Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

Degenerates Rule America

February 13, 2012

(Link to article at Activist Post)

We now live in extraordinarily dangerous times in America. A majority of primary voters support three out of the four remaining Republican candidates for President who believe that the U.S. government may commit acts of aggression and start wars against foreign peoples who were of no threat to us, and who want to use the power of government and police to impose various social views onto others. Only Ron Paul wants to legalize freedom in America, and wants to end our government’s aggressions abroad.

In a recent article on LewRockwell.com, human rights advocate William Grigg highlighted an Iraq War veteran who can’t comprehend that people in foreign countries don’t like invaders and occupiers on their lands, and why they try to defend themselves, their families and their territories from the U.S. military aggressors.

This veteran is like most Americans, apparently, who believe in American “exceptionalism,” in which our government may commit aggressions and trespass on foreign territories, including placing its military bases there despite the objections of the actual people living there, but foreign governments may not trespass on American lands.

For a century the ruling regime in Washington has abandoned the rule of law, and has acted aggressively overseas and provoked foreigners and murdered countless innocents. They have gotten away with their crimes via rationalization and manipulative, emotionalistic propaganda. Currently, Washington’s degenerate rulers are claiming, falsely, that Iran is a “threat,” despite Iran being surrounded on all sides.

But Americans have naively believed the propaganda, as they did with Iraq.

The professional career politicians and bureaucrats have thus been making Americans less safe and more vulnerable because of the blowback of their government’s own aggressions.

Such a narcissistic attitude of the aforementioned exceptionalist-minded veteran is contrary to the American Declaration of Independence. The Declaration asserts “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

By “men,” the Declaration is really referring to all of humankind, and that all human beings are created equal, and have an inherent right as human beings to life, liberty and the right to sustain and protect their lives.

I think the narcissistic exceptionalists want to suggest that only Americans have a right to life and liberty, but not foreigners. Many people are just incapable of seeing a situation from the point of view of those outside their own personal territories. Believe it or not, the millions of people of Iraq and Afghanistan – the civilians who are just trying to live their lives and who have nothing to do with terrorism – see our government as an invading aggressor (which it is) and for the past ten years they have been trying to defend their lives, families, homes, businesses and sovereignty.

A comparison regarding the self-centered exceptionalists can be made with an entirely unrelated subject, the same-sex marriage issue, which has been in the news again. It is hypocritical of the Republicans and conservatives to object to President Obama’s forbidding private institutions from opting out of the birth control/abortion mandate, while those same opponents support governmental forbiddances of private marital contracts to occur.

Now, if you believe that you own your own life (as opposed to your neighbors’ or the State owning your life), and that you have a right to establish voluntary contracts with anyone else who is also doing so voluntarily, then you have a right to have a marital contract with whomever you want, as long as it’s voluntary, and it’s nobody else’s business.

If it’s none of your neighbors’ business, then it’s none of the government’s business, I like to say.

But if you believe that the State owns you or that your neighbors own you, then you agree with regressive neanderthals that the neighbors and/or the State should have the power to control your private contract-making decisions, and your private relationships and associations. And thus they should dictate to you whom you may or may not marry.

Selfish collectivists and communitarian reactionaries believe in the latter example of collective/State ownership of the individual and one’s private relationships and contracts.

And the same goes for the exceptionalists who believe that they have a right to seize ownership of the lives and property of innocent human beings in Iraq or Iran who have harmed no one. Selfish, narcissistic exceptionalists believe that they have a right to break into the private homes and businesses of foreigners, search and ransack them, and assault, beat, torture and murder their people and get away with it.

That is the primitivism to which America has sunk over the past century, thanks to criminal politicians from Wilson and FDR to Bush and Obama, and the dumbed-down, submissive, gullible and subservient sheeple who support them.

America is characterized now by a severe moral decay and massive, widespread corruption, from banksters and foreclosure fraudsters, to drug-warrior police Nazis on the take, college and high school students and teachers in widespread cheating scandals, FDA and Big Pharma corruption, and TSA perverts and child molesters.

And now, Obama has encouraged local police departments to hire Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans to continue the growing militarization of the police. (It is reassuring that many police departments are only hiring those of lower intelligence levels!) They need their degenerate neanderthal S.W.A.T raids to further terrorize, assault and murder innocent civilians, in order to enforce laws by the nanny State which dictate to private individuals what chemicals they may or may not consume into their own bodies (which the State owns, of course).

And thank goodness Obama has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act that now includes giving the military (and probably any armed agent of government, including local police) the power to arrest and detain indefinitely any civilian American for any reason according to what the President says, without charges, without evidence brought forward against the accused. (I feel safer now.)

It looks like Dick Cheney and Barack Obama have taken some lessons from the new Sharia-ruling Iraqi regime, as well as the repressive Iranian government, on how to treat their own people. But make sure everyone marries only those the government permits you to marry, and make sure that everyone must support and pay for someone else’s abortion.

