Skip to content

Category: Private property

Which Is Worse: The Left? Or the State?

Well, it appears that Mises Institute Chairman Lew Rockwell will publish a new book that he describes in his article this week, Against the Left.

I think it’s a good thing to expose and critique those on the Left for their hypocrisy and ignorance, and their favoring violence over peace, and their favoring State control over freedom.

But sometimes, especially in my reading LewRockwell.com every day for years now, it seems that recently perhaps Lew has become more “Against the Left” than he is “Against the State.” It’s just my own perception, but that’s how it seems, especially with the immigration issue.

So, I’ll get my more critical points out of the way at the beginning here.

As Jacob Hornberger has pointed out many times, most recently here, the closed-border “libertarians” seem to endorse the police state on the border when it comes to immigration. What happened to free-market capitalism? And private property rights, in which a private property owner has the freedom to invite whomever he wishes onto his own private property?

And what happened to the principle of individualism? If this individual over here is not suspected of having violated the person or property of another, then you leave him alone. Period. Wha happen? Now, immigration “invasions” seem to be turning people into collectivists. (Maybe Lew has been listening to too much ditto-head talk radio?)

The closed-border libertarians don’t seem to want to bring up the reasons why there are caravans from Central America going to the southern U.S. border, which include mainly the U.S. government’s evil “War on Drugs” and the U.S. government’s aid to Central American governments who have been tyrannizing innocents in those parts.

Yes, LewRockwell.com and Lew’s own LRC blog and “Political Theatre” have had plenty of articles on the U.S. government’s prohibition of drugs and the police state that goes with it, but they seem to not make a linkage between the immigration problem and those statist policies.

And by the way, Rebecca Gordon has written on Tom Dispatch a somewhat decent article on those main causes of people fleeing those Central American countries. But an extra, made-up cause she wants to throw in there, to completely ruin her article, is “climate change.” Yes, besides the “War on Drugs” and U.S. government aid to tyrants, climate change is making people flee Central America and want to come to the U.S. And Gordon throws in this lie, citing the New York Times, that the U.S. is the “biggest carbon polluter in history,” when we know that the U.S. has become one of the least of the polluters (with a few specific exceptions like Los Angeles), certainly not as bad as China and India. But I digress.

It’s too bad the people on the Left can be very good in their anti-drug war, pro-civil liberties, anti-war views, yet still cling to propaganda when it comes to their anti-capitalism, anti-progress agenda. And that’s all the “climate change” fanaticism is all about: envy, and using the powers of government to steal even more from the workers and producers of society.

So, there definitely are still some things I agree with, in Lew Rockwell’s critiques of the Left. But he doesn’t define what “the Left” actually is. I’m sure he does this in his new book that is yet to be published.

And what actually is “the Left”? And what is the “right”? I used to see it as collectivism versus individualism. But many people on the “right” today are against individualism, against the free market, and against private property. They endorse the statist drug war and its police state, the war on immigration and its police state, they love and worship government police and military (which are products of socialism, not capitalism, by the way), and they also endorse and love huge socialist government programs, such as Social Security and Medicare.

In his article, regarding education Lew Rockwell mentions that the “young people are not taught about the evils of the Left, only its myths. They do not believe there were gigantic atrocities in the Lenin-Stalin Soviet Union, nor Mao’s China. Socialism is good!…”

I think he means that the young people are not taught about the evils of socialism or communism, i.e. the State. (Maybe “the Left” = socialism?) And on LRC he posted a link to an article by Lawrence Ludlow on how much worse the government schools are now than they were 30 years ago. The emphasis is now on grade curving regardless of performance.

Education being centralized, bureaucratized and run by the government are why we have so many dumb and ignorant students being graduated from the government schools, and why so many government teachers are also dumb and ignorant. In that article, Ludlow didn’t mention affirmative action or higher education, but we see just how bad affirmative action is when a con artist like Elizabeth Warren — white as a ghost — can scam Harvard University Law School into hiring her as a professor based on her checking the “minority” box and claiming to be Native American. She should have been criminally charged with fraud.

And Ludlow did mention the transgender phenomenon. In schools, the teachers and students are encouraged or even required to use plural pronouns such as “they” instead of “he,” “him,” “her” and “she.” But this is incorrect grammar. These are schools?

No, the schools are leftist cult indoctrination centers. The evil leftists, or “cultural Marxists,” are using very personal and private sexual matters to manipulate and twist the very young people’s sense of self worth and individual identity, as well as destroy their critical thinking skills and keep them ignorant of facts, truth, knowledge and history, and attempting to prevent the young people from going on to live a healthy, functional life.

And back to Lew Rockwell. And this is probably just a minor issue, really, with Lew. In this recent interview with Mises Institute President Jeff Deist, Rockwell said, regarding Supreme Bureaucrat Brett Kavanaugh and his recent confirmation battle, “And also it’s important to see the feminists defeated. So, I’m glad he was confirmed…”

Well, Kavanaugh may have won the seat on the Supremes, and defeated the feminazis who made things up to falsely accuse him of sexual assaults, but he is NOT anti-feminist, or anti-SJW. He is one of them. As I wrote here, Kavanaugh had stated at the beginning of his confirmation hearings, “Title IX helped make girls’ and women’s sports equal. And I see that law’s legacy every night when I walk into my house, as my daughters are getting back from lacrosse or basketball or hockey practice.”

What? That’s how Kavanaugh sees the “legacy” of Title IX? Are you kidding me? The true legacy of Title IX is many false accusations against innocent men at universities and colleges, professors being demoted or fired, employees being harassed or fired at workplaces…And Kavanaugh has NO idea of all this, because he spends too much time at his Washington cocktail parties, the bubble baths, and he himself has now been a VICTIM last Fall of the “legacy of Title IX”!

So, sometimes I wonder if Lew is more anti-Left than he is anti-State. He is glad that Kavanaugh was confirmed even though Kavanaugh is himself a leftist, a Big Government police statist combined with being an SJW. The worst of the worst.

Someone who is more anti-State than anti-Left would hope for Kavanaugh to be defeated, regardless of the false accusations against him.

In my view, if we had to choose between the Left or the State, I would say that we don’t need the State, and in fact we need to get rid of it, or at least the centralized State especially the U.S. government in Washington.

We need to persuade people to see the Leviathan in Washington for what it is. Even letting the fifty states have their sovereignty and independence as nation states, by way of peaceful, voluntary decentralization, would be a MUCH better start than the tyranny of enslavement we live in now.

And without the Regime in Washington, the Left would not have any power. So, we can live with a “Left” in our society, especially when those people have no power structure to grab onto and to use as an implement of totalitarian power and control over the rest of us.

And speaking of that, I also wanted to address some things in this other recent interview of Lew Rockwell by Atilla Mert Sulker. Lew says he’s “pro-nationalism.” And he says, “It’s only recently that you’re supposed to hate your homeland, and turn it over to whoever wants to come in on welfare.”

