Skip to content

Category: Socialism

Socialist Donald Trump and the Socialist Republicans

Laurence Vance writes on the LewRockwell.com blog:

Year-end data from the September 2018 Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the U.S. Government show that the deficit for fiscal year 2018 was $779 billion. The federal government spent $4,107.7 billion in fiscal year 2018 (which ended on Sept. 30, 2018), including $600 billion for defense offense (which is actually much higher if all “defense”-related spending is counted). The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. They are 100% to blame for the profligate spending. Republicans are big spenders just like Democrats. The only limited government they seek is a government limited to control by Republicans.

And Dr. Vance also has an article today that explains Donald Trump’s own socialist mentality and policies, in Trump’s love for Medicare, Medicaid and Socialist Security Social Security.

Will Ocasio-Cortez and Republican Pappas Debate on October 17th?

I’m only writing about this one because Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been so popular as well as controversial in her campaign proposals. Ocasio-Cortez is the Democrat candidate for Congress for congressional district 14 in New York, New York, New York. She is the one who wants to spend tens of trillions of taxpayer dollars on “free” health care, “free” education and so on.

According to Rasmussen, that district’s race is “Strong Dem,” with an odometer- or speedometer-like image with the arrow pointing to the far left in blue. I guess if it were the fuel gauge it would be pointing to almost empty. But while that is obviously the case philosophically and intellectually, the Republican candidate, Anthony Pappas, is also running on empty, in my view.

Pappas (Is he related to Ike Pappas, CBS News?) is an “associate professor of economics and finance at St. John’s University,” according to this WNYC article.

I checked the Internet for whatever his actual views are, and it’s difficult to find. However, according to Pappas’s website, there is a debate scheduled between the two on October 17 at PS 69 School auditorium in Queens. Maybe we’ll find out at that time. On his website he considers himself a “moderate, independent Republican with a motto of producing ‘sensible solutions for a kinder, caring world’.” (Oh yeah, how so?)

Pappas is critical of Ocasio-Cortez’s far-left, “bizarre” ideas. He is repeatedly critical of her socialist proposals. But the WNYC article states that Pappas “calls himself a compassionate conservative who supports progressive taxation and lower government spending.” Hmm, “progressive taxation”? Sounds like a socialist to me. A Republican socialist as well.

Well, I wonder if he will suggest any kind of decentralization and de-monopolization away from governmental controls and tax-thefts, repealing the income tax, ending the drug war, or any kind of dismantling of the welfare state that continues to keep the masses in chains by Big Government. Probably not. Will they actually have the debate? I can’t find any other reference to the scheduled debate online except for on his own website.

And if there is a debate, will debate moderators or Ocasio-Cortez ask Pappas about his bitter 14-year-long divorce and his wife’s accusations of abuse, and his suing the judge and the courts? I wouldn’t be surprised, given just recently the circus at Brett Kavanaugh’s hearings, in which a lady’s accusations against him was discussed and discussed and argued, with yelling and screaming, but not much mention of his ignorance of the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment and his earlier rulings which will unleash brutal government tyrants on innocent people. (I wonder if Pappas has any views on the Bill of Rights.)

The Nobel Prize in Economics for 2018: To Irrational Statists Once Again

On the selection of statist economists William Nordhaus and Paul Romer for the 2018 Nobel Prize in economics:

Thomas DiLorenzo quotes the Nobel-winning economists:

“The Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive.”

–Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus, Economics, 13th edition, p. 837.

Samuelson was the first American recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics (1970), awarded by the Swedish central bank and not the Nobel Foundation.  Nordhaus is this year’s recipient.  In the 1989 edition of their textbook they predicted that the Soviet economy would become larger than the U.S. economy somewhere around the year 2000.

And Robert Wenzel writes that “Both are technocrats for state tinkering with the economy,” and that “Nordhaus is an academic child of the current climate change craze.” And, “Paul Romer, a professor at NYU Stern School of Business, is off in the, far off, palm reading land of macro modeling, where government tinkering is always needed.”

And also Wenzel notes that Romer is against the idea of private police. (See Chapter 12 of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto [.pdf] by Murray Rothbard on the privatization of police. For skeptics of private police, Rothbard begins: “In the first place, there is a common fallacy, held even by most advocates of laissez-faire, that the government must supply ‘police protection,’ as if police protection were a single, absolute entity, a fixed quantity of something which the government supplies to all. But in actual fact there is no absolute commodity called ‘police protection’ any more than there is an absolute single commodity called ‘food’ or ‘shelter’.”)

Wenzel quotes Nordhaus on climate change: “The science and economics of global warming are clear. Unless forceful measures are taken the planet will continue to warm.” Wenzel says it’s “Y2K fears on steroids.”

And that’s exactly right. Why doesn’t Nobel Prize winner Nordhaus understand that the planet is warming and will continue to warm no matter what humans do? It is not preventable, because the sun is getting hotter and hotter, in general, and by 1 billion years from now it will have completely dried up everything on Earth, and by 7 billion years it’s all over. Oh, well.

So, the Nobel Prize is given to people mainly on the Left, to people who are ignorant and irrational, and based on the emotional rhetoric involved with these people’s writings and activities. Another example is Barack Obama, who was given the Nobel Peace Prize, despite his increasing troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000 his first month in office, increasing the CIA drone strikes that have been mostly murdering innocent civilians overseas, and more, throughout his time as President.

More Recent Articles

Thomas Knapp says the U.S. makes one too many parties to the spratly spat.

Richard Ebeling on Quinn Slobodian and the academic attack on Mises and Hayek.