Degenerates rule America. (Is there any way to correct this situation?)

Why Are Government Bureaucrats Turning America Into Nazi Germany?

February 13, 2012

Copyright © 2013 by LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

I’m sorry to put it in such a crass way, but that is exactly what they are doing. Ever since the September 11th attacks, these power-grabbing scoundrels have been putting policies in place that were planned well before 9/11, searching us, tracking, frisking, scanning, taxing and regulating and spying on us.

The War on Terror and the War on Drugs have a combined effect of really being the government’s war on us, the American people, and a war on freedom. The airport TSA is now spreading over to train stations and bus depots, football stadiums and other public places.

While these non-productive bureaucrats are suggesting that their intrusive, Nazi-like policies are to prevent terrorism, they themselves have been terrorizing the American people, and treating us all like criminal suspects, like prisoners.

The latest are the FBI’s wanting Internet café owners to report on “suspicious” people, and the FBI and DHS wanting other businesses to report on people for behaviors that are really normal behaviors. (See here, here, here, and here.)

Paying for things with cash in Internet cafes or other businesses is seen as “suspicious” now. Other behaviors that are suspicious, according to the FBI and DHS, include believing in “individual liberty,” distrusting “centralized federal authority,” and “supporting political movements for autonomy.” Hey! I believe those things! And I pay for things with cash! But why the hell is the government telling the local police or businesses I patronize that because of those things that I am “suspicious”?

What these schmucks are in fact doing with all this is terrorizing ME! When I go into the store and pay with cash, I have to be concerned now that people there will view me with suspicion or report me to police. Just because of paying with cash!

And I also have a blog, and I’ve written quite a lot of articles, most of which promote “individual liberty,” and which express “suspicion of centralized federal authority” (Gee, I wonder why!), and which promote “autonomy,” and which promote getting rid of the Nazi-like, Soviet-like federal Leviathan altogether and letting each state have its independence and sovereignty, which is the right of all people within any given territorial area to have. THAT makes me “suspicious”!

What I don’t understand is, why are there so few advocates of liberty within the government to fight against this turning of America into Nazi Germany? Oh, sure, there’s Ron Paul, and there’s Rand Paul. But why don’t we who actually love America and who actually want freedom here have any real representation in government?

How could 93 out of 100 U.S. Senators vote to give the President the power to have the military apprehend and detain anyone the President labels a “terrorist” or a criminal, without any evidence against the accused? These imbecilic senators have willfully approved of turning America into a banana republic and have turned the presidency into a dictatorship!

And I can’t believe that so many Americans support this police state fascism. Glenn Greenwald notes that 77% of liberal Democrats approve of President Obama’s drone program, and over 50% of them approve of the use of drone strikes on Americans.

I have written a page listing many articles on how America has turned into a police state. LRC published this article by Eric Peters on how a coward cop pulled a soccer mom out of her car during a normal traffic stop, tasered her, threw her onto the ground and arrested her, right in front of her kids! Among the comments on the YouTube page of the video in Peters’s article, the comment, “you deserve to get tazed, you dumb b***h!” received 35 thumbs up.

That’s 35 future American brownshirts now.

Now, regarding the government’s enlisting of private civilians to spy on each other for the government, such spying now reaches into the financial sector. As Simon Black noted,

In the financial system, there are droves of civilian agencies that have been coerced into becoming government spies. As we discussed a few weeks ago, everyone from bankers to brokers to gold dealers are obliged to submit ‘suspicious activity reports’ to the federal government. They even have minimum quotas.

What’s more, these so-called “SARs” must remain top-secret. It’s a crime for your banker to inform you that you were the subject of a suspicious activity report.

Yesterday, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the federal agency which oversees the legions of unpaid government spies, added a few more businesses to the list. Now non-bank mortgage lenders and originators must ‘assist law enforcement’ by submitting suspicious activity reports.

The comparison to Nazi Germany is not at all an unreasonable one. There were many in Nazi Germany who reported on their neighbors and business associates out of fear of the government. That could very well be a major reason here for one’s betrayals of fellow civilians, such as with those new business requirements mentioned above. When we see all the S.W.A.T. team raids and local police abuse and murders of innocent civilians being shown in the news and discussed on talk shows and on blogs on a daily basis, one can see why there is good reason to fear the government.

It may take a large group of businesspeople to organize themselves as a group in their refusal to help the government spy on its own population.

And it also takes courage. A year ago I wrote about a businessman who was accused by the FBI of a non-crime known as “insider trading,” and who had the courage to stand up to investigators. He was asked to wear a wire when meeting with clients to gather evidence against them, and he not only refused but he emailed his clients to warn them of those FBI “fresh-faced eager beavers.” No, he wasn’t trying to warn them to cover up anything; he was protecting his associates from the government’s illicit entrapment.

