedom of the individual is protected. Including the freedom of thought and conscience. The nationalists and conservatives and talk radio ditto-heads are obsessed with “citizenship” as well as their collectivism and America group identity mysticism. Many people of this variety do not see the forest for the trees, when it comes to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and especially private property and free-market capitalism. They want socialism in immigration controls in their endorsing of Washington’s central-planning bureaucrats’ attempted but futile controls over the movements of millions of people. And I must say, what a shame that there are very prominent libertarians who have been eating up the “immigrant invasion” fear-mongering. I’m reminded of the killer bees coming up from the south … and it never happened.

But if you are in New Jersey, please vote for Murray Sabrin. Make a statement to the Republicrats and Demopublicans in Washington.

The Irrational vs. the Rational of Libertarians

Who knows why some so-called libertarians or conservative libertarians are so hysterical and irrational when it comes to the immigration issue. This one by Bionic Mosquito on LewRockwell.com is another one of those.

It’s like this is an “either-or” kind of thing. We either have an all-private property society, or we have complete government control over borders and immigration into the territory. And because we don’t have an all-private property society, we MUST accept the police state and central planning in immigration, and not complain (so it seems).

Bionic says that, well, “Until there are no state borders, it will be the state that makes the decision on who crosses the borders.  In a world of state borders, every decision regarding immigration is a centrally-planned, state-enforced-at-the-end-of-the-barrel-of-a-gun decision; even a position of open borders.” And that’s that.

So, implied here as well as on many of these kinds of articles is a support for the central planners’ control that they have legally, and a support for the police state.

The libertarian conservatives seem to be frightened by the thousands of migrants from Central America “walking” up to the U.S. southern border. There’s a lot of propaganda out there, though. And I don’t believe that this is all “Soros-funded” and left-wing activist-directed. If you ask me, the “caravan” might very well be another psy-op being caused by the “national security” apparatus in Washington, who wants to fear-monger the people (including anti-“national security” libertarians) into supporting an even further intensified police state at the border and inside the border (and further increased budgets for all the police state agencies “protecting” us from all those bad people). Let’s put the military on the border so we can justify even larger budget increases for the military (in addition to Trump’s new “Space Force”). Yay.

Still, it’s immoral to violate the lives and liberty of innocent people because others have been violent or have been criminals. America used to be about individualism. But the libertarian conservatives seem to have become collectivists now. It is very disappointing to see libertarians engaging in group identity politics, but that is what we have here, in my view. Sad.

I wonder if Bionic supports arresting and caging businessmen for hiring unauthorized foreigners at their businesses, or raids on innocent people’s property, arresting those who have not harmed anyone, and on and on.

Contrasting the hysteria and irrationality with the so-called libertarians who now love the police state and central planning, we have the rational Jacob Hornberger, who writes about Donald Trump’s brilliant political strategy with the caravan “invading” our southern border:

Notwithstanding the fact that none of these refugees is armed and that the group includes lots of women and children, you would think that the United States is about to be invaded by the North Vietnamese, North Korean, Red Chinese, or Soviet armies (which was the official bugaboo throughout the Cold War). Trump has his supporters in a total tizzy. His dramatic decision to send (more) U.S. troops to the border to protect us from the coming “invasion” is nothing less than sheer political genius.

The result of Trump’s strategy? Countless Trumpistas are now quivering and quaking over the fact that the “illegals” are coming to get us. “Please, please, Mr. President, do whatever is necessary to keep us safe. Take away our freedoms and spend whatever you need to spend

The only thing that works and the only thing that is consistent with moral principles is freedom and free markets, which necessarily means free trade, open immigration, freedom of association, freedom of travel, economic liberty, private property, liberty of contract, and privacy. What could be more rational than steadfastly continuing to stand for freedom and free markets and against a police state?

Do the anti-immigration libertarians ever spend as much time criticizing the police state as they do criticizing “open borders”? They don’t seem to spend much time in articles or blogs doing that. Why don’t they spend more time advocating eliminating the welfare state and the drug war as well? I rarely see, “Get rid of DHS, ICE, BTF, FBI, CIA, DEA, Etc., Etc.,” anymore.

So, to me, the libertarians on the right have become quite irrational and have lost touch with libertarian principles, maybe just as much as the libertarians on the left who have lost touch in their obsession with “social justice” and race and gender, and all that crap.