Brandon Smith on how globalists plan to use technology and poverty to enslave the masses.

Jacob Hornberger on why Kavanaugh matters to libertarians.

James Kunstler doesn’t believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. (Her lawyers are also enmeshed with Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok of the FBI-Russia scandal, believe it or not.)

William Astore discusses fear of defeat and the Vietnam War.

And Laurence Vance responds to conservatives’ 10 bad reasons to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

Why Conservatives Are Socialists

I have written quite a few posts and articles on the immigration issue now. More recently I responded to Lew Rockwell’s reiteration of his and Hans Hoppe’s claim that “taxpayers own public property.”

But I wanted to clarify here how the nationalists who oppose freedom in immigration, labor and employment are really socialists in their wanting central planners to take charge over who is “allowed” to enter the territory, regardless of what private property owners want.

The nationalists such as Donald Trump and conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh want to require that people have citizenship in the U.S. to qualify for this or that, or to work, etc. And my contention is that you can’t have both a “free market” and a requirement of citizenship at the same time. It’s either one or the other.

You see, the nationalists and conservatives want to continue keeping foreigners from entering “our” country without the permission of the central planners in Washington. And they say that you don’t “belong” in the country unless you have citizenship. So this citizenship thing really is an authorization.

But I thought all human beings had “unalienable rights,” among them the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those are rights which preexist the formation of any government, and which preexist the formation of a country as well. Right?

Do people have a right to exist and live their lives as granted to them by the ruling bureaucrats? Or do they have a right to exist and live their lives, period? As long as one is peaceful, of course. As Leonard Read would say, Anything that’s peaceful (.pdf).

In the rights to life and liberty one has a natural right to self-ownership. And for those who reject the idea of natural rights, I get that, and will say that we have freedom, period. Until someone comes along and violates that freedom.

And what is the “free market”? It is a market that is free of external intrusions or violations, i.e. governmental restrictions, prohibitions, mandates, controls, reporting requirements, tax-thefts, etc. It is also a market that is not restricted by a government-drawn border. If this person over here wants to trade with that person over there, they trade. As long as they are peaceful. That’s the “free market.” And third parties may not intrude.

But the “citizenship” requirement makes the traders not self-owners but owned by the government. You may not even be in the territory unless you have “authorization,” that is, no longer a self-owner. And that is a part of the nationalists’ belief in some kind of communal ownership of the entire territory by the citizens (or by “taxpayers”). But, if you have a communal ownership of an entire territory, then those who think they own “private” property within the territory are mistaken. Because with the idea of “authorized citizens” who communally own the territory is their ownership (or control) of all “private” property within the territory, each business, residence, etc. In my view, control is a de facto ownership.

And all this is what socialism is. Another example is the drug war that most conservatives love. When the government dictates what you may or may not put into your own body, then the government has a de facto ownership of your body. One of the most important means of production is the people, which includes their physical bodies. When there is private ownership of the means of production the individual owns one’s own body. And that is where the principle of non-aggression comes from, by the way. The individual has self-ownership and the physical aggression against one’s body by others is a violation — but, in statist theory, not entirely a violation if the aggressor claims to be the actual owner, such as the government in its enforcement of dictating to you what drugs or foods you may or may not put into your own body. The drug war is a socialist crusade by intrusive social activists who covet the lives and bodies of others, in my view.

In regards to the immigration issue and trade and commerce, the collectivist conservatives and nationalists want to arrest “unauthorized entrants” even if they are acting peacefully, and the collectivists want to arrest businessmen who employ the peaceful, non-criminal workers even if the employers are being peaceful. This is not an example of the “free market.” This is a socialist utopia. It is utopia because this scheme of government control doesn’t even work!

A free market is not under the control of the community, as though the community in general takes part in the ownership of each business or each worker’s life within the community. A free market is not under the control of government bureaucrats or their armed enforcers. A free market is controlled by the legitimate owners who own the property being traded, including the businesses and the labor of the workers. Free traders do not need permission from outsiders or third parties who are not a part of the voluntary contracts established by the traders. And again, traders also include people selling their labor to others.

And this doesn’t just apply to the immigration issue. Any kind of trade, or peaceful, mutually beneficial activity.

The anti-market people on the nationalism side are advocating socialism, which is government ownership of the means of production. The private ownership of the means of production is not divided by government borders. The separation or dividing up of the means of production by that which is within the border and that which is outside the border is socialism, because those in charge (government rulers and bureaucrats) have seized control (i.e. ownership) over the means of production. In their dictating to businesses whom the businesses may or may not hire the bureaucrats are seizing control (i.e. ownership) over the businesses.

In a free market, business owners hire whomever they want. They are the authorities over their own businesses, not bureaucrats. No need for government authorization. And I think there is a kind of envy going on with the police-statists’ desire to arrest honest businesspeople for hiring “unauthorized workers.” That’s just my view on that.

As far as what is causing so many people to take the nationalist-collectivist view, and in a deeply emotional way? Who knows? And it’s definitely an emotional thing. Nationalism does not seem to be rational, in my view.

The American Founders were not nationalists, by the way. They were individualists. They (supposedly) believed in individual liberty and private property, not some kind of collective ownership of property.  And they were not authoritarians in the political sense. They believed in bottom-up rule, not top-down rule. Those who were nationalists at the time of the American Revolution were loyal to their nation at the time, the British regime. They were the ones who turned in “traitors” (i.e. the Revolutionaries). As written in the Declaration of Independence, the early Americans wanted immigrants to come and they complained about the British King’s interference in that matter.

Note: This post was slightly edited (with 3 words added) since originally posted.