However, more recently that individual has been accused of making threatening phone calls to the two FBI agents involved in the case. But, according to the Wall Street Journal, “he made the calls to the FBI agents ‘to force public exposure’ of their ‘criminal activities’ and ‘Constitutional violations.’

“In a follow-up email,” continues the Journal, “(he) said the calls were threatening only ‘to the poor FBI agent’s ego, which of course we know is always hugely inflated.’”

You see, these are the ones with a real sense of honesty and integrity, showing loyalty to their clients and customers of their legitimate, aboveboard businesses, and NOT showing loyalty to dishonest, persecuting government bureaucrats. (Further info on that particular case here and here.)

A business owner who is showing obedience and loyalty to a criminal bureaucracy that is run amok is what loyalists of Nazi Germany were in their reporting others to the Gestapo. It wasn’t always out of fear of the government.

But others in Nazi Germany reported on their neighbors because of petty personal resentments, envy and business partnerships turned sour.

We need to protect ourselves and attempt to restore whatever freedom we might have had in America. We need to turn the tables on these bureaucratic egomaniacs, bimbos and Nurse Ratcheds, these people who act like invading foreigners trying to turn every member of the American population against one another.

Given that the government is implementing these policies that are extremely violating of our liberty and privacy, and interfering with our peace of mind and sense of security as well, it is really these government bureaucrats and all their obedient underlings who are committing criminal acts against the people.

If businesspeople such as bankers and lenders are being coerced by the government to file “suspicious activity” reports, they need to organize themselves and together as an entire group they need to refuse to report on their own customers and clients.

Now, I am not involved in any kind of so-called “insider trading,” or any kind of business, and I have no investments or any real wealth of any kind. And I certainly have never engaged in any actual criminal activity. No, I am just some schlep, but because of what these dumb bureaucrats have been doing to America – turning her into another Nazi Germany, another Soviet communist dictatorship – I am concerned about what government bureaucrats, police or military might do to me, or what my neighbors could do. It really is these government bureaucrats who are the real terrorists.

Rather than this trend of overreaching government arresting and persecuting innocent Americans, and spying on them and tracking their every move without any initial suspicion or due process, perhaps it is time to bring criminal charges against the people who are conniving and concocting these schemes.

Perhaps it is time to charge the heads of FBI and Homeland Security (sic) with inciting criminal mischief in their coercing private businesspeople to spy on and report innocent people for no good reason.

Perhaps it is time to charge them with inciting endangerment, as they are literally endangering the lives of innocent people whose neighbors, mortgage lenders or store cashiers may perceive or misperceive their behaviors in a particular way, or even whose neighbors or associates may hold resentments or want to act out of envy or racist sentiments.

Government bureaucrats are turning America into Nazi Germany, because this trend is only getting worse every day. George W. Bush and Barack Obama will be viewed much later in history as the Presidents who took America down this horrible road.

Currently, Obama is still President, and he has the power to end this trend, and undo this tyranny if he wants to be seen more positively by future generations.

As the DC Central Planners Take America Down in Flames, Maybe NOW People Are Catching On That Central Planning Doesn’t Work

Central planning doesn’t work. It just doesn’t. I hope that soon people will finally take their heads out of the sand and face the truth. And it needs to be ended. Soon. Here are some rather important examples.

This morning I linked to Sheldon Richman’s article, Central Planning at the Federal Reserve. Richman notes that, in addition to the central planning nature of the Fed chairman dictating interest rates which everyone must obediently follow, the Fed is now the central planner in allocating credit.

It is standard operating procedure (though of course illegitimate by free-market standards) for a Fed chairman to inflate the money supply supposedly to provide increased liquidity during an economic crisis. It is then left to the market (distorted, to be sure) to “allocate” the money. What’s new is that under the Bernanke Fed’s self-expanded powers, the central bank is allocating credit to chosen financial institutions, including insolvent rather than merely illiquid ones. That is apparently unprecedented in the United States.

Given that central planners lack the necessary information throughout various markets within an entire given territory — and the U.S. is a huge territory with a population of over 300 million inhabitants — there’s no way they could efficiently allocate, or reallocate (or, perhaps more accurately, “redistribute”) credit to where it actually is needed. And, with this monopoly power that the Fed has, the system inherently enables this monetary central planning institution’s bureaucrats to play favorites, regardless of actual needs. That is because “men are not angels.”

I agree with Sheldon Richman in opposing government control in money, investment, banking and credit, when he notes that “in a society that calls itself free, no one should have such power at his disposal. A free economy leaves savings and investment to the uncoerced choices of individual persons, just as it leaves money and banking to the market.”

Not only is central planning impractical and inefficient, but it is immoral. That is, compulsory central planning, in which an entire population is compelled by law to have to follow the dictates of these (imbecilic, corrupt and criminal) central planners. There are a lot of conservatives who say they oppose central planning, but they nevertheless support the Federal Reserve, because they don’t particularly understand the kind of destruction that such an agency has caused in these nearly 100 years since its inception. And they don’t see that the Fed is an institution of central planning, no different, in my opinion, from Soviet-style central planning.

