Skip to content

Category: ObamaCare

Donald Trump Hates Socialism – Except That … He LOVES Socialism

Jacob Hornberger responds to Donald Trump‘s recent tweets of “America, love it or leave it!” and that “We will never be a Socialist or Communist Country…” and Hornberger explains that America turned socialist long ago and that Trump and the conservatives have supported socialist policies for decades and decades.

Some examples that Hornberger gives include Social Security, Medicare, government “public” schools, immigration controls and the national security state. They all involve income confiscation and redistribution, and central planning.

And as I wrote in my July, 2016 article, Libertarians for Socialism, Trump wrote on his campaign website (no longer available, but Wayback Machine snapshot here), government must “make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.”

And I wrote:

As Trump made clear in his interview last September with Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes, Trump is “going to take care of everybody,” and that “the government’s gonna pay for it.” And he promised to fund all that by raising taxes on the wealthy. In his February appearance on a CNN Town Hall with Anderson Cooper, Trump stated that while he wants to repeal ObamaCare he nevertheless likes the mandate because he doesn’t want “people dying on the streets.” In reference to his Medicaid expansion proposal (which he referred to as “Medicare” in the CNN interview), Trump stated, “That’s not single payer, by the way. That’s called heart. We gotta take care of people that can’t take care of themselves.”

And by “we” he doesn’t mean private charities or businesses, which is the free-market way, but government, which is the failed socialist way.

Here is The Donald in the interview with Scott Pelley, in which Trump explains his support for single-payer, government-run health care:

I also wrote in that article, which appeared on EconomicPolicyJournal.com:

And socialist programs in the U.S. such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are collapsing. But Donald Trump won’t touch Social Security, and, according to his official campaign website, won’t cut anyone’s entitlements.

Obviously that last link which was on Trump’s own campaign website, is no longer available. (Why is there a picture of Hillary on that “Oops!” page?) Here is that page on the Wayback Machine.

Trump won’t touch entitlements because he believes in socialist redistribution of wealth schemes, which is what all those entitlement programs are. He is a socialist.

And this video is a compilation of different Trump interviews and talks in which Trump contradicts Trump and flip-flops like a Romney impersonator.

Anyway, Trump should not say that America will never be a socialist country, when it is a socialist country in many respects. And he can’t say that he is not a socialist when in actuality all his policies are socialist policies. He is one of the most anti-free market, anti-capitalism, anti-private property authoritarian Presidents we have ever had.

So Trump is clueless about what America is all about, which is voluntary exchange and free markets and free trade, not compulsory exchange and government-controlled trade, and America is about private property rights and the voluntary contract. Trump is the one who doesn’t like America and wants to impose governmental intrusions into the economy and into the lives of the people.

Yes, his tax cuts helped to get businesses to raise their wages and salaries and give employees bonuses, and make more investments. But Trump still loves the income tax and doesn’t want to abolish it, despite its being a fundamental aspect of the socialist society that he envisions. The income tax is government theft of private property and wealth because it is based on an involuntary exchange, based on coercion and threats. No different from a robber demanding your money or else.

In the end, Trump is no different from the other socialists, from Elizabeth Warren to George W. Bush. Oh, well.

In 2020, Can the Libertarian Party Nominate a Truth-Teller for President?

In my recent post on some of the prospective Libertarian Party candidates for President of the United State, I mentioned Jacob Hornberger, who is the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation. I think he has not yet made a formal announcement on a run for President. But he does have a campaign website.

Unlike Gary Johnson and Bob Barr, Jacob Hornberger is not afraid to tell the truth about the evil of American militarism and criminal military invasions abroad, the evil drug war, and the evil of taxation and welfare redistributionism, all of which have contributed to America’s downfall.

For instance, Hornberger has a post on his campaign blog, unafraid to tell the truth about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Congressman Seth Moulton, two Democrat war veterans running for President.

In the blog post, Hornberger mentions Moulton and Buttigieg’s experiences in the U.S. military as invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively. And that this week both candidates have criticized Donald Trump for “faking a disability” to get out of a military enslavement to kill innocent people in Vietnam. Yet, as Hornberger points out, neither Moulton nor Buttigieg has any criticism for the criminal wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan that George W. Bush started and that were carried out by the U.S. military.

The two Democrat candidates clearly do not see the forest for the trees. They are criticizing someone for not invading another country for no good reason, and for not bombing and murdering their people.

While Hornberger doesn’t mention this in that particular blog post, we can get an idea of Buttigieg and Moulton’s warped kind of thinking from their views on domestic policies. They are clearly kooks, just like their fellow Democrat brethren and sistren Democrats for President.