Well, I think he’s distorting things. Personally, I don’t “hate” my homeland, USA. I’m indifferent, because this “homeland” country is too big. I have no feelings toward most people in California, for example, me being from New England. (But I DO hate Connecticut, not the people, but the state in which I grew up. Now it is a communist, tax-thieving torture chamber. Who in his right mind would live there? Should I consider that my “homeland”? And love it?)

But the centralized “homeland” USA needs to be decentralized, in my view. And turning our society over “to whoever wants to come in on welfare”? This is a case against the welfare state, not against freedom of movement and people finding a better life. With no welfare state (and no income tax thefts, etc.), there would be no incentive for any would-be layabout parasites to come here.

But Rockwell also says, “And also, I notice that all the bad people in society hate nationalism, and are always denouncing it, whether it’s the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or academics, or left wingers…”

Excuse me, I am not a nationalist, and I am constantly criticizing the idea of nationalism, which is a form of authoritarian collectivism, by the way. Does that mean I’m “bad”? But I’m peaceful, a voluntaryist. I’m in my mid-50s and have never committed any criminal or violent acts against others. I’m not exactly a “left-winger” in my support of voluntary exchange, private property rights, and ending government schools.

And I do agree with Lew in that interview regarding the Libertarian Party, which has gone down hill since the days of Ron Paul and Harry Browne. Lew said, “But I must say that I don’t think the L.P.’s strategy of reaching out to the far left- you have to, for example, be a feminist, to be a libertarian, or all these other things. That’s just ridiculous. But they’re much more concerned with leftism, than they are with freedom.”

Sadly, the Libertarian Partly has become the party of “social justice warriors” in which just about everything is “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” “transphobic,” etc. So it’s “Racist, racist, racist!” (and “Russia, Russia, Russia!” too, now) with many of those brainwashed, government school-“educated” sheeple. Just like the progressives and Democrats. The Libertarian Party needs to become the party of freedom once again, not just another party of the Left, like the Democrats, Republicans, Greens and Socialists. And that means being 100% against foreign interventionism, income taxation-theft or wealth taxation-theft, and being 100% supportive of private property rights, voluntary and free exchange, voluntary contracts, and the idea of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle.

Anyway, the Left is very bad. But the State is worse. And the Left could not do nearly as much damage to us were it not for the unnecessary existence of the State, especially the evil centralized State in Washington. But a book titled Against the Left by Lew Rockwell is probably something to look forward to reading.

Government Central Planning Is Very Bad for You

To some people who have been reading this blog for a while, this may sound like a broken record. Sorry about that. But some things are very important.

I’ll start with the immigration issue, and I’ll try to be as concise as possible.

Thanks to government schooling, it seems that most people tend to think with shortsightedness. Rather than looking into the actual causes of the immigration crisis and making changes in policies that are causing the immigrants to flee those Central and South American countries and wanting to come to the U.S., it seems that the American people would prefer to continue with even more of the police state, which, by the way, is violating the rights of Americans as well as foreigners.

U.S. government goons are unconstitutionally and criminally detaining and harassing Americans at or near the border and unconstitutionally and criminally seizing and searching Americans’ phones and laptops. You like this?

In a free society, which ours is not, anyone can come and go as they please and not be harassed by or have to report to any government bureaucrat or enforcement thug. No, in the current police state brought about by government central planning that especially conservatives and Republicans love and adore, we have the dysfunctional situation that we have.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are brainwashed to believe that there’s some sort of collective ownership of the territory as a whole, and that “outsiders must get permission to enter,” and that “we are one family and those ‘illegals’ are breaking into ‘our’ home,” and all that. I hear that kind of thing from talk radio ditto-heads. No, your home is not my home, and my home is not your home.

In the U.S., it was supposed to be a land in which private owners of private property have private property rights and sovereignty over their private property. But the ignorant nationalists reject such ideas and instead are brainwashed to believe in that aforementioned collective ownership of the territory, which would mean that the collective has ownership over everything within the territory. So in our current system that nationalists love and adore, anyone who “owns” property including business “owners” must get the final authorization to do something on or with one’s “own” property from a government bureaucrat!

So really the ultimate owner of all the property within the collectively owned territory is the government in Washington, consisting of its bureaucrats and all the goon enforcers who harass, molest, abuse and assault, rob, and murder innocent people, all in the name of “protecting Americans from foreigners.” Which they aren’t doing, and can’t do.

Because: Central Planning Doesn’t Work!

Another thing with those who believe in that nationalism stuff and worship their central planning caretaker in Washington is this concept of “citizenship.” If you are not a “citizen,” i.e. if you don’t have government authorization, then you “don’t belong here,” and so on. Well, you can have that kind of thing if you want to, if it’s that important to you, like this is a private club, but then you can’t say you support private property, freedom of association, and voluntary exchange. The requirement of having to be a “citizen” to do this or that, which means you must have government authorization, negates those aspects of freedom and a free society.

Now, on the immigration situation, if the supporters of the Orwellian police state that we have now can possibly drop their pathological short-sightedness, let’s ask what exactly is motivating all those foreigner people to come to the U.S.?

One major factor is the war on drugs, which many, many authoritarian conservatives support. Those authoritarian conservatives really believe in the Nanny State, that the government should be empowered to tell you what chemicals you may or may not put into your own body. They are just like the former NYC Mayor Bloomberg with his war on sugary drinks and salt. No difference. Nanny State conservatives with their war on drugs.

So conservatives and their Nanny State True Believers seem to reject the ideas of the founders, that each individual owns one’s own life and that the sovereignty over one’s life, including one’s own body, is with oneself.

Contrary to the founders’ vision of self-ownership, the Drug Prohibition Police State is a policy of short-sightedness, just like the immigration police state.

Drug prohibition causes a black market in drugs, which incentivizes the scum of society to exploit people’s weaknesses and vices, get them addicted so they will squander their money on the drugs.

So the drug prohibition creates drug pushers, drug traffickers, drug gangs and turf wars, drug lords like “El Chapo,” MS-13, violence and chaos and torture. All because Nanny State authoritarians want the government empowered to prohibit certain chemicals.

The answer is to repeal all drug-related laws, dismantle the DEA and the drug enforcement bureaucracies of the FBI and other agencies, which should all be abolished as well. When you do that, the “El Chapos,” the drug lords and drug traffickers and gangs will disband. And that will or should cause a major reduction in foreigners fleeing from those countries south of the border. And repeal all immigration related laws as well, including ICE, etc.

Government central planners cannot control the movements of millions of people, nor should they. It is as impossible a goal as is the goal of the “Green New Deal.”