But where is the moral authority of the federal government to forbid banks from competing in a free market of banking? Or to compel 300 million people in the territory via legal tender laws, to have to use the one government-issued currency, the so-called “dollar,” while outlawing any other competing forms of currency that people might otherwise prefer to use. It is the combination of central planning and centralized dictates from bureaucrats who are far removed from the real world — but who like to have a lot of power over others, that’s for sure — that create the moral hazard. This scheme of government-managed money and banking really is immoral, as well as impractical.

For more information on the illegitimacy and impracticality of central planning in money and banking, please see these articles: Monetary Central Planning and the State by Richard Ebeling, The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard, Taking Money Back by Rothbard, Why the State Demands Control of Money by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

I don’t know why it is so difficult for so many people to see the terrible destruction of central planning. There are many further examples. One is the national health care and insurance problem, that the Left use to seize control over everybody’s private, personal medical and insurance matters, via ObamaCare. What the Left really wants, its ultimate goal, is for a Soviet-like total State control over our medical issues, as well as all other aspects of our personal, private lives.

But for some reason even the Republicans, who want to replace ObamaCare with RepublicanCare, don’t understand that the problems with insurance and the costs of medical care are caused primarily by government interventions in the medical system, with taxation and regulations, licensure, fees, mandates and restrictions. What needs to be done is getting rid of all those interventions, those intrusions, which really are intrusions because they are thefts and trespasses committed by legislators and government bureaucrats who, quite frankly, just like to have a lot of control over a lot of people.

Morally, ethically and economically, everyone has a right to medical freedom. Doctors and patients have a right to establish voluntary associations and contracts that are nobody else’s business but that of those specific individuals. And, like it or not, insurers have a right to voluntary associations and contracts with willing and able consumers, all without compulsion or intrusion by State bureaucrats, and private charities, hospitals, churches and other organizations have a right to provide assistance for those in need (and there should be no HHS, IRS, or other government bureaucrats getting in their way).

For more information and insight on those issues, here are some helpful articles: My own article on Government Medicine vs. Contract and Property Rights, also Subsidizing Sickness by Lew Rockwell, A Four-Step Healthcare Solution by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Medical Control, Medical Corruption by Rockwell, Uncertainty and Its Exigencies: The Critical Role of Insurance in the Free Market by Hoppe, and Rothbard’s critique of Hillary Clinton’s 1993 proposals for government medicine.

The last example of central planning here that I have addressed several times (and will continue to do so) is central planning in national security. Many people don’t realize that the “Defense” bureaucrats in Washington, who are in charge of the security and safety of 300 million Americans, are central planners. The powers that they have, whether instructed by the U.S. Constitution or not, are those of a government monopoly. They have the unchallenged monopoly in territorial protection that is free from any competition, and, as monopolists in security, they are allowed to be above the rule of law (Like the local police, “They are the law,” etc.). And the entire population of 300 million people are compelled by law to have to use their security “services,” without any alternatives allowed; therefore, it is a compulsory monopoly. Has anyone out there ever even thought about that? And as with any other monopolists, especially those whose activities are legally protected from competitive forces, these monopolists are not accountable. That is why they have caused so much trouble.

There are two main problems with this scheme of compulsory monopoly in territorial protection, in my view. One is that this is an institution of central planning. But have these central planners really done any good for us? Look at Vietnam. First, Vietnam was a case of Lyndon Johnson lying his way into war during an election year. (Gulf of Tonkin.) Hmmm. That’s a new one. And then the central planners dug themselves (and us) deeper and deeper into the hole of quagmire, putting America into turmoil.

In 1990, George H.W. Bush started the war against Iraq, a country that had not attacked us. During that war that Bush started, the U.S. military bombed and destroyed Iraqi civilian water and sewage treatment centers, forcing Iraqi civilians to have to use untreated water. And then our central planners’ sanctions and no-fly zones throughout the 1990s prevented materials from being brought to Iraq to repair the damage to Iraq’s civilian infrastructure, and prevented food and medical supplies from being brought in there. All this led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq by the mid 1990s, and another few hundred thousand by the year 2000. It also was a major cause for widespread anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East, and many Americans have no idea about all this, thanks to government schools (another failure of central planning), and they couldn’t understand that this was a main reason the 9/11 terrorists had for their actions on that day. Unfortunately, many people interpreted such conclusions as “blaming America,” when in fact it is our incompetent, corrupt, buffoonish national security central planners who are to blame.

The other main problem with this central planning scheme of compulsory monopoly in territorial protection is human nature (and see Ludwig von Mises’s Human Action on that). When you give professional bureaucrats and politicians that kind of monopolistic control over the lives of 300 million people — we must depend on these clowns to protect us from foreign aggressors with no other choices allowed — it is like giving free toys to kids. The power will go to their heads, and they will want more power. And they will do what they can to expand their powers during their temporary moments in the government playpen. Instead of engaging in peaceful activities and overseeing America while minding their own business, these central planner bureaucrats have been provoking foreigners as a means of justifying these bureaucrats’ further expanded powers, and as a means of justifying ever more powers that they manipulate the citizenry into supporting. What do you think starting wars is going to do? Not provoke foreigners?