Why the “Civil Rights” Act Should Not Apply to Private Property

In my unusually long recent post on the “enslavements of socialism and social justice,” I included some comments on the LGBT “civil rights” issues, such as the bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the transgender bathroom intrusions. And even though that post was a follow-up on an earlier post, I now have this follow-up on the “enslavements of socialism and social justice” post.

Regarding the Christian bakers refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, I wrote that because the business is privately owned the owners have a right to serve or to not serve prospective customers. That’s a part of property rights. And I wrote that the couple being refused service taking the bakers to court and suing them can be considered an enslavement of the bakers, because the prospective customer is using force or coercion to make the businessperson provide something involuntarily. Some people react to my writing that in a negative way, but the actual truth about some things does bother some people.

People have a right that’s a part of property rights to associate with or do business with anyone they want to, as long as it’s voluntary. No coercion is allowed in a civilized society, because using force or coercion against someone is … uncivilized. Laurence Vance explains it all very well in this article and this article. All people, private citizens or businesspeople, have a right to discriminate for or against anyone else, for any reason they have, based on ignorance, prejudice, race, gender, political views, any reason whatsoever. It’s not just to do with freedom of association and property rights, but freedom of thought and conscience as well.

No one has a “civil right” to be served by someone else. No one has a “civil right” to access private property. There are no such “rights.”

Which brings me to the “Civil Rights” Act of 1964, which repealed and prohibited government laws segregating people by race (“Jim Crow” laws), and outlawed government-imposed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That anti-discrimination law applied to all government-run operations such as the schools, parks, city buses and subways, and so on.

In my view, as long as we have a “publicly-owned” government ruling over all of us, then of course that government (or those governments, in the case of city and state governments), its bureaucrats and enforcers may not discriminate against any citizen based on those kinds of subjective, arbitrary factors. A “publicly-owned” government belongs to the public, which consists of everyone in the public. It does not belong to the bureaucrats in charge or their goon enforcers. So of course this Act should have outlawed such discrimination.

But the Act also outlawed discrimination on privately-owned premises such as restaurants, hotels, cafeterias, movie theaters, concert halls, etc. that were referred to as “public accommodations,” but are nevertheless privately owned and exist mostly on private property. The “Civil Rights” Act of 1964 and subsequent Amendments should NOT have applied to ANY privately owned business, function, place of worship, and other facility that is not owned by the government.

The social activists have eviscerated private property and private property rights, which are the last vestige of a free society and civilization. The social activists began their crusade against private property with the whole progressive movement. In the 19th Century with their intrusions into education by getting local governments to usurp the function of educating children away from parents and neighborhoods, imposed mandates, compulsory attendance laws. They continued with getting local or state governments involved in marriage, in which prior to those times the idea of a government-mandated marriage license would have been seen as absurd.

The social activists then imposed the income tax. Your earnings are no longer “yours,” but from then onward your earnings first belong to the gubmint who will then allow you to have whatever the bureaucrats determine you are allowed to have. Slave.

FDR imposed further intrusions, usurpations, wealth tax-thefts with all the New Deal, “Social Security,” and then LBJ with Medicare and Medicaid, and the aforementioned “Civil Rights” Act.

I think a lot of it also has to do with the institutionalized envy which is what socialism is all about. Some people are making use of their talents and abilities and making a living independently, or are successful with a large company, and the envious don’t like that. There seems to have been this impulse to use the armed force of government to take away from people who are successful. And if that’s not enough, use the armed force of government to intrude into their businesses and property.

Anyway, now that sexual orientation and gender identity have been added to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin among the list of aspects we may not discriminate against, we now have gay and lesbian couples intentionally suing private businesspeople not for those plaintiffs to get their just service that they demand from the businesses (even though most of the plaintiffs were nevertheless able to find someone else to bake their cakes or photograph their weddings), but to exact revenge on their victims who didn’t want to associate with them or do business with them. And who do not accept their particular lifestyles. Narcissists, as I was writing in that earlier post.

Could the people concerned about being discriminated against based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, have foreseen that sexual orientation or gender identity would be added to the list? I think not, because why didn’t they include them at that time? And why stop at sexual orientation and gender identity? I’m sure that, given how the social activism movement on the left has become militant in their attempts to push their non-conforming, odd or deviant lifestyles down the throats of others, they will get legislators to add “lifestyle” or some similar word to “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity,” and so on.