But those Nanny State supporters of drug prohibition are just as bad as the gun control zealots on the left, who want to prohibit the civilian population from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Gun control hasn’t prevented criminals from getting their guns illegally because criminals and psychopaths such as the school shooters don’t care if the guns are illegal. Criminals don’t obey the law!

So, the drug prohibition police state is just as futile and useless and counter-productive as the gun control police state.

It would also help if we abolish ALL foreign aid, redistribution of wealth schemes from the taxpayers to the governments of other countries. In this case, Honduras, El Salvador, etc. Those governments are just as corrupt as the one in Washington, so they squander the aid as they empower themselves and tyrannize their people, just as the gangsters and criminals in Washington do to their people.

So that’s the immigration and drug war part of the government central planning that many brainwashed sheeple love and worship.

And then there’s the trade issue.

Ronald McDonald Trump doesn’t seem to understand that a “trade deficit” doesn’t actually mean anything. What matters is that people have the freedom to buy what they want and from wherever and whomever they want and at whatever prices they decide are right for them. That includes business people who should have the freedom to buy whatever capital goods they need to run their businesses. And all without the direction, intervention, intrusion, punishment tariffs (i.e. stealing) of corrupt government bureaucrats and their cronies.

So a “trade deficit” doesn’t mean anything. It’s not like a budget deficit that does mean something. Why is it that the idiot President is so concerned about a “trade deficit” that means nothing except in his own imagination, but doesn’t care at all about a budget deficit, in which he and his fellow Democrats in CONgress are spending like drunken sailors and squandering taxpayer money away like the crazed lunatics they are, a $4 trillion budget with a deficit of nearly $1 trillion? Doh!

And that is what we get from government central planners. They are very bad for you, that’s for sure.

Some Misc. Items

I have not had enough time these days to write like I would like to do. So, I have been posting links to other articles. I hope to get back to my regular writing when I have more time. It’s really time consuming to write a post or article. It really is.

In the meantime, regarding the accusations against Iran that they hit the oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, don’t listen to liars Donald Trump, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, who looks like he could lose a few hundred pounds. No, seriously, Napalmpeo Pompeo et al. are drooling warmongers who seem to just want to bomb the hell out of other countries that are of NO threat to us whatsoever. That is what they did to Iraq and Afghanistan, and Vietnam. I’ll bet they sing John McCain’s song, “Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran,” and so on. But, according to Antiwar.com, it appears that the Japanese ship owner contradicts the fatso U.S. bureaucrats on that tanker attack. Warmonger bureaucrats are liars!

According to Jack Hunter at the Examiner, the U.S. Senate just voted to arm ISIS with your tax dollars.

John Solomon asks, Aren’t delirious Democrats now accusing Team Obama of treason?

Andrew McCarthy asks, Why did government officials ignore so many red flags with the shoddy Steele dossier?

Michael Rozeff says that Pocahontas is surging and analyzes her proposals.

Robert Wenzel says that rent control horror is returning to New York City.

Activist Post with an article on new cars to be equipped with breathalyzers, and drivers given mental health assessments.

Bryan Caplan on the real — and flawed — reason some classical liberals embrace universal basic income.

And Richard Ebeling on America’s economic commissar of trade.

Conservatives Love Socialism: Immigration

Last week there was another thought-provoking post by Jacob Hornberger on the immigration issue. He notes how conservatives tend to abandon their alleged advocacy of private property when they try to suggest that America’s territory has some sort of common ownership and the American people have a right via the U.S. government to restrict travel across the borders.

Conservatives often use the national-home argument to justify their support of a system of immigration controls. They say that America is a “national home,” one owned and controlled by the U.S. government. As the owner of the “home,” the argument goes, the U.S. government has the “right” to lock the door and determine who to let into its home. Conservatives sometimes say to me, “You lock your front door, Jacob, and you don’t let everyone into your home. Why shouldn’t the federal government have the ‘right’ to do the same with our home?”

In fact, I heard these same exact words uttered by talk radio personality Jeff Kuhner just this morning. If you’ve heard Michael Savage, you probably have heard Jeff Kuhner filling in for him. But now Kuhner has his own local show in Boston, so he can bless Bostonians with his own fingernails-against-the-chalkboard nationalism idiocy.

Anyway, Hornberger goes on to write that America is not a “national home,” but a society of private property, in which the private property owners have a right to invite whomever they want onto their own private property, or to exclude anyone they want from their property. That applies to our homes, businesses, etc.

But Kuhner and his idol Donald Trump, et al. don’t get this concept. They seem to think that the whole territory is communally owned by the people, which would negate the idea of private property. And given that these so-called conservatives are collectivists and authoritarians, they obediently support the U.S. government in Washington as the true owner-caretaker of the territory as a whole. When either the centralized government or the entire population of “citizens” have ownership of the territory, then they have a de facto ownership of everything within the territory, in my view.

And I am going to go further than what Jacob Hornberger writes (as I have done so previously), regarding the socialism aspect of the nationalists’ policies of collective ownership of the territory. Yes, it actually is the nationalists and conservatives who are the socialists on this issue, while the libertarian advocates of “open borders” are the capitalists, the advocates of free markets. (However, those on the Left who want government sanctuary cities and government-forced welfare for immigrants are the other side of the same socialist coin, not free market.)

Socialism being government ownership of the means of production, and given that one of the most important means of production is the people, the nationalists like Kuhner and Trump support all the socialist government controls which attempt to control the movements of millions of people, which is impossible.

The nationalists and conservatives say that foreigners must get a government bureaucrat’s permission or authorization to go somewhere to work. But, if one must have government authorization to do what you want to do, then that means you are not the owner of your own life and your labor. The government is the de facto owner.

And the same thing applies to when a business owner must get government permission or authorization to hire someone that businessman wants to hire. That means the government is really the ultimate owner of the business. Ownership is control. If the owner-on-paper businessman really were the owner of his business, then he is the ultimate decider on whom to hire and whom not to hire. So these certainly are socialist policies of government, they are authoritarian and disrespectful to private property rights and the idea of unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Some people such as the nationalism fanatics say that one must have “citizenship” to be able to “get in to the country,” and otherwise are “breaking into the country,” etc. And they compare that to a burglar breaking into your home. But those are two different things, as mentioned above. But the idea of citizenship itself is government ownership of the people. To have “citizenship” means that you have government authorization, which is what socialism is. So, these concepts and policies of nationalism and citizenship really are policies of socialism. They certainly are not policies of free market capitalism.

One last thing about the conservatives is their short-sightedness. They see that there is an immigration problem, and so they support all these socialist government controls. They never seem to ask what is causing the problem in the first place. One major cause is the war on drugs, which is itself another socialist scheme. Another problem the conservatives refuse to address is the welfare state. A system of forced income-theft and wealth redistribution is immoral and in fact, criminal. But conservatives don’t want to get rid of the welfare state, because they believe in it, because they love socialism.