So, instead of keeping us safe, the DC bureaucrats’ provocations have been making us less safe, as well as plundering the treasury, making use of the Fed’s monopolistic money-printing powers, and bankrupting the country in the process. And the gullible sheeple continue to believe the lies and propaganda as they support even more war, even more provocations of foreigners, less freedom and more police state at home.

For more information on the destruction of central planning and monopoly in territorial protection, here are some helpful articles: The Production of Security by Gustave de Molinari, Foreign Aggression by Morris and Linda Tannehill, The Private Production of Defense [.pdf] by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, No More Military Socialism and Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy by Rothbard, and my articles on central planning in national security and how the current corporatist scheme is a racket. (And also Gen. Smedley Butler: War Is a Racket.)

The FBI: ALL Americans Are Terrorists!

The American Dream Blog does a thorough job  covering the FBI’s latest demonstration of why we need to abolish government-run schools and privatize it all, as well as get rid of the federal Department of Leviathan Education. But these bureaucrats merely represent the nonsensical thinking on the part of the average American these days, after generations of cumulatively degraded ability to think for oneself and with some common sense.

The FBI wants us to believe that Internet privacy is a sign of “suspicious activity,” and/or one’s being a potential “terrorist.” The American Dream Blog writer gives some examples from the FBI’s latest nonsense, followed by the writer’s own comments:

“Are overly concerned about privacy, attempts to shield the screen from view of others”

Look, if I am doing some online banking or am composing an email to a friend I don’t want someone peeking at my screen.  Aren’t most Americans “concerned about privacy” and don’t most people want to keep their Internet activity to themselves?

“Always pay cash or use credit card(s) in different name(s)”

We have seen the government warn about this before.  It appears that from now on using cash in America is going to get you labeled as a potential terrorist.  How bizarre is that?

“Act nervous or suspicious behavior inconsistent with activities”

Some people are just naturally nervous.  This kind of vague language could be applied to almost anyone.

“Are observed switching SIM cards in cell phone or use of multiple cell phones”

What if your cell phone battery is dead and you need to use your wife’s cell phone?  Does that make you a potential terrorist?

“Travel illogical distance to use Internet Café”

A lot of times people will use Internet cafes when they are out of town on a trip.  Is there something inherently suspicious about that?

“Evidence of a residential based internet provider (signs on to Comcast, AOL, etc.)”

“Evidence of a residential based internet (sic) provider”? So if I have a residential based Internet provider, that makes me “suspicious”? A “terrorist”? I think that whoever would write something like that either isn’t paying attention to what he or she is doing, or is on drugs, or perhaps may even be retarded, I don’t know.

But during all this “War on Terror” stuff, since George W. Bush started such a “war,” and started two military wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the real terrorists have been our government, as they force travelers to either go through cancer-scanners or get groped and raped at the airport (and now at other places, including train depots and subways, bus terminals and the NFL).

And these dangerous bureaucrats want people to report their neighbors for acting “suspiciously,” they want hotels to report their guests to the government. If anything is an example of terrorism, it is this **** from the U.S. government.

And now our disgusting U.S. Congress has given the president permission to indefinitely detain ANYONE he wants, or anyone some military soldier or general or bureaucrat says should be detained, without EVIDENCE against the accused, while denying the accused and detained access to legal counsel or one’s right to a trial.

Rather than turning what used to be a great place to live, what used to be a free country, into a third world banana republic police state dictatorship, if these damn bureaucrats want to prevent terrorism, they should stop invading and occupying and trespassing on foreign lands and murdering foreigners, which they have been doing for decades upon decades with no end in sight, and stop PROVOKING the damn foreigners! You see, the sheeple all across America have no clue that that is what our government has been doing all this time, not just since 9/11 but for decades before that, because they are products of government-controlled schools, and hypnotized by our degenerate culture now, and they get their news from the drugged-up and brain-dead stenographers of the MSM.

America wasn’t meant to be a third world banana republic police state dictatorship, you know.

America Has Severely Degenerated, Morally, Economically, Culturally, and Socially

There are several articles in the news and in the blogosphere that are showing quite clearly just how much America has degenerated as a society.

Ryan McMaken posts on the LewRockwell blog that conservatives cheer the abduction and theft of children of so-called “illegal immigrant” parents, as the government terrorizes these innocent families. Here is that news story.

But I thought that conservatives were “pro-family,” and didn’t like the idea of the government kidnapping children and breaking up families (for example, in the name of “Child Protective Services,” etc.).