Both Buttigieg and Moulton support the “Green New Deal,” because they are either total ignoramuses or they are just a couple of sniveling dishonest weasels who know that the society couldn’t possibly get rid of cars, trucks, planes and cows and doing so would end up impoverishing and wiping out just about the entire society. So, given that both are quite intelligent people, supposedly, I think they’re just “playing along” with the other Democrats on that issue.

Mayor Pete supports “Medicare for All” because he doesn’t understand why, like ObamaCare, that won’t work in the real world. (Hornberger, by the way, had a recent post on his regular blog describing why Medicare and Medicaid have been the root cause of America’s health care crisis.)

However, Seth Moulton does not support “Medicare for All,” and instead supports the so-called “public option.” In my view, this is probably because Moulton is a slithering, slimy sleazebag who really does want “single payer” i.e. SovietCare but would impose it though the back door.

With a “public option,” we can have our private health insurance if we want it but at the same time a government-run health care program would be available as an “option.” Here, government doesn’t have to worry about the voluntary participation of consumers and instead gets its funding through taxation, which is involuntary, i.e. coercive. So, while the government-run “public option” health care program wouldn’t have to worry about profit and loss and the bottom line to remain functioning, the private sector insurers would still have those extra pressures of competition. Thus, the government-run program will drive the private insurers out of business. There is nothing optional about a “public option.” Eventually the government will be the only insurer. i.e. SovietCare.

So given their dishonest positions on those issues, I am not surprised that both Buttigieg and Moulton have no criticism for the criminal wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and instead criticize Donald Trump for avoiding Vietnam, which people should have avoided, either out of moral conscience or to save themselves from being unjustly crippled for life, psychologically traumatized or killed for no good reason.

How many innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan did Buttigieg and Moulton murder? They were the invaders of those other countries, not the other way around. The inhabitants of those lands had every right to shoot back to defend their homes and families from slaughter by the invading U.S. government marauders.

Now, Jacob Hornberger’s saying and writing truthful things about the crimes of government and bureaucracy might not go over too well with many people who have been bamboozled with the religion of American Exceptionalism.

Even in 2020, I don’t know whether the American people are ready to hear the truth about such things. It’s not just a population indoctrinated from their 12 years of government schools, but much of the indoctrination since 9/11 is due to the constant 24-7 propaganda from the goddamned mainstream media! The warmongering “liberal” media! If we look at the NFL and other sports games and their military tributes and America’s churches and their sickening un-Christian military worship, as well as that in pop culture in Amerika, I think it would take a lot of convincing speeches and truth-telling to get people to consider deprogramming themselves after years of obedience and deference to the almighty Amerikan State.

And given how the Libertarian Party convention in 2016 seemed to consist of so many statist sheeple in their nominating of Gary Johnson the pothead, I don’t even know whether it’s possible that the Libertarian Party can return to their being the “Party of Principle” ever again, i.e. the party of Ron Paul and Harry Browne.

Anyway, Jacob Hornberger also has a thing or two to say about “Tariff Man,” Donald Trump. And of course, abolishing the FBI. Yay!

“Medicare for All”? Really?

The U.S. House of Representatives is attempting to shove another “Medicare for All” bill down the throats of the people, with extremely unrealistic mandates, and Laurence Vance has 3 big questions that are not being asked about it.

Vance’s questions are:

1) Is it constitutional? 2) Is it the proper role of government? and 3) Who should pay for health care?

Vance notes that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to get involved in health care or health insurance, that it’s not a proper role of the government to get involved in those things as well as many other things, and that no American is entitled to receive health care at the expense of another, meaning involuntarily.

But I also have some questions. Many people now are being indoctrinated to believe that we have a “right to health care,” that is, a right to have someone provide us with medical care when we demand it. Does this include, for example, a fat slob who doesn’t exercise and who eats junk food and doesn’t particularly care about his weight, his health, his heart, his arteries? Should he be included in the “All” who have a “right” to health care, or “Medicare for All?” If so, why should this slob’s neighbors be forced at gunpoint (which is what involuntary taxation is, quite frankly) to have to chip in to pay for providing him with the attention of a doctor when he has his heart attack or stroke? Sorry to be blunt here. Bottom line is, if this guy doesn’t care about his own health, then no, he does NOT have a “right” to force his neighbors to care for him. (If neighbors still want to care for him, then they can always do that, voluntarily, if they want to.)