And finally, some people call the government immigration controls and the drug war “fascist” policies, with their police state and all that. And they are fascist policies. Fascism is a system of government controls although property and industry are still privately owned. However, as I have stated, ownership is control, and if you supposedly own property or a business, and in fact own your life and your labor, if you don’t control those things and the government is the final and ultimate authority with control, then you don’t really own those things. The government is the de facto owner, so really fascism is just a form of socialism with the pretense of private ownership.

Some Comments on the Immigration Issue

I have been wanting to write more on the immigration issue, but I think I’d rather concentrate on other matters. So, I am going to repost some past posts on that issue from the last two or three years, or excerpts of posts. These issues are more on a philosophical level here. But the bottom line is, do we want freedom in America, or do we want a police state? Right now it’s a police state with a “Constitution-free zone” along the borders and coasts (and all points between, quite frankly, thanks to the imbeciles and fascists in Washington).

So here are some of those past posts or excerpts:

In the post, Freedom Matters, I wrote:

In the article, titled “Culture Matters,” the writer Jim Cox compares the U.S. territory and its public or collective ownership to a condominium made up of several buildings with commonly owned areas, in which the condo owners “own the land between the 27 buildings and the pavement in common and own only our individual units separately.”

And he continues: “This is a very analogous situation to US citizens owning private property as well as public property via government. The condominium association has rules about people coming onto the common property.”

In Cox’s example, each condo owner buys one’s own unit with the rules of the condo association in mind.

Already Cox confuses private and public property. The entire territory of a country is not a commonly owned parcel of private property and can’t be compared to that.

Outside of each individually-owned unit, the property of the condo buildings and real estate is commonly owned by the condo owners. But it is still all private property.

In contrast, “public property” is supposedly publicly owned. Actually, as Jim Davies pointed out, public property is unowned. Either no one has actually legitimately homesteaded or honestly acquired it, or it was owned but the bureaucrats of the State have seized and occupy it.

Many individuals, groups and business owners own individual parcels of private property. But it’s more difficult to define who the actual owners of public property are. An intruder onto the condo property is trespassing onto private property. But if the “public” supposedly owns non-privately-owned public property, just which part of the public can be considered an owner or an “intruder”? “Citizens” or non-citizens? Taxpayers or non-taxpayers?

As I asked in this critique of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, what about non-taxpaying citizens, such as those who work but don’t earn enough to be required to pay income taxes? Are they less owners of the “public” property? Are they “intruders”? What about working, taxpaying non-citizens?

And what exactly is a “citizen”? As Carl Watner notes, a “citizen” is a “member of the State.” Other sources define citizen as someone who is legally recognized by the government. But who is the government to “recognize” or authorize someone as legitimate?

Sadly, statists look to the ruling government bureaucrats for validation. But just who exactly are the ruling bureaucrats, and what exactly is the State?

As Murray Rothbard has pointed out (.pdf) in his Anatomy of the State,

The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.

And, in his great treatise The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard asserts,

Thus, the State is a coercive criminal organization that subsists by a regularized large-scale system of taxation-theft, and which gets away with it by engineering the support of the majority (not, again, of everyone) through securing an alliance with a group of opinion-moulding intellectuals whom it rewards with a share in its power and pelf.

But there is another vital aspect of the State that needs to be considered. There is one critical argument for the State that now comes into view: namely, the implicit argument that the State apparatus really and properly owns the territorial area over which it claims jurisdiction. The State, in short, arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area — larger or smaller depending on historical conditions, and on how much it has been able to wrest from other States.

If the State may be said to properly own its territory, then it is proper for it to make rules for anyone who presumes to live in that area. It can legitimately seize or control private property because there is no private property in its area, because it really owns the entire land surface. So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property.

So what we have from Cox is the collectivist notion of a common ownership of a territory. He writes: “Until we can shift to a Private Property Society we are stuck with a government handling immigration.”

Unfortunately, “government handling immigration” is the police state that we have now. Bureaucrats empowering border control agents to violate due process rights, arrest innocent people who have not harmed anyone, arresting employers for not getting government permission to hire a worker, arresting workers who are peacefully making a living, an out-of-control “ICE” working to take citizenship away from naturalized citizens, storm troopers ripping whole families apart. All this because the people have gullibly empowered a centralized government to decide who is and who isn’t on the premises legitimately.

And Cox lists “negative cultural traits” of possible immigrants that people wouldn’t want to invite in. He neglects to mention, however, that it’s the government planners (that we are “stuck with”) who are responsible for bringing in the violent criminals he mentions.

But the collectivist-minded writer is putting ALL immigrants into one big group, the “undesirables,” the riffraff and the actual violent criminals, all lumped together with the peaceful people, the hard-working laborers, the honest folks.

Whatever happened to the individualism and free markets that used to be associated with libertarianism? Whatever happened to presumption of innocence? If you don’t suspect an individual of something, leave him alone.

And why would libertarians want bureaucrats to control markets, labor and employment? “We’re all socialists, now”?

Regarding the crime problem, the rapes and assaults, murders, etc., why are the anti-immigration crowd so bent on being dependent on centralized bureaucrats and government police for their protection from criminals? Why don’t they ever bring up the right of the people to keep and bear arms? They only seem to bring that up when the gun control debate is in the news.

When criminals know ahead of time that their prospective victims are armed there would be far fewer rapes, assaults and murders, and attempted rapes, assaults and murders. That would be the same with violent foreigners entering the territory, no?

Is the “culture” stuff actually more important to these immigration critics than their security? So instead of promoting the right of people to keep and bear arms and use the arms to protect themselves from actual criminals, the anti-immigration crowd are more concerned with promoting government-controlled social engineering.

And to say that someone not violating the person or property of another, who is peacefully exercising one’s freedom of movement to find a better life for himself and one’s family, is a “criminal,” is to not understand the libertarian non-aggression principle.

***

In the post, Walter Williams on Immigration: Very Collectivist-Minded, I wrote:

Walter Williams has been considered very “libertarian” in his thinking and his writing, although a conservative libertarian. He has been great in his essays raking the political correctness crowd and the college hystericals over the coals, and his books Up from the Projects and Race and Economics should be read by everyone, especially the youngins in college if they want to get a dose of reality in life.

However, when it comes to nationalism and immigration it seems he is less libertarian and, unfortunately, extremely collectivist, and his latest article on that subject is no exception. So, I feel I must fisk Dr. Williams on this one, because clarification of the issues, ideas and principles is necessary here.

First, Williams asks,

How many Norwegians have illegally entered our nation, committed crimes and burdened our prison and welfare systems? I might ask the same question about Finnish, Swedish, Welsh, Icelanders, Greenlanders and New Zealanders.

How many U.S. citizens who are here legally commit crimes against others? And who has committed more crimes against the American people, immigrants or the government in Washington (and the bureaucrats of the state and city governments)? (Answer: It’s governments, no contest.)