As Jacob Hornberger has pointed out, just as he has in the past, one of the big reasons we have an immigration problem is that immigration into the U.S. is controlled by the federal government. Perhaps if conservatives understood that this is an example of socialist central planning, they might not support such controls, and instead support property rights, economic freedom and the rule of law.

I have already pointed out that this issue is another example of the true communist nature of today’s conservatives. But they are by and large collectivists and exclusionists. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe observed, the right of exclusion is a private property right, not a collective, communitarian right. The conservatives believe in collective, communistic ownership of an entire territory and everything within, and they believe that the majority of a community may claim ownership and control over private property and businesses and they have the right to force exclusion to outsiders, against the will of “private” property and business owners. But this is yet another example of the moral, social and economic degeneracy of America.

Paul Joseph Watson writes on Infowars that the arrogant buffoons of the U.S. government are implicitly warning Iran that if Iran retaliates against an Israeli strike against them, the U.S. military will then get involved and do to Iran what they did to Iraq. Usually, “conservatives” cheer someone’s right of self-defense. When you are attacked by an aggressor, you have a right to use force to protect and defend yourself. Unfortunately, because America has degenerated so much, not just morally and culturally, but intellectually as well, the people who have been cheering on the U.S. government’s aggressions abroad over the past 20 years have been engaging in primitive intellectual rationalization to justify those aggressions against others. In their 21st Century primitive narcissism, the war supporters cannot understand the perspective of the targets of their government’s aggression, and instead have devalued those murdered foreign civilians, and perceive the victims’ retaliations as acts of “terrorism.” The Amerikan barbarians will treat their Iranian victims the same way. The U.S. and British Empires have a history with Iran.

To reinforce the American mindset of rationalization and primitivism, many people have been believing the U.S. government’s propaganda, from Iraq to Afghanistan to Iran. Well, if you really believe that Iran wants to “wipe Israel off the map” knowing full well that if they did anything it is THEY who would get the wiping off, then I have a bridge to sell you. But the sheeple believe the government’s propaganda that these Muslim people are “suicidal.” Some of them are, but so are some Americans, particularly in the military.

Another propagandistic message is that the Iranians are the “aggressors,” merely for possessing weapons for self-defense. Well, what would you do if you were completely surrounded by nukes, by many U.S. military bases and knowing that Israel (in its grossly pathological paranoid state) has hundreds of nukes? Many people actually think that in 1991 Iraq started the Persian Gulf War against the U.S., and that Iraq started the 2003 war against the U.S. That is thanks to government propagandists and their subservient media stenographers, and, of course, government-controlled schools.

But getting back to this arrogant message of “we attack you and you not fight back.” Bizarrely, it is the conservatives who say they believe in the right of people to self-defense. In our backwards, degenerated society now, the aggressors who attack people can sue if they get hurt when their victims retaliate, and the homeowner gets arrested and charged with assault or murder if the burglar, home invader or rapist gets hurt or killed.

The American Dream Blog has this post on how America is going insane. (How could we believe otherwise?) The writer points out that the country as a whole has been “dumbed down.” Many people think that is because of government control over education. The U.S. had a solid #1 ranking worldwide in education, but that started to decline since the federal Department of Education began thirty years ago. (Thanks, Jimma.) All Ronald Reagan had to do was to get rid of that unconstitutional department as promised, but he didn’t do it. What a wimp. Education has declined ever since.

The problem really began during the mid-19th century when the Progressive and anti-Catholic statists began to legislate intrusions into the private educational matters of private families. They “socialized” the concept of learning and that primarily has been what has crushed the critical thinking abilities and analytical skills of Americans. The education fascists love the centralization of everything and oppose localization, local control. They especially do not like the idea of a private family home-schooling the kids, and they have turned the government schools into prisons. No wonder Amerikans have been supporting sleazebag liars such as Willard Romney and Newt Gingrich. Guided mostly by emotion and not rational thought, so many gullible people believe that Romney is a “capitalist” and that he believes in “free markets,” regardless how much he raised taxes and fees in Massachusetts and knowing that he still supports his government-controlled health program, RomneyCareless. And many people are still emotionally fixated on this idea of American Exceptionalism which Romney uses quite a lot to manipulate the voters’ emotions.

The American Dream Blog writer also points out that the “terrorist watch list” has over a million names on it. Only in Amerika. And the writer points out that many people can get their names permanently on that list (including from anonymous tips). In my opinion, only dumb people support all this “If You See Something, Say Something,” and reporting of your neighbors who act “suspiciously.” To some people, expressing disagreement with ObamaCareless, or expressing support for Ron Paul is “suspicious.” I wouldn’t be surprised now if there are many people who understand where this nonsense leads who are scared to death of their neighbors and just don’t talk to people anymore out of fear that a false “tip” could happen to them.