Same thing for smokers. I know, there are far fewer smokers now than there had been in the past. But they’re still out there, and being litterbugs and throwing their cigarettes down on the ground at the bus stop or wherever. Now, these people KNOW that there’s a good chance that they’re giving themselves lung cancer, heart attacks, and other ailments, because of their smoking. Should they, too, have a “right” to force their neighbors to have to chip in to provide them with health care? I say no. And please don’t give me this “Well I’m addicted, and I’ve tried to quit but can’t” crap. The smoker is voluntarily lighting up a cigarette and putting it up to his mouth and inhaling, and repeatedly. No one is forcing you or threatening you to have to do that. It’s all by your own free will. (If you can’t quit, try hypnosis. One of my mother’s friends did that many years ago and it worked, after she tried everything else.) I don’t believe that people who smoke like chimneys or do other hazardous things to themselves should have a “right” to force their neighbors to provide them with a doctor and medical treatment.

What about people who drink like a fish? Okay, I’m sure you get my point.

No one has a “right” to demand his neighbors give him medical care, no matter what ailments one has, no matter what “preexisting conditions” one has.

What we do have a right to is to not be robbed, by criminals on the street or by criminals from the government. We also have a right to keep all our medical matters private and not be required to give any personal information to anyone including government bureaucrats, our medical matters as well as our financial and other personal matters.

We also have a right to be left alone by bureaucrats. If they want us to participate in some scheme that we don’t want to participate in, then we don’t participate in it, and they don’t send armed goons after us and throw us in a cage if we don’t comply. That is exactly the kind of Soviet or fascist society these people in Washington, the real crazy ones in power now, want. They are police statists who want to force these intrusive schemes onto us whether we like it or not, and if we resist, they send the armed thug police after us, kick in our doors and kidnap or shoot us dead. That is the nature of the socialist ignoramus, it has always been that way, and it always will be that way. These people in Washington reject the idea of freedom because when people are free, the crazies in Washington lose the control over others they crave so desperately.

News and Commentary

Jacob Hornberger on healthcare socialism versus healthcare freedom.

Doug Bandow says that Trump is just another jailer of the Cuban people.

The Intercept with an article on U.S. government-led coalition killing 1,600 civilians in Raqqa, Syria.

Michael Munger discusses capitalism in three principles.

Eoin Higgins says that Facebook has hired the same person involved in concocting the Patriot Act, as general counsel.

Richard Ebeling says that central banking is central planning.

And OrganicOlivia discusses Lyme Disease and the CDC cover-up.

Washington Is Filled with Morons, Psychopaths, and Ignoramuses

What is wrong with Donald Trump? And all his followers. Why are they so much against freedom?

Trump wants to close the border. That’s ridiculous. America is supposed to be about freedom, free markets, free trade, not government restrictions on everybody’s freedom.

The Authoritarian-In-Chief now wants to impose a “Border Czar,” or “Immigration Czar,” apparently in the same way that Ronald Reagan appointed a “Drug Czar.” That sure worked out well. The “Drug Czar” put a stop to all those druggies and potheads out there, for sure.

The police state dingbats will do the same with immigration, you betcha.

And why all the short-sightedness from Trump and others? They are hysterical regarding the problems at the border. The “crisis.”

Hysterical loony-tunes panic and call for closing the border altogether, as well as escalating their police state.

“Oh, all the drugs coming through the border.”

Actually, it’s the war on drugs that’s mainly to blame for that “crisis.” Your nanny state dictating to the people what chemicals they may or may not put into their own bodies.

You’re not going to stop people from getting their goddamn drugs.

It’s 50+ years of the drug war now, people including teens are still getting all the drugs they want. It’s your prohibition that’s causing the black market that incentivizes the low-lifes to want to profit from the weaknesses and vices of others, as the black market in drugs creates the drug pushers who get people addicted and the drug traffickers who profit from the black market, the drug lords and drug cartels.

Another cause of the immigration crisis is the U.S. government’s foreign interventionism in Central and South America. Cut it out.

And America’s welfare state. Are there immigrants coming to the U.S. and getting on welfare? Welfare is a truly immoral policy, because it is not funded voluntarily. Welfare is funded involuntarily by the government’s stealing earnings from the workers and producers of society. Stealing is immoral, and criminal. Please Donald shut up about crime coming from “illegal” immigrants, when you preside over the largest crime syndicate ever in the history of man, the U.S. government. Stop stealing from the people.

But he wants to close down the border, rather than end the criminality, corruption, stealing, and the police state coming right out of Washington.

What else is The Donald doing that’s stupid, criminal or evil? He is now saying that Republicans will be the “party of healthcare.” What? Are they doctors? How will Republicans do anything in healthcare? They’re politicians (i.e. morons).

And now he’s saying that he will wait until after the 2020 election to do something with healthcare. “We’ll pass the bill and then we’ll find out what’s in it.”

In other words, he’s doing a Nixon: I have a secret plan to end the war. But really Trump has a secret plan to end our healthcare completely, by caving and giving in to the socialists who want total government-run healthcare. But isn’t that what Trump has been calling for all this time?