Williams continues:

The bulk of our immigration problem is with people who enter our country criminally from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East. It’s illegal immigrants from those countries who have committed crimes and burdened our criminal justice and welfare systems.

No, the bulk of our immigration problem is that immigrants from those “undesirable” countries are brought in under the control of government bureaucrats in Washington. The bureaucrats have no incentive to strive for better outcomes in their policies because government bureaucrats are not accountable. They have a monopoly in their control over immigration, and monopolists are not accountable.

In the debate about illegal immigration, there are questions that are not explicitly asked but can be answered with a straight “yes” or “no”: Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.? Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country? Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?

“Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.?” This is not a “yes” or “no” question. Everyone has a right to live wherever one finds it to be a better place for oneself and one’s family, as long as one doesn’t violate the persons or property of others. I know, some people have the mistaken belief that the U.S. territory is “our” property, and outsiders entering the territory sans authorization are “trespassing.” Nope. The territory contains many, many parcels of private property. The owners of the private property have the ultimate right to decide who enters and who does not enter their private property, not the community, and not the government. This applies to people’s homes, their businesses, churches, and so on.

“Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country?” Again, not a “yes” or “no” question. Many people believe that Americans as a group, by majority rule, have a right to decide those things, and that the government has the authority (constitutional or moral) to implement those decisions, regardless of a private property owner or employer’s decision to invite someone. If the collectivists’ vision were the case (as it currently is now), then we don’t really have private property rights, and the majority of the territory’s population and the government really are the ultimate decision makers of who may enter private property.

“Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?” Why is there “U.S. border control”? That’s referring to U.S. government border control, which is a police state now. A “100-mile Constitution-free zone”!

And then Williams gets into the cultural aspects of the problems of today:

People who came here in the 19th century and most of the 20th century came here to learn our language, learn our customs and become Americans. Years ago, there was a guarantee that immigrants came here to work, because there was no welfare system; they worked, begged or starved. Today, there is no such assurance. Because of our welfare state, immigrants can come here and live off taxpaying Americans.

Then get rid of the welfare state! THAT’s the answer to that problem. It’s the welfare state that FDR and LBJ (and Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, et al., ad nauseam) have forced on us. Dr. Williams has many times written in his articles that it is immoral to take earnings from one person to give to another, by force. Why doesn’t he say outright here that involuntary contracts and theft (i.e. taxation), Social Security, Medicare and all their spin-offs should be abolished?

There is another difference between today and yesteryear. Today, Americans are taught multiculturalism throughout their primary, secondary and college education. They are taught that one culture is no better or worse than another. To believe otherwise is criticized at best as Eurocentrism and at worst as racism.

Well, that’s because governments in the U.S., federal, state and local government, control education in America! Get the government out of education, completely! And THAT’s the answer to that problem, this “multiculturalism” crapola. You think that an all-private schools system, without any government handouts and without the imposition of monopolistic government bureaucrats’ sick, irrational, kooky claptrap would survive in an educational free market?

Very unfortunate for our nation is that we have political groups that seek to use illegal immigration for their own benefit. They’ve created sanctuary cities and states that openly harbor criminals — people who have broken our laws.

That’s because “sanctuary cities” are run by city governments — THAT’s the problem! Bureaucrats should not be empowered to get involved in bringing in foreigners, unless those actual bureaucrats invite the foreign visitors or workers to live in their homes, the bureaucrats‘ own homes, and they pay for their visitors, not the taxpayers. Sadly, government bureaucrats mainly just want to have as much welfare parasites (and voters) brought in, because getting reelected and expanding their tax-funded racket is what bureaucrats really care about.

And also, it’s not really about “legal” vs. “illegal” with many of today’s anti-immigration conservatives, unfortunately. A lot of this anti-immigration stuff is just coming from a collectivist, nationalist anti-foreigner mentality. “We are all one ‘family,’ and we don’t want ‘them’ invading ‘our’ home,” and all that. I’m hearing that on a constant, daily basis from the conservative talk radio personalities and their dittohead followers calling in.

This immigration stuff is mainly to do with a collectivist nationalism, which is not what “America” is all about. America was all about individualism and private property, NOT collectivism and collective ownership of a territory that overrules the will of the private property owner.

And “America” is also not about central planning as well. Most of the early Americans who founded the country would not have agreed to empowering central planning bureaucrats to have authority over controlling immigration matters. Leave those matters up to Americans themselves, not the government.

***

And finally, in Immigration and Private vs. Public Property, I critiqued a speech by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in which I wrote, among other things:

Unfortunately Hoppe gets into some confusion between private property and “public property,” and some of his “rights to exclusion” seem quite collectivist, in my view. He seems to advocate a public, collective right to exclusion, whereas the only legitimate right to exclusion is the private property owner’s right to exclusion, and the individual self-owner’s right to exclusion, and the right to inclusion as well.

For instance, Hoppe states: “In a fully privatized libertarian order there exists no such thing as a right to free immigration. Private property implies borders and the owner’s right to exclude at will.”

But he goes on to say that “’public property’ has borders as well.” Wait a minute, the “public property” borders he’s talking about are government-drawn borders, therefore they are not legitimate.

Hoppe states that public property “is not unowned. It is the property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners.”

I have some questions here, using the U.S. as an example. Just how did the taxpayers come to own such “public property”? Did they inherit the property? Was it by way of a voluntary contract? Or was such ownership imposed on them involuntarily along with the tax-thefts that were imposed on them involuntarily?

My answer is that, if there is any ownership at all of so-called public property, and he suggests the owners are the taxpayers, then of course such ownership is involuntary just as are the tax-thefts imposed on them. Therefore, such ownership is lacking in any moral justification.

Some further questions: Millions of undocumented workers’ presence and labor in the U.S. have not received proper bureaucrat-parasite authorization, but they have paid billions of dollars in federal taxes. And while some of their legitimate, honest earnings are withheld by employers to pay the feds the demanded booty, they are nevertheless ineligible for Social Security from those earnings. But they are “taxpayers.” Do they thus share in ownership of U.S. “public property”?

And also, do you divide ranks in “public property” ownership”? For instance, do very wealthy people have a higher percentage of ownership than lower-class workers, and thus have more ownership rights of control than the others? What if many wealthy progressive thinkers have a larger percentage of ownership/control, and want to have marijuana dispensaries, abortion clinics, etc. on “public property,” but a minority of the tax-payers disagree with that scheme? Is that legitimate?

When Hoppe says that public property is the “property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners,” what about domestic non-taxpayers? What about “citizens” (non-foreigners) who do work for a living, but don’t make enough to be required to have to pay income taxes? Are they denied rights of exclusion or inclusion because of this? So in other words, those who don’t pay the feds anything in tax-thefts should have the same denied rights of access to public property as the foreigners/non-“citizens”?