And because of how barbaric and Nazi-like our local police have become, many people who are just going about their lives minding their own business are terrified of the police. What happened to people in America that has caused such small-sized tyrants and terrorists on our local police forces, and in the TSA for that matter? Why do so many of them act like Nazis? Why do they act like they are angry at you for just standing there, or, if you ask them why they are asking a personal question that is none of their business, why do they then accuse you of being “disorderly” or “insubordinate,” or of being a criminal? (Can the police station psychiatrist prescribe them Xanax?)

Yes, America has degenerated into Amerika. Many people now are afraid of their government. Many people fear the police. The people amongst the masses are viewed by many in government and the police as criminals, when in fact it is these government agents who have been committing the real crimes against the people. From illicit laws that persecute innocent people for engaging in activities that harm no one, and the police enforcing those illicit laws with a vengeance, to the police, TSA, DHS and military committing acts of violence against their fellow Americans and against foreigners, as well as against immigrants who thought they were coming to America for freedom and opportunity.

Amerika, the society of degenerates, with governments instituted for some people who get off on committing acts of aggression against others, and get away with it.

It’s depressing.

Economic Freedom, Not Economic Slavery, Is the Only Way Out of America’s Current Crisis

A few days ago I had this response to Paul Craig Roberts’s article, in which Roberts called on Ron Paul to compromise by supporting policies such as minimum wage and other regulations as a meas of attracting more people from the Left. I stated that Ron Paul won’t compromise on such policies which he knows are economically unsound as well as immoral, and I called on the Left to do the compromising. And I also included a list of books with online editions and articles online for people to read to learn more about why freedom and free markets contribute far more to economic growth and prosperity than do government intrusions, and in fact freedom and free markets are more ethical and moral as well.

Here are some additional comments on why the Left (and everyone else) should oppose a regulated economy just as much as they oppose governmental intrusions into their personal lives.

One thing that those who support more regulations of private businesses don’t understand is that, the more regulations (that is, arbitrary rules, mandates and dictates given by government bureaucrats) there are, the more power you are giving to the armed agents of government to enforce those regulations, be they local police, FBI, SEC, FTC, etc. Just look at what Gibson Guitar had to endure, with S.W.A.T. team raids and government theft of the company’s property, and what Rawsome Foods suffered at the hands of the bureaucracy police because some people happen to prefer raw milk rather than the chemical-laden crap we buy at the local grocer.

This fascism of bureaucracy is only getting worse, as that is what can be expected when you abandon the ideas of individual rights, property rights and the rule of law, which is exactly what before-the-fact, presumption-of-guilt arbitrary government regulations, bureaucratic red tape and reporting requirements do. And this applies to the financial sector as well. There is no need for a psychopathic, fanatically bureaucratized, Soviet-like Dodd-Frank monstrosity, when all you really have to do is go by the rule of law.

For the financial crisis that we have had to endure in recent years, if there were actual free markets in banking, financing and housing, and no government mandates and bailouts, and under the rule of law that actually punishes theft and fraud, we would not have the problems our society has now. Some people on blogs and in articles recently have been calling such a situation (a situation that would be approved of by Thomas Jefferson et al. were they around today, by the way) “utopian,” but it actually is those who are calling for more and more nanny-state regulations and intrusions who are the utopians, as though the never-ending growth in regulations and intrusions that treat the population like babies and like criminals in their obedience to dumb, non-productive bureaucrats will finally solve problems.

No, Dodd-Frank and other intrusions calls for more bureaus and more bureaucrats, and gives more power to more police, FBI, and so on. With cases like Rawsome Foods and Gibson Guitars, and various “insider trading” laws and other made-up “crimes,” it only gives the armed agents of government more excuses to get off on their power trips in their raids and their more recent Nazi-like tactics. The police state that we have now isn’t just evident with the ‘Occupy’ movement, traffic fascism and the education system, but with all sorts of businesses in which people are just trying to make a living and have a right to be left alone and a right to be presumed innocent until actually suspected of some actual crime.

Further, the more regulations you have, and the more costly and intrusive they are, the more damaging they are economically to smaller businesses and those just starting out in their fields, and just plain discouraging of those who were merely considering entering the business world. And the more protective such regulations are of the more established businesses who can afford the extra lawyers, lobbyists, and, of course, those campaign contributions for the Congresspeople to vote for legislation to restrict smaller businesspeople and entrepreneurs, and that will help those established businesses in protecting their high profits.

Besides the police state that further regulations enhance, and the government-protectionism of established businesses, on a more fundamental level it is a matter of rights. Individuals have a right to live and right to liberty, and have a right to be free from the aggression and intrusion of others. This means more specifically that individuals have a right “to be secure” in their persons, property and effects from intrusions by others. People have a right to own their own lives, and that includes the right to own their labor, the energy and effort they themselves exert in order to be productive. The individual is the initial rightful owner of one’s labor, until one trades one’s labor with an employer, a customer or client in a mutually-beneficial, voluntary contract.