Recent laws also affect private therapists or counselors who are forbidden by law to even discuss “conversion therapy” with gender confused clients who actually want to try to become accepting of their actual gender. So freedom of speech is now being affected by these “civil rights” laws. So is the idea of common decency.

Private properties and businesses who are forbidden to discriminate were initially hotels, restaurants, i.e. actual “public accommodations,” that now include small businesses such as bakeries, florists or photographers, and practitioners such as psychotherapists and other doctors are now affected. Even churches are included. “Houses of worship” are in the list of “public accommodations.” Did people in 1964 see ahead as to where that would all lead to?

But where is all this leading to? If small businesses, a professional’s private practice or “houses of worship” are considered “public accommodations,” then how far away from actual public accommodations such as hotels will the social activists use their new legal powers to impose onto others? Will it eventually include people’s homes?

Remember, there is a difference between “civil rights” and “civil liberties.” “Civil rights” laws should repeal any and all government laws or policies in which the government is discriminating against people. But not private citizens, whether their discrimination is in their personal lives or their economic lives.

But now with “civil rights,” the social activists have proclaimed a “civil right” to access someone else’s private property and a “civil right” to demand to be served by someone else, involuntarily. So with this bunch of stuff, actual civil liberties have been eviscerated as well as private property rights and common decency.

More Articles

An article on Zero Hedge on a judge who has ordered Robert Mueller to prove that the indicted Russian company has meddled in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.

Another Zero Hedge article on the FBI admitting it used multiple spies to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

Jacob Hornberger asks, Which is it for you: liberty or “security”?

Tim Ball discusses the methods and tricks used to create and perpetuate the human-caused global warming deception.

Patrick Cockburn says that Trump’s actions in the Middle East will be his downfall.

And Wendy McElroy on crypto anarchism and civil society, the technology is the revolution.

The Enslavements of Socialism and “Social Justice”

As a follow-up to my recent post on the ignorant socialists on both sides of the same statist coin, liberal and conservative, I wanted to bring up the libertarian view of the non-aggression principle and self-ownership. You own yourself and your life and morally if we want a peaceful, civilized society, then be peaceful, don’t initiate aggression against others. And a part of all that is private property rights. Don’t steal, don’t defraud, as well as don’t commit acts of aggression against others.

But socialism is when the government takes ownership of the means of production, industry and property, and actually consists of the violation of the individual and is when one’s life and labor do not exist for one’s own benefit (or for the benefit of those of one’s voluntary choosing) but for the benefit of others as determined by bureaucrats, by the rulers, against the will of the people. In contrast, actual free-markets (or free-market “capitalism”) consist of not just privately-owned property and industry but voluntary exchange, in which you own your own life and labor. As I wrote in a post that I recently linked to,

“Owning people” doesn’t fit into capitalism. “Owning people” is what the State does under socialism. If by “capitalism” you mean “free market capitalism,” then the “capitalists” do not “own” — nor can claim any kind of ownership of — their workers, their employees. In actual free-market capitalism, no one is forced to have any association with or to do any labor for any employer one doesn’t want to work for. In free-market capitalism, your contracts with other associates or your employers are voluntary, and you are free to go work elsewhere if you don’t like that employer. In a free system, you own yourself.

Claiming actual ownership of others is the enslavement of them. And that’s what socialism does, by the State’s (regardless of its using the rhetorical guise “the public”) seizing ownership of industries, wealth and “the means of production,” which includes the people. The people are the most important amongst the means of production.

And by the State’s “seizing ownership of industries,” I am referring also to control. If the State takes control over your supposedly privately owned business or property (with regulations, mandates, restrictions, etc.) then that is the indirect way of the State’s seizing ownership. If you don’t fully control your own property, and another entity has forcibly seized control over it, then you don’t really own it.

Besides the purpose of forced redistribution of wealth in the name of equalizing inequality, socialism is also used to forcibly advance a social agenda. So some people won’t like my examples here, but that’s because a lot of people have been indoctrinated with social “justice” propaganda, but here goes:

One example is the civil rights stuff that now has expanded to include LGBT “rights” against “discrimination” as well as by race or sex. In recent years we have heard about same-sex couples suing photographers, florists and bakers who didn’t want to do work for the couples’ weddings.

Now, why does the baker or florist have a right to not do business with someone he doesn’t want to do business with? Because his business is his own private property. He owns the business, not the government, and not the “public.” The “civil rights” laws say that the business is a “public accommodation,” but the public does not own the business. And therefore members of the public do not have a right to order the owner of the business to serve those he doesn’t want to do extra labor to serve. It has to do with private property rights and freedom of association.