And also, it seems here in Hoppe’s justification of taxpayers’ involuntary ownership of public property he apparently, at least for this topic, accepts the State’s existence. Although he does admit that “the State is a criminal organization,” but its inaction regarding border control “will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry.” Does Hoppe here seem to abandon his description of so-called “fake libertarians” at the very beginning of the speech, in which he says a “fake libertarian” is one who “affirms or advocates” “the necessity of a State” or “of public or State property”?

Now back to Hoppe’s recent speech (as shown at the top), he states that “immigration must be by invitation only,” and that “immigrants must be productive people and hence, be barred from all domestic welfare payments.” But he gets into a lengthy discussion of his proposed rules that seem very central planning-like, in my view.

For instance, immigrants “or their inviting party must place a bond with the community in which they are to settle, and which is to be forfeited and lead to the immigrant’s deportation should he ever become a public burden.”

And with whom in the community will such a bond be placed? Who is to be in charge of that? What if a foreigner peacefully travels to the community and doesn’t give anyone a bond?

So are you saying that the immigrant is morally obligated to pay some third party some payment, without any voluntary, mutually-agreeable contract? What if he finds a room to rent or buys a home, who is it that owns the property? Does the individual landlord or property seller own the property, or does the community share in ownership of those properties? Is the entire community collectively owned by its inhabitants (regardless of separate private property parcels)?

It seems to me that Hoppe is suggesting that the community shares in ownership of property within the community. Not good.

In the just society, each property owner has full, 100% sovereignty over one’s property and its property title that he and only he may decide to whom to transfer, and he and only he may decide to whom to rent, and for whatever reason.

Hoppe continues: “As well, every immigrant, inviting party or employer should not only pay for the immigrant’s upkeep or salary, but must also pay the residential community for the additional wear and tear of its public facilities associated with the immigrant’s presence, so as to avoid the socialization of any and all costs incurred with his settlement.”

Who is going to decide how much “wear and tear” one immigrant has caused or might cause in the future? Who has the authority to charge the employer such a fee and decide how much to charge? Sounds very central-planning, if you ask me.

This all sounds very communal or “private club”-like to me, and seems to abandon the principles of private property and freedom of association. My neighbor doesn’t own my property and has no authority to dictate to me whom to let on my property, quite frankly.

And Hoppe continues: “Moreover, even before his admission, every potential immigrant invitee must be carefully screened and tested not only for his productivity but also for cultural affinity (or ‘good neighborliness’)…”

“Carefully screened”? By whom? The employer? Landlord? Prospective home seller? The community? Who will be in charge of this? Who owns the lives of the immigrants? Do they lose their self-ownership when moving to a new territory, even though they are peaceful and there’s no reason to think they might be a burden on the public? What if some family from a different area just moves into a home they’ve bought or rented and they don’t submit to screening, and there’s no reason to suspect them of not having “good neighborliness”? How about just letting property owners, businessmen and home sellers make those decisions, not by some some preset rules but by random events that take into account multiple, spontaneous factors? Whatever happened to Hoppe’s promotion of “Natural Order”?

So Hoppe’s “right of exclusion” seems to mean that the collective public may decide who gets in and who stays out. But how? By some sort of democratic vote? How else could a large group, such as U.S. taxpayers who supposedly own the public property, be able to come to a decision regarding who gets in and who stays out?

The true free market way is when an individual anywhere in the world who wants to make a better life for himself and his family travels to wherever he sees an opportunity, as long as he doesn’t violate the persons or property of another. He can rent a home or purchase one from a willing landlord or seller. And the property owner who rents out or sells a home is the owner, not his neighbors or the community.

I don’t see any moral obligation to pay the community some advance tribute, as the aforementioned family never entered into any contract with the “community,” only the employer, landlord or home seller, etc.

The end.

The Second Amendment Has No Exceptions

Laurence Vance comments on bump stocks and a free society. Among other things, he writes:

The Constitution nowhere gives the federal government the authority to have anything to do with the regulation, registration, licensing, or control of firearms, ammunition, magazines, or accessories.

The Second Amendment (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”) has no exceptions. This means that on the federal level, all laws of any kind concerning firearms, ammunition, magazines, accessories, background checks, gun shows, gun manufacturing, gun sales, and gun dealers are illegitimate.

The right to own a bump stock is essential to a free society. It is what you do with the bump stock that is the issue.

A gun can be used for good or ill. And so can most anything else. A knife can be used to cut up a chicken or to stab someone. A hammer can be used to frame a house or to crack someone’s skull open. A needle can be used to administer an IV or to shoot up with heroin. A baseball bat can be used to hit a homerun or to bash someone’s brains in. A saw can be used to trim a tree or to dispose of a dead body. A shovel can be used to plant a garden or to bury a murder victim. A can of spray paint can be used to restore an object’s appearance or to deface a building with anti-Semitic graffiti. An ink pen can be used to write a letter or to poke someone’s eye out. A key can be used to open a car or to scratch a car. A pillow can be used to sleep on or to smother someone.

Capitalism Is Moral, Socialism Is Not

At the Mises Institute Gary Galles says that capitalism “a.k.a. self-ownership,” is the only moral economic system. That’s free-market capitalism, to be clear.

The way I see it, the kind of capitalism we have in America now is a combination of free market capitalism, and “crony capitalism” or crony socialism in which wealth is redistributed via protectionism and regulation that favors established firms over those attempting to “get one’s foot in the door.”

Galles explains how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie have it all wrong. He writes about the moral aspect of free-market capitalism, which is “better defined as a system of private ownership of resources, including one’s labor, not simply ownership of capital, coordinated by solely voluntary arrangements. Private property prevents the physical invasion of a person’s life, their liberty, or their property without their consent. By preventing such invasions, private property is an irreplaceable defense against aggression by the strong against the weak. No one is allowed to be a predator by violating others’ rights. In such a system, capitalists need the voluntary consent of laborers in their arrangements, preventing capitalists from exploiting laborers.”

And Thomas Knapp writes about how today’s socialists hate the gig economy that yesterday’s socialists wanted. Yesterday’s socialists wanted worker ownership of the means of production, yet today’s socialists reject that.

Knapp gives the example of drivers for Lyft and Uber, in which drivers own their own cars (worker ownership of the means of production) and have control over their hours worked rather than being controlled by a boss.

But today’s “democratic socialists” fought tooth and nail to preserve the capitalist “medallion cab” monopoly, and having lost that fight they’ve re-oriented their struggle toward roping the drivers, and the companies they choose to work with, into the old-style capitalist “wage employee” system.

They don’t want the wage system to go away. They just want to run it.

They don’t want the workers to own the means of production. They just want to tax and regulate it.

They don’t want a classless society. They just want to be the new ruling class.