For some reason, some people seem to think that your labor is initially owned by your community in which you live or by the collective or the population in general. Those are the people who believe that the individual is owned by the collective and exists to serve the collective’s needs. However, the truth is that such a destructive philosophy, on which many of our current “laws” and regulations are based, is directly violating of the rights of the individual: the right of self-ownership, the right to be secure in one’s person, property and effects, and the right to use one’s own labor and productivity as one sees fit to sustain one’s own life.

People have a right to establish voluntary contracts with others, and those contracts are private contracts and they are only the business of those parties involved in such contracts. That applies to employer-employee contracts, private contractors dealing with clients, sales people dealing with customers, etc. For some reason, there are people who don’t like the idea of that kind of freedom, that kind of voluntaryism amongst free, consenting individuals, and that such contracts are really owned by the community and that the community has a right to know what the terms of private contracts are and even have a right to demand specific terms of contracts. And they believe that they have a right to a certain take on those contracts and/or profits from any transactions (via the State). But such demands, such takings are really intrusions into those contracts of others, and really amount to acts of trespass and theft (via the State).

There is also the idea of the government demanding information from you regarding your personal life or your economic life. This demanding of private information comes from the idea that people are guilty until they prove themselves innocent by allowing such governmental intrusions. That goes against the idea of presumption of innocence and the right to be secure in one’s person, property and effects. Intrusions are trespasses. Remember, if it’s wrong for your neighbors to intrude in your private affairs, then it’s wrong for the government to do so.

I know, a lot of people have been indoctrinated for generations and generations to believe otherwise, but no, if you believe in the rule of law, and you believe in true justice and living in a peaceful society, you have to decide whether only some acts of trespass and theft should be considered criminal, or whether all such acts are criminal. Unfortunately, our society has allowed the community and the State to encroach themselves into private people’s private personal and economic matters, in the name of this or that, when in reality, these intrusions are just institutionalized criminality. And at the same time, we have laws upon laws upon laws that make up phony crimes, in which people minding their own business are persecuted by their neighbors via government and police. Amerika has become an inside out, upside down world of a bizarre Orwellian nature.

Now, I would like to address this ignorant ideology of “soak the rich.” For some reason, some people seem to think that an individual’s right to one’s life and self-ownership, including the right to sell one’s labor and property as one sees fit, and the right to the fruits of one’s labor and the right to one’s justly acquired property, become diminished rights the more wealth one has. That is, for example, if someone accumulates $100,000, then one has less of a right to that wealth than someone who has accumulated $1,000. And that the neighbors or the community has a right or ought to be empowered to take more of the first individual’s wealth then the second individual’s wealth.

So the more wealth one honestly accumulates, the less he actually owns it and the more the community, one’s neighbors, can claim ownership of it? No, that just goes against the concept of a society forbidding aggression, and against the moral principles of private property and the rule of law. Just who are the neighbors to make a claim on that wealth without the consent of the owner? What’s the difference between those neighbors claiming such wealth via government force and those people just stealing it themselves by force? A society that says that some taking of private property is allowed by law is a society that is doomed to degenerate morally, and that is what we have today.

There is a control freakishness of some people in society, in which they must give orders and make demands on others, to reveal personal information and to open up bank accounts and businesses to government snoopers, and there are those control freaks who are just compelled to forcibly enter the private homes and businesses of others, this need to be intrusive. There is a covetousness of some people who must have what others have and take it from them by force. All these trespasses and thefts have had their rationalizations throughout the decades, but they are still thefts and trespasses, and it is still covetousness, regardless how it is rationalized.

“But, it’s for the poor,” etc. Actually, it has been these government mandates, regulations, reporting requirements, fees, licensure, minimum wage laws, union protectionism, etc. that have been stealing from the poor, stealing their opportunities by restricting their entering into the work force or from starting a small business, and so forth. It’s not “for the poor,” it’s for the government bureaucrats, and to protect the Establishment.

I hope that Ron Paul does not compromise on his principles of morality, private property, freedom of association and freedom of contract as Paul Craig Roberts requests of him on behalf of getting more votes from the Left. What we need is more freedom. Freedom begets economic prosperity and higher standard of living for the most number of people in a society.

American Exceptionalists Love their Primitive Secular State Theocracy

January 30, 2012

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

At a recent debate when Ron Paul mentioned the “Golden Rule,” that we should treat foreigners as we should be treated, he was booed by a number of people in the audience. This happened at a previous debate. At that previous debate, Paul further questioned how we would like it if a foreign government invaded and occupied the U.S. and set up its military bases here.

How can so many people (and so many popular radio talk hosts and their listeners) condemn the suggestion that everyone must be equal under the rule of law?

The myth of American exceptionalism is that the U.S. is an example of moral progress, peace and prosperity for the rest of the world to follow. But that has not been the case during most of America’s existence.

Perhaps America was somewhat exceptional at its founding, when the ideas of the rights of the individual and private property were taken seriously. But when a Constitution, which limited the rights of the individual and empowered a centralized government, was written and ratified, that