And it has nothing to do with the religion of the Christian baker, for example, and his religious beliefs regarding homosexuality or gay marriage. It has to do with the self-centered couples using the armed powers of government courts to force the businesspeople to show an acceptance of the customers’ lifestyles. These have been cases of extreme narcissists who believe that they have a right to force others to do extra labor to serve them, period, in my view.

Unfortunately, many conservatives, who have been opposed to the LGBT agenda and have been supporting the private businesses who don’t want to serve same-sex couples, don’t understand the principles of private property rights and freedom of association, and freedom of thought and conscience behind all these cases. It seems to me that the conservatives have also been covetous when it comes to using the powers of government to advance their social agendas.

The conservatives believe that the businesspeople’s religious beliefs are what need to be protected here, and that is not the case. What if an atheist baker refused to serve a Christian couple? I don’t believe the conservatives would support the baker. They would probably support the Christian couple. So the conservatives also believe that in some cases people have a right to use government courts to force businesspeople to serve others they don’t want to serve. No, it has to do with private property rights and freedom of association. If you’re an atheist baker and don’t want to serve a Christian couple, then of course you have a right to refuse to serve them. It’s your business, not theirs.

Another example is the transgender bathroom/shower controversy. Some states now allow someone who is male but thinks he’s a female to go into the ladies room, and vice versa. In some states, if you complain about it (that is, if you are a lady who doesn’t want males in the ladies room while you’re in there, or if you’re a parent who doesn’t want an obvious male going into the ladies room while your little girl is in there, and so on), you could be fined a lot of money and even arrested and thrown in jail.

And that is just how narcissistic some people are. You see, someone who has this confusion with his gender, he’s a male and thinks he’s a female but rather than causing him to feel uncomfortable going into the men’s room he now has the power to make a bunch of women and girls feel uncomfortable while he goes into their ladies room. So by law they must accept his gender confusion that he has. They must accommodate him.

And all that stuff, as well as all those “civil rights” laws, applies to privately owned property as well as public property or government buildings. So yes, these policies are another aspect of socialism, in which the government is essentially stealing ownership of private property away from the owners-on-paper.

Incidentally, in Massachusetts there is a ballot question this November to repeal such a law that Republican Gov. Charlie Baker signed into law. In New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state, Republican Gov. Chris Sununu also signed a similar bill into law. Sununu is up for reelection as is Charlie Half-Baker.

The same kinds of enslavements occur in other areas of life, such as medical care. Do you have a right to force a medical doctor or private hospital to care for you? No, of course you don’t. No one has a “right” to health care. If you have a right to have something provided to you, then you have a right to demand that producers must do extra labor to serve you.

As I wrote in a 2012 article, “If someone chooses to be a medical doctor, devotes hours and hours every day and years of intensive study and labor toward training to become a medical doctor, then who is it that owns such efforts, labor, energy and the actual career itself? That doctor? One’s neighbors? The government?” I hope the question answers itself.

And why is medical care so expensive, anyway? When did it really start to become expensive? Well, after Medicare and Medicaid were imposed on the people by bureaucrats who wanted to solve a problem that didn’t exist, that’s when!

So here is a list of articles on why socialized medicine doesn’t work, and never will work, and is immoral as well. And they will help to explain why Bernie Sanders’s plans or Evita Ocasio-Cortez’s plans for “single payer”also will not work. Just study the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and, worst of all, the U.K.

And if the government doesn’t outright own all the means of production and industry as in socialist societies, a word for the public’s or government’s seizing control over privately owned property or businesses is “fascism.”

However, as I mentioned above, if you don’t have control over something you supposedly “own,” then you don’t really own it. So the above cases are really varieties of socialism, in which the government has a de facto ownership of all property. Check out Lew Rockwell’s book, Fascism versus Capitalism, as well as Socialism: an Economic and Sociological Analysis by Ludwig von Mises.

The conservatives and nationalists, by the way, also do not understand, or they have an outright contempt for, private property and free markets like the people on the left. With the immigration issue, the anti-immigration crowd says that businesspeople, professionals and laborers must get a government bureaucrat’s permission to move about to get work or establish voluntary contracts to make a living.

So, with such controls in the name of “protecting the nation,” the government has a de facto ownership over people’s lives, property, and contracts. And, like the so-called “progressives” and social activists, these nationalistic anti-property, anti-freedom policies are also out of envy and covetousness.

And that applies to the trade issue as well. Donald Trump and his sheeple are anti-free trade, and they want the U.S. government to determine who may buy what and for how much and from whom. So this government-controlled trade stuff is also fascist, and thus a part of socialism. You don’t really own your money or your contract that you would have with a seller, the seller doesn’t really own his goods or services that he’s selling. The government has the ultimate, de facto ownership.

Otherwise, in a free society without those governmental intrusions, you would buy something from Sweden, China or Iran and at whatever price the seller is selling it for, and no third party interferes with that contract. That’s the free market, baby. Crony protectionists like Donald Trump don’t like that kind of freedom.

And by the way, if American producers don’t like consumers buying stuff from other countries, then produce better stuff and lower your prices! And if the prices have to be higher to afford the costs of production because the government imposes taxes and regulations, then tell the government to remove those taxes and regulations!

The consumers are essentially enslaved by the bureaucrats in charge and their cronies whose profits are protected by the armed force of government.

More Cognitive Dissonance with Republicans and Talk Radio Ditto-Heads

In last night’s scream fest brawl debate between Elizabeth Warren and her Republican challenger Geoff Diehl (that they wouldn’t let Independent candidate Shiva Ayyadurai participate in), once again the Rethug Diehl shows more cognitive dissonance.

According to the Boston Glob, “The debate also highlighted the stark differences between the two candidates on a range of issues, including… the Republican-passed tax cuts (Warren called them a giveaway to billionaires and giant corporations, while Diehl defended them as a boon to the Massachusetts economy)…”

But at one point, according to the Globe,

During a testy debate on taxes, Warren and Diehl talked over each other several times, with Warren charging that Republicans were targeting Social Security to balance the red ink caused by the Republican-backed tax cuts. Diehl said that was a suggestion by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.

“I am not a Mitch McConnell Republican,” Diehl said. “I am a Massachusetts Republican that has worked with Democrats and Republicans.”

Warren quickly cut in. “Sorry, so when was it exactly that you called out Mitch McConnell on this and said you were opposed to a trillion-and-a-half dollars in tax cuts for billionaires?”

“I think I’m doing it right now,” Diehl shot back, talking over the Cambridge Democrat. “I think I’m doing it right now, Senator Warren.”

So, when Diehl says, “I am not a Mitch McConnell Republican … I am a Massachusetts Republican that has worked with Democrats and Republicans,” I think he means he’s a Republicrat or a Demopublican. (Or perhaps he’s a Rethuglicrat, who knows.)

And when Warren asks when Diehl “called out Mitch McConnell on this and said you were opposed to a trillion-and-a-half dollars in tax cuts for billionaires?” Diehl’s response is, “I think I’m doing it right now,” and he repeats that so we know he is against tax cuts, “I think I’m doing it right now, Senator Warren.”

So, he’s either for the tax cuts as the article on the debate pointed out, or he’s against the tax cuts. Another Romney.

And more cognitive dissonance from radio ditto-heads as well. Yesterday on Sean Hannity’s radio show, Hannity was pointing out polls and criticizing the Indiana Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate, Lucy Brenton, for allegedly taking votes away from Hannity’s favored Rethuglican challenger, Mike Braun, in their challenge against incumbent Democretin Joe Donnelly. (The two Establishment party candidates included Libertarian Lucy in the debate, by the way.)

Awww, poor Hannity, he doesn’t like third party challenges, just like the fascists in Massachusetts who won’t let the Independent candidate Shiva Ayyadurai participate in the debates between Liz Warren and Geoff Diehl. Just another sign that, like the other hypocrite talk radio blabbermouths, Hannity is just another shill for the Establishment. We can’t have third parties elbowing their way in. God forbid.

Republican challengers like Braun and Diehl want to get a seat at the table, but what we need is someone who will get into Washington and knock the table over! I think that Trump was in some way one of those people — and previously, Ron Paul tried to be.

And also, I looked online at Indiana Libertarian Party candidate Lucy Benton‘s views and she’s very good on most issues. However, her stand on “illegal immigration” is the only one that’s not good, a bit mealy-mouthed, not particularly “libertarian.” She is concerned about immigrants getting here to get on welfare. The libertarian answer, and the real moral and practical answer, is to completely abolish the entire welfare state system, especially the racket that is run out of Washington. “Conservatives” never support that. They are as much welfare statists as the Democrats.