Those who believe in the moral way of life, that of self-ownership and voluntary (not coerced or compelled by government) contracts would favor the independence and autonomy of working for Uber or Lyft, and the authoritarians would favor enslaving the drivers by forcing them to have to spend a life savings on a medallion and be under the control of  a dispatcher boss.

But the conservatives these days are almost just as bad in their rejection of free markets, private property and voluntary contracts.

In any event, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocrazio-Cortez and Commie Bernie are the least moral characters when it comes to policies they favor: government theft of private wealth and property, government-compelled enslavement of the workers and producers, and the POLICE STATE to enforce their immoral tyranny.

Trump’s Socialism and Cortez’s Socialism vs. a Free Society

There is little difference between Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Both have very limited intellectual abilities, but are talented demagogues who can capture the attention of millions, like a pied piper leading them all into their blissful nirvana. They are both hysterical, and the policies they support are those of hysteria and irrationality.

Sadly, Ocasio-Cortez is the poster child for the leftists’ socialist utopia, in her rhetoric anyway. And The Donald represents today’s collectivist nationalists who do not believe in private property, free markets or individual freedom, despite their rhetoric.

Ocasio-Cortez’s hysteria is regarding climate change. She seems to be one of many, many government-school-brainwashed robots who really believe that the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t impose a completely government-controlled society on the entire population.

The main goal of the climate change fanatics and those on the left in general is huge expansion of the size and power of government and the police state to enforce the will of the fanatics.

And control is also why the leftists want “single payer,” i.e. government-run health care. They not only want to steal all the wealth and property and make people have to report all their earnings and just about every aspect of their financial matters, but with socialized medicine you must report every aspect of your health and medical matters. Every aspect of your private life is not private, and you must report to and be accountable to a bureaucrat. Yay!

So the power-grabbers, intruders and gangsters on the left want to impose higher taxes i.e. thefts and impose new taxes on top of the regular taxes. There’s never enough of the people’s wealth and earnings for government power-grabbers to steal.

Actually, you won’t actually own your own earnings. That is how many people feel already. You do a certain amount of labor and whatever earnings the labor produced is actually owned by the government. The authorities will decide how much of the earnings you are deserving of, and they will keep the rest.

So really, the government owns the labor and production of the people. That is what socialism is, government ownership of the means of production, industry and property.

One of the most important means of production is the people. The government owns the people. That means that you are owned by the  government. You are a slave in socialism.

But the Donald Trump robots are not that different. Their big thing now is “illegal immigration,” i.e. “non-citizens” “invading our country.” The nativist anti-foreigner crowd are just as brainwashed in this idea of “citizenship” as the people on the left are brainwashed in their particular form of collectivism.

But what citizenship really means is that you are a government-authorized member of society. If you don’t have government authorization, then you are an outsider. An “invader.” That is how the government-loving sheeple on the nationalism side think.

So, really this idea of “citizenship” is a form of socialism, in which the government really has ownership of the people.

And no, there is no “crisis” or “national emergency” at the border. The nationalists especially the conservatives are responding to news accounts exaggerated by propagandists to justify even further police state at the border. And not just at the border but further bureaucratic police state like “e-verify” and “real ID.”

Like those on the left, the Trump-following nationalists are short-sighted in their totalitarian solutions. The Trump crowd and conservatives are worried about drugs coming through the border. Well, it’s the drug war that causes a black market in drugs that financially incentivizes scum lowlifes to become drug pushers and who want to get people hooked, and so the drug war causes drug traffickers, drug lords, gangs, MS-13, turf wars, and if you just end the drug war (as 1920s Prohibition was ended) then those problems will disappear immediately.

And the U.S. government’s interventions in Central America and supporting evil regimes causes people to flee those areas.

The drug war, the authoritarian bureaucrats in Washington imposing prohibitions on peaceful behaviors and possessions of plants and siccing government police on those who disobey, is a socialist policy, by the way. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production, industry, property, the usurpation of the use of one’s labor, earnings, and trades, and involves government central planning.

One of the most important of means of production is the people, which includes their bodies. When government central planners impose restrictions on what you may or may not put into “your” own body, then it is not your body. You no longer own your body or your life, just as in socialism you no longer own your labor or your earnings or your property. The government is the ultimate owner.

And why are the U.S. government’s violent intrusions in Central and South America (and the Middle East and everywhere else) socialist policies? Because government central planners (State Department, CIA, etc.) in Washington are directing those intrusions and the invaders, coup marauders and otherwise criminals are being paid via tax dollars that are stolen from the workers and producers of America.

Another socialist aspect of such policies is that those imposing them, the government criminals, are in positions of legal authority. They are above the law, because the government is the law.

So Donald Trump loves these authoritarian police state, militarist policies. And like millions of his statist followers, he wants to build a government wall on the border. But a government wall is not what free-market capitalists build. That’s what socialists build.

People who believe in free markets and free trade and the free movements of labor, goods and services not only don’t build government walls, they tear down government walls. They may build private property walls. But that is to keep intruders off privately owned property.

Some people argue that protecting public property borders is the same thing. But no one owns such property. No one owns the territory as a whole. No one owns a country. Not if we believe that the territory contains many parcels of privately owned property. (But Trump is not a big fan of private property rights either. Sorry, I digress.) If you want to believe that the population shares in some kind of ownership of the territory as a whole, then that kind of sounds like communism if you ask me, quite frankly.

But my main point is, neither Donald Trump and all his supporters nor the leftists believe in a free society.

In a free society, you own your own life. You can establish private contracts with anyone, as long as everything is voluntary and mutually consensual. No initiation of aggression against anyone, no coercion. Anything that’s peaceful, as Leonard Read would say.

In a free society, you own your labor until you sell it to a customer, employer or client. And those trades are no one else’s business. No one (such as a government bureaucrat) may demand some kind of tribute or portion of your earnings or profits from you, no one may demand any information from you. No having to report anything to anyone.

In a free society you keep everything you earn and do with it whatever you want, even if you honestly acquire billions of dollars each year. No matter how much or how little you make, it is always yours and no one may steal it from you.

And in a free society, your medical matters are your own private business! And that includes the price of medical care being agreed to between the people and their providers or practitioners.

And in a free society, people can come and go as they please. No reporting to government goons at the border. No passports. No IDs. Presumption of innocence is the rule.

No police state. No totalitarian socialist bureaucrats like Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez intruding themselves into the lives of the people, and stealing their livelihoods away.

Sounds good to me.

More News and Commentary

After the Sunday-Monday snow storm, now it’s a deep freeze again. So much for “early Spring,” that was according to that little schmuck groundhog. It sure is cold out there. My fingers are numb. Oh, well. So here are some articles:

Ron Paul asks, Did John Bolton blow North Korea?

Veronique de Rugy says that vaping is saving lives.

Laurence Vance on term limits.