And the idiots are so concerned about people with pre-existing conditions, they really want to force insurers to go out of business. The Rethugs are either just dishonest or they actually don’t understand that forcing insurers to cover pre-existing conditions will cause such coverage to get progressively worse for those with pre-existing conditions.

I hove no doubt that Trump does not understand that, as well as many other things in healthcare, government, and life.

And yesterday on the Sean Hannity radio show, Rep. Steve Scalise was pushing his born-alive abortion bill. There are people, mainly Democrats, who want to allow people to murder a newly born baby, because the mother has changed her mind. How sick is that? But Scalise and other Rethugs in CONgress love the wars and sanctions and detaining peaceful people traveling to find a better life for themselves and their families. The Rs are just as bad as the Ds, quite frankly.

And then we have women complaining about Joe Biden. He likes to be “affectionate.” No, he likes to touch and feel and grope and be intrusive on others, just as any other pathological narcissist likes to do. Which is to say, most politicians. They love to have the powers of government, and the apparatus of spying and intruding, making the people have to report to the bureaucrats the details of their private personal and financial lives, involuntarily. And the Rulers love siccing the government police on people who don’t comply.

The Mandatory Vaccine Police-State Terrorists

Dagny Taggart of the “Organic Prepper” details the way of life in the new Amerika, the mandatory vaccine police state, in which government police and S.W.A.T. team goons break into a family’s home and kidnap their 3 kids, because one of them had had a fever and had not been vaccinated. The article is not clear about what the kids are not vaccinated against.

The mother apparently told the doctor on the phone that the child’s fever had already gone down and was already feeling better, and so she would not be taking him to the emergency room as the doctor ordered. And also, the mother had expressed concern that the doctor might report her to Department of Child Safety (DCS) for not having her kids vaccinated.

Now, the important information the doctor was given on the phone at that time was that the fever had gone down to normal, and the child was feeling better and was playing, and so on. So (and I’m not a doctor, I know), what a doctor with common sense at that point would do is to say, okay, I’m glad the kid is feeling better and the fever has gone away so he’s better and there’s no need for the child to be taken to the emergency room.

But, noooooo. Not in today’s Amerika. Today’s police state. The doctor called the police and the DCS on the family. The goons kidnapped the kids and put the family through hell.

We’re going to have a lot more of this kind of medical police state, especially with “Medicare for All,” i.e. Soviet medical care, when doctors are all government employees.

The younger doctors now are getting even dumber and less rational, which reflects on the younger generation in general, because the schools are making it easier and easier to get higher grades regardless of the students’ actually learning anything of value. What they are learning is that every little thing is “racist” or “sexist,” white males have “privilege” (even if they’re poor or discriminated against because of affirmative action), and that people have a right to free education, free health care and free iPhones.

And the vaccine stuff. I recently wrote about Gov. Matt Bevin who isn’t vaccinating his kids and wants them to have typical childhood illnesses so they can develop immunity naturally, which is the best way to develop immunity. But in “modern society” today, millions of people literally worship vaccines like a god.

Just recently Brian Shilhavy of Health Impact News wrote about a Philadelphia mumps outbreak among already vaccinated people. The article also notes that the maker of the vaccine, the evil Merck, is being sued by former Merck employees who are acting as whistleblowers regarding the employees having “witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the (MMR) vaccine’s efficacy findings.”

Merck and other pharmaceutical companies have been sued by people because of injuries caused by the vaccines. I have already written about Merck’s killer HPV vaccine, Gardasil.

And as I wrote in my post on Gov. Matt Bevin, Sharyl Attkisson wrote about what the news isn’t saying about vaccine-autism studies, and has this page of links to many articles on the subject of vaccines. Please check out those articles, and then tell me about something being “debunked,” or that the “science is settled.” (The closed-minded among us will continue to say, “debunked.”)

And why are little kids being given so many vaccines now? The medical establishment is poisoning and damaging the kids and adults’ brains, all in the name of profits for Merck, Pfizer and Glaxo-etc-etc. But it’s worse for the kids at such a young age when their brains are still in very important early development stages.

And, as I had also mentioned in various posts, Dr. Julian Whitaker wrote that “Depending upon which vaccine is being administered, a single shot can contain a brew of adulterated bacteria, viruses, aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, and/or numerous multisyllabic chemical additives. To say that repeated exposures to such a wide range of toxins have no cumulative adverse effects on a child’s developing nervous and immune systems is more than irrational—it’s diabolical.” Dr. Whitaker also points out that kids receive 14 different vaccines in 49 doses by the age of six.

Bill Sardi states that “children under age 2 are not able to develop sufficient antibodies to develop immunity from vaccination.  Despite this basic fact, the medical establishment insists upon administering a total of 19 shots, containing 24 vaccines, to infants on their 2, 4 and 6 month pediatric visits.” Sardi gives a lot of important information with links for further inquiry.

We now live in a societal regression. Even hundreds of members of Congress have signed on to getting rid of cars and trucks, planes, and probably all of industry, because what they really want is to bring us all back to the Dark Ages, in the name of saving the environment.

So, also in today’s societal regression, in which myths, medical corruption and ignorance rule, we will now have a medical police state with doctor-S.W.A.T. team terrorists going after dissenters to force people to poison their kids’ brains, all in the name of protecting them.

Medicare and Medicaid: The Root Cause of America’s Healthcare Crisis

Now, many people really believe that government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, were necessary to be imposed on the people to help the people. Many people are indoctrinated to believe that after many years of government-controlled schooling. Those programs are a given, a normal part of everyday life, they have been made to believe.

However, Jacob Hornberger discusses why those programs are the root cause of today’s healthcare crisis. Those are socialist programs, which involve redistribution of wealth to fund them, and government central planning to administer them.

It was a new system of government central planning imposed by political operatives and bureaucrats to replace the old system of freedom and free markets.

Hornberger describes how things used to be in America with healthcare:

The United States once had the finest healthcare system in the world. It was one based on no government involvement in healthcare. It was a free-market healthcare system. Advances in healthcare were occurring at a phenomenal rate. Doctors absolutely loved what they did in life. Healthcare services were reasonably priced.

In fact, hardly anyone had major medical insurance. That’s because healthcare costs were considered just an ordinary part of life, sort of like periodic car repairs. The price of healthcare stayed within reasonable boundaries.

The poor had no problems receiving treatment by both physicians and hospitals. I grew up in Laredo, Texas, which the Census Bureau said was the poorest city in the United States. Every day the doctors’ offices were filled with patients, some from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, which was on the other side of the Rio Grande. The doctors knew that many of them could not pay for the treatment. It didn’t matter. I never heard of a case where doctors turned away anyone for inability to pay. And Laredo doctors were among the richest people in turn, second only to the oil families. They didn’t begrudge giving people free healthcare, especially since they were making so much money from everyone who could pay.

That’s the way things should be: a way of life in which healthcare is based on the free market and where charity is voluntary, not mandated through the force of the IRS or any welfare-state bureaucracy. A free-market healthcare system is precisely why the United States once had the finest healthcare system in the world.

Everything began going south with the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s…

And, as Hornberger points out, one socialist intervention after another has been imposed to try to fix the terrible effects of the previous socialist interventions, including ObamaCare, and on and on. Now the socialists want “Medicare for All,” i.e. Soviet-style top-down authoritarian-imposed medicine.

By the way, speaking of Soviet “Medicare for All,” Anna Ebeling, who was born and raised in the Soviet Union, wrote an article on how the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy the medical care system of Old Russia in the name of utopia, just like today’s “Democrats” want to do. And look what they did! And former Gorbachev-era Soviet economist and then dissident and defector Yuri Maltsev also tells us what Soviet medicine teaches us.

“I Am a Socialist”: What Socialists Really Support

With the rise in the advocacy for socialism, such as with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, etc., and their rationality-free, knowledge-free emotional appeals to the ignorant and gullible masses, I am reminded of this article I had on LewRockwell.com in 2010, “I Am a Socialist,” with a self-proclaimed socialist explaining what he really supports. And so I will repost that here now. (There may be one or two things in which I wouldn’t put it in exactly the same way as I did in 2010, but I think this makes some important points.)

“I Am a Socialist”

November 24, 2010

Recently, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell announced that he is a “socialist.” O’Donnell referred to Milton Friedman’s quote, “We’re all Keynesians now,” and President Richard Nixon’s quote, “I am now a Keynesian,” in the context of Keynesian economics being very similar to socialism. O’Donnell went on to assert his pride in being a socialist, and even suggested that Glenn Beck, Rand Paul and others are also socialists in one form or another.

So here is an elaboration of someone, whoever that might be, explaining why he is a socialist:

“First and foremost, I am a socialist because I disagree with the Founding Fathers’ ideas on morality and the Rule of Law. It is important that we have a centralized government that redistributes all the wealth. The State needs to have the power to take some of the wealth away from those the State decides have too much of it. Obviously, no one has a ‘right’ to one’s own wealth or property. And I don’t believe that ‘all men are created equal’ because, if there is a law against theft, then obviously because we need to allow agents of the State to take wealth away, then therefore laws against ‘theft’ must exempt agents of the State. That means that some people should be above the law.

“And I am a socialist in medical care because I think that the centralized government should control everyone’s medical care – it’s as simple as that. It is important that government bureaucrats and their government doctors and medical services have a monopoly in the medical industry so they don’t have to deal with competitive interests, as opposed to a free market in medical care in which the consumers determine which doctors and medical plans would stay in business and which ones would fail. Some people assert that that gives ‘power to the people,’ but we socialists don’t want the people to have that kind of power – it takes control away from government bureaucrats and that’s why I don’t like that. It’s important that government officials control the ultimate decisions in what affects American medical patients (and because the Blue State grandmas are more likely to vote for the “good guys” than the Red State grandmas, if you know what I mean).

“I support socialist immigration central planning because the State has a right, for example, to prevent an employer in Arizona from hiring an applicant from Mexico despite the fact that the employer believes that individual is qualified for the job and the Mexican applicant is willing to accept the job at the wage both agree on. Their prospective contract should not be in their control, it should be in the central planners’ control. When we say that socialism includes public ownership of the means of production, then that includes ownership of the employer’s business, as well as the prospective employee’s direction of employment (as well as the employer and employee themselves – after all, one of the most important of the means of production is the people).

(If I may interject here while Mr. Socialist goes to take a brief powder: Some of what is being described is actually fascism. While socialism can generally be described as public ownership of wealth and the means of production, fascism allows for private ownership of wealth and the means of production but the control is usurped by the State. So, there are elements of socialist programs that are also fascist in nature, and vice versa. In immigration, for instance, the central planning nature of public ownership of wealth and the means of production also includes State control over immigration which is really part of fascism, so our socialist here is also a fascist, but don’t tell him I said that. Actually, there really is little difference between socialism and fascism when you get right down to it. But, for the sake of discussion, we’ll continue with our self-proclaimed “socialist” in his discussion of why he favors socialism.)

“To continue, I am a socialist because I support the central planning of chemical ingestion, otherwise known as the War on Drugs. While the common sense answer to the ‘drug problem’ might be freedom and personal responsibility, it is nevertheless important that the centralized bureaucrats have the power to dictate to people what chemicals they may or may not ingest (even though this causes a black market in banned drugs, dramatically raises the prices of drugs and thus incentivizes the black marketers to form gangs and cartels that causes turf wars and increased violence, and incentivizes them to push the drugs on impressionable youths and adults some of whom turn to robbery to afford the pricey substances, as well as distracts and corrupts the police).

“Speaking of police and protecting the public, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the socialist central planning monopoly in territorial security (as opposed to a free market in security, in which those in the protection business would have to deal with profit-and-loss as determined by competitive agents and consumer control). It is important that 300 million Americans are compelled by law to use the monopoly of centrally planned ‘defense’ in Washington to protect them from harm by foreign elements, while legally forbidding anyone from competing in the business of protection.

“I also believe in that central planning military socialism because I haven’t read Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s books, The Private Production of Defense and The Myth of National Defense, or Morris and Linda Tannehill’s book, The Market for Liberty, and because I really do believe in the myth that the U.S. government’s committing aggression on foreign lands actually protects Americans and doesn’t instead provoke those in the foreign lands to retaliate against that aggression and intrusion. I don’t want to admit that giving central planners a monopoly in defense, without the constant checks on their behavior that the pressures of competition in a free market and the requirement to follow the Rule of Law would bring, actually encourages central planners to use the government apparatus to further expand their power and control (and profits at taxpayers’ expense). Can you imagine a private security firm or insurance agency deliberately provoking the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, or deliberately encouraging Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait as an excuse to invade Iraq? A private firm with competitive pressures and under the Rule of Law would not only lose business but its agents would end up in jail. But, despite the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan that our central defense planners in Washington have caused, and the fact that Washington’s intrusions abroad have made us less safe, I still want to pretend that this socialism in defense actually works. As Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano noted, “the system worked.”

“Of course, given that I’m a proud supporter of redistribution of wealth schemes, military socialism is effective in taking wealth from American producers and laborers and redistributing it over to those in the defense contractor industry (and Wall Street). While this socialist (and fascist) monopoly of territorial protection may be completely disorganized because there is no incentive among the government bureaucrats to be efficient and productive, such a scheme nevertheless effects in getting contractors’ campaign contributions in the pockets of those politicians who need the jobs they get in Washington as they would otherwise be unemployed in the private sector. It’s important for America.

“After all, the Founding Fathers were also socialists in that their Constitution mandates a centralized government monopoly in defense, in which free, open competition in that area is outlawed. That’s been good for America.

“And finally, I support the socialized commerce that the Federal Reserve provides, with the help of legal tender laws and loose fractional reserve banking permissions, because I believe that it is vital that a centralized government control the money supply and banking. We can’t allow the people to have the freedom to choose a bank based on its record of service to the community, because that would take control away from the centralized authorities who know better as far as what’s best for the people, and we can’t allow the people to have the freedom to choose among competing currencies, because that would take control away from the centralized authorities who know better as far as what’s best for the people.

“Like the central planning micromanagement from ObamaCare, Social Security and government-run education, the Federal Reserve is important to micromanage the economy, despite all the damage it has caused since its founding in 1913. So, as a socialist, I feel it’s important to continue the Fed’s control over and intrusions into our money, banking, savings and investments (and our prosperity, security and Liberty as well).

“We need as many government intrusions into every aspect of human existence as possible, so most of all, I guess I’m a socialist because I like power and oppose freedom.

“Bye.”

Yeah, goodbye, Socialist. Now, get lost – we’re better off without you.

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.

Are We Doomed?

Thanks to the government’s monopoly in the education business it is now a racket, in which the product at the end of K-12 is a lot of dumb, ignorant kids who know nothing about everyday life. Not only do they not know history, how to read or do everyday math, but many of them can’t think critically. And in addition to all that is the activist teachers indoctrinate the kids with “social justice” fanaticism, enviro-wacko pseudo-science voodoo mysticism, and government worship.

Unfortunately, for a century the schools have been indoctrinating kids with government worship, usually now referred to as nationalism. We hear it all the time on the radio with Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, et al., and of course, the big dumb nationalist himself, Trump. But unlike Trump, the conservative nationalists say they oppose the above “social justice” stuff, the enviro-wacko stuff and use a lot of free market rhetoric.

Both sides, though, are socialists. We know about the Bernie-Ocasio-Cortez-college snowflake socialists, who want “free stuff,” and who believe that if some male says he is a female he may very well go into the ladies room, and you had better not object. But the Trump-Limbaugh crowd worships their own government central planning in immigration controls, national security and police, and drug controls, all socialist schemes.

What is socialism? Socialism is government ownership of the means of production, industry and property. That’s my view on that. If you own a business here in Amerika you have to be obedient sheeple to whatever the dictators in government tell you to do, regarding your employment and payment matters, reporting everything to the commissars, and so on. So, you don’t really “own” your business. What the “socialists” here in Amerika want is for the government to seize all the businesses like in health care, finance and everything else. Because they are ignorant of history, they know nothing of how that turned out in Soviet Union, Cuba, and because they don’t pay attention to what’s going on in current times, they either don’t know or don’t care about what’s going on in North Korea, Venezuela, etc.

In Venezuela, the government seized the means of food production and distribution. Because government bureaucrats don’t know how to run things (except into the ground), such seizures and military enforcements of such seizures have caused shortages, empty store shelves, long lines, starvation, sickness, and death. Government takeovers, price controls and wage controls cause distortions, shortages, and chaos. That’s a fact of history.

So, when “socialists” want free health care, free education, etc., why aren’t they saying they want free FOOD? Isn’t food more important than health care? But we see what happens when government takes over the food business. And when government has been attempting to take over the health care industry, bureaucrats have been causing chaos! What is health care, anyway? And “education”? Look what government control over education has done to Amerika! (Why do you think it’s spelled with a “k” now, anyway?)

Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal has a post describing some of his experiences at the “Politicon” in Los Angeles, in which he is saying “The socialists are everywhere.” He attended a session, “Medicare For All” including Ana Kasparian, Bill Kristol, Dr. Drew Pinsky and George Halvorson. I know who Bill Kristol is. Why is Bill Kristol at a discussion on Medicare? Perhaps because he is in his mid-60s and wants Medicare. Who knows?

Wenzel writes:

But this crowd wasn’t interested in facts from a generally sympathetic panelist. They wanted 100% calls for universal healthcare immediately and nothing else.

Later in the day, I stopped in on the panel discussion, “Should We Be Socialist?”, the audience was once again large and loud, cheering loudly as every panelist was introduced.

The first three panelists all stated that they were in favor of significant intervention in the economy but all seemed to agree that “complete government takeover of all property” was not necessary. The audience cheered everyone of these panelists with their different takes on how government should control the economy.

And why NOT “complete government takeover of all property”? You might as well. So Wenzel writes,

If this is any indication of what is going on in America, there is a lot of trouble ahead. The socialists are everywhere. They are loud, aggressive and don’t want to listen to any kind of analysis. They just want power now to rule all of us so that they can declare free everything.

I think a lot of ignorant young people (and old people as well) are brainwashed and they like the idea of robbing their neighbors, although getting their beloved, worshiped bureaucrats to do the robbing for them. And getting free stuff.

But combine all this with the brainwashed narcissists wanting to force their perverted beliefs of “social justice,” irrational transgenderism, and race-obsessions onto the rest of us, by law and by force, and their wanting to use the armed power of police to suppress anyone’s objections to being subjugated in such ways, economically, personally and politically.

Not good.

A New Low for Liawatha

It seems that Elizabeth Warren has had a DNA analysis to “prove” that she really is of Native American heritage. The Boston Globe is covering the results thoroughly for her. I don’t think the timing of all this, just three weeks before her reelection bid, has anything to do with it. Nope.

Previous to her 2012 election to the U.S. Senate, Warren finagled her position at Harvard Law School from an intensive affirmative action scheme to get more women on the faculty. According to the Daily Caller, however, Harvard wasn’t too concerned about possible incompetence. In other words, Warren may have benefited primarily from the affirmative action scheme rather than qualifications. The Daily Caller:

In 1991, Rutgers Professor Phillip Schuchman reviewed Warren’s co-authored 1989 book “As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America” in the pages of the Rutgers Law Review, a publication Warren once edited. Schuchman found “serious errors” which result in “grossly mistaken functions and comparisons.”

Warren and her co-authors had drawn improper conclusions from “even their flawed findings,” and “made their raw data unavailable” to check, he wrote. “In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.”

The work “contains so much exaggeration, so many questionable ploys, and so many incorrect statements that it would be well to check the accuracy of their raw data, as old as it is,” Schuchman added.

Harvard Law School appears to have overlooked that review, in part, because of its commitment to hiring a woman professor…

“We’re clearly trying to add more women to the faculty,” Clark told the Harvard Law Record in March 1994.

“Clark said HLS was engaging ‘affirmative action’ to the extent it was working to increase the number of women considered and interviewed,” wrote the Record’s Greg Stohr. “He also said the Law School would be willing to hire a qualified woman, even if her area of expertise did not fit an immediate need, but he stopped short of saying the school would lower its qualification requirements for women.”

Now, since when do universities lower their qualification requirements or academic standards? That never happens.

And since when do ambitious politicians lie to advance their careers, or to attain higher positions of power? Did Elizabeth Warren just make it up that she’s of Native American heritage just as an excuse to check the “Minority” box on application forms, such as for admittance to the Harvard Law School faculty? Did she really have to do that, given that she knew she could already more easily be hired based on just her female status?

And, according to Legal Insurrection in 2012 when Warren was running for the U.S. Senate,

David Bernstein discovered that in annual reports by the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) from 1986-1994, Warren was listed as a minority faculty member.  Since AALS bases such information solely on what faculty self-reports, the information must have come from Warren herself.  The AALS directories, however, only identify whether the faculty member is “minority,” not what minority status is claimed.

There seems to be some uncertainty in news reports as to whether Warren filled out the AALS forms, and if so, whether she identified as Native American, with the (Scott) Brown campaign demanding that she “come clean.”

I spoke this afternoon with Alethea Harney, Warren’s campaign press secretary, and confirmed several key details.

Harney acknowledged that the minority status reported by Warren to AALS was Native American, and that while Warren does not remember the precise forms, she believes there was a box or other designation to be selected for Native American.

The AALS reporting was the only time Warren self-identified as Native American as far as Warren currently is aware, according to Harney, and Warren never has joined any Native American groups, or asserted any tribal memberships.

And in a subsequent article, Legal Insurrection writes:

… Warren was listed in the (Harvard) Women’s Law Journal on the list of “Women of Color in Legal Academia.”  Where would the student editors have come up with the idea that Warren was a “woman of color”?  Certainly not from looking at her.

The Journal used the 1991-1992 AALS directory list of Minority Law Teachers — on which Warren’s name appeared as we now know based on her claiming Native American status — as a starting point, then gathered other information from other sources, and then sent out confirmation letters.

That Legal Insurrection article also quotes from a Boston Globe article thus:

“But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.

“In addition, both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.”

And now we’re hearing via Zero Hedge that Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test is really indicating that she is, supposedly, only 1/1024 percent Native American. (I thought this photo on Zero Hedge was hysterical.) So really, she’s a lying fraudster, let’s face it.

But speaking of outright frauds, Elizabeth Warren’s “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” has itself been a fraud. She is the one who met with then-President Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010 to put this monstrosity together, along with then-Sen. Chris “Countrywide” Dodd (D-Countrywide) and then-Rep. Barney Frank (D-OneUnited, “Hot Bottom”). They were “concerned” about consumer “rights.”

If Warren were serious about protecting consumer rights, she would have pressed for indicting Obama on fraud charges, given that he and his administration flunkies knowingly and repeatedly lied that people would keep their doctors or their current health care plan under ObamaCare.