And Donald Boudreaux has a list of books on liberty that you should read.

Leftists and Conservatives All Agree: Against Freedom!

We’re getting it from both sides, the leftists and the conservatives. And frankly, I’m really fed up and sick and tired of all this.

Both sides want to control the lives of others, throw people in jail who disagree or who dissent, or who do business in a way that’s not in accordance with the control freaks, or who eat or consume chemicals not approved by the gubmint, or who come from outside the territory and are not approved by the immigration commissars.

People on both sides just don’t want to leave others alone.

The “Green New Dealers” say they want to eliminate airplane travel, as well as all fossil fuels and cars. They want just electric cars? How will you juice up the cars? What will power up the electric cars? So they just want to outlaw travel, basically.

I guess they are like the conservatives who want to prevent people from traveling into the U.S., as well as harass Americans who want to travel outside the U.S. and return without harassment. Good luck with that.

The “Green New Dealers” also want to retrofit all buildings in the U.S., including houses, apartment buildings, office buildings, schools, churches.

To make it easier for them to make sure that all the buildings in America are getting rebuilt, what they really want is to eliminate all privately owned property in America. They want the government to seize the property, the homes and businesses. The government and its bureaucrat overlords will be the owners of the property.

In our homes the government overlords will be our landlords and we their obedient tenants. They must also take over all the buildings of churches or any houses of worship to make sure that they, too, will be rebuilt to the satisfaction of the “Green” dictators. And naturally that will give them more power to control religion (i.e. abolish it, like in the Soviet Union).

And their real intention is to nationalize the industries, just like in the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela.The people on the left want to take over all industries and will try to impose bureaus with commissars who will attempt to run the industries, as though they can do better than the actual people who currently own and operate their businesses.

So in the process of their taking over industries, they will be stealing businesses that many people worked long and hard to build, all the labor and effort they put into it, now to be enslaved by those who will take it over.

For example regarding the “Green Wheeling and Dealing” “Green New Deal” “democratic socialists” real intention of government takeovers of private industries, here is Marxine Waters letting the cat out of the bag:

Because of their narcissism and arrogance many of them really believe they have the ability to run industries better than those currently doing so. As Thomas DiLorenzo referenced F.A. Hayek in today’s article, the leftist activists have a “fatal conceit.”

But really it’s a control freak issue that these people have. They just like to have a lot of power and order others around. All these bossy little “green” dictators.

Here is Congressman John Dingell, the one who just died, on how we need ObamaCare (or, later on, single payer, “Medicare for All,” etc.) to “control the people”:

So, how will the “Green New Dealers” or “democratic socialists” administer over the forcible taking of all that property in the United States? Many sheeple will swallow the propaganda in which bureaucrats and their minions will convince them it’s for their own good, and that Mr. and Ms. Government Agent or Enforcer knows what’s best for them. Anyone who resists will be arrested or shot. That is how they did things in past socialist societies.

And here is the late Larry Grathwohl who as an FBI agent had infiltrated the Bill Ayers group Weather Underground in the 1970s, detailing how his interactions with those commie wackjobs and college professors (sorry for the redundancy) went, in this interview excerpt:

But the conservatives are no better. There are millions of them all over America who really believe that a government Wall on the border will solve the immigration problem. Like the leftists, the conservatives are also afflicted with short-sightedness. I think that their motivation is mainly out of hatred of foreigners. They are obsessed with discussing the victims of crimes committed by “illegals,” but do not seem to care about the many more victims of crimes committed by their own fellow Americans.

It’s all about foreigners, and keeping out foreigners. But it isn’t just keeping out foreigners, and this is where there is a connection between these nationalist conservatives and the leftists. With the conservatives, they believe that people who are not “citizens” should have restrictions imposed on their lives if they dare to set foot in America, or the non-citizens should be kept out, and with a Wall if necessary. What matters here is this “citizenship” thing, which really means government authorization.

The conservatives are really just as authoritarian and socialistic as the leftists, in which for an individual to have legitimacy one must have government authorization or approval (“citizenship”).

And regarding this obsession that Donald Trump and his sheeple followers have with a government Wall like that will cure any problems society might have, I have a feeling that Trump is acting on behalf of the people on the left, like helping them to set up the closed-in society for them in advance. But I could be wrong.

Like the commie thugs on the left, the conservatives and ditto-heads just don’t want to leave people alone. The conservatives want to harass, molest, kidnap and throw into a cage any travelers who are not authorized by government bureaucrats in Washington, regardless of whether the travelers are peaceful. The conservative thugs want to arrest businessmen who hire non-government-authorized workers. And again, it has nothing to do with being “concerned” that immigrants are committing crimes against Americans, because if so then they would be expressing equal concern about Americans committing crimes against other Americans. But no, the conservatives are not doing that. It has to do with hating foreigners, quite frankly. It has to do with their brainwashed nationalism and tribalism.

And also, the real causes of the immigration problem have to do with the drug war and U.S. government interventionism and funding in Central and South American countries, such as Honduras. But the conservatives are too short-sighted to see that. Which they don’t WANT to see, by the way, because they support the drug war. The conservatives support government goons harassing and throwing in a cage those who might have ingested or might be in possession of some government-disapproved chemical or plant.

Honestly, between the power-hungry leftists and the conservatives and nationalists, FREEDOM is under attack from all sides!

What we really need is a free society. Just leave people alone, and liberate them, and let them have their freedom, for crying out loud.

A free society in which everyone comes and goes as they please, no showing ID or papers, no being stopped by goons. And America is supposed to be a society of individualism, in which each individual is left alone by gubmint unless one is actually suspected of violating the person or property of others.

And people come and go as they please as long as they don’t use aggression or coercion against others, as long as they don’t steal or defraud, as long as they are peaceful. And don’t trespass on private property, or else they could get hurt by a private property owner exercising one’s right to keep and bear arms (that no one would be interfering with because it’s a free society).

And no, traveling along “public” property (i.e. unowned) is not “trespassing,” because there’s no such thing as some sort of common ownership of “public property” by the “citizens” that conservatives try to promote. That would be very communistic or socialistic. Any common ownership of the territory as a whole would really negate the concept of private property within the territory. But sadly, conservatives have as much a hard time understanding private property as do the leftists.

In a free society all trades, transactions, contracts are voluntary, and would be only the business of those who are parties to such contracts, trades and transactions. The trades of labor and employment and goods and services would not be interfered with by third parties. And no one is allowed to steal anyone’s earnings or wealth away, including the government! And people consume whatever they want, healthy or harmful.

But we have these people on the left and the conservatives who obediently love and worship their government overlords to decide for them what’s best for them, and to protect them from “bad guys.” And both sides want to usurp control over private property and contracts using armed powers of government to do it. Both sides want to control the lives of others, but they shouldn’t be allowed to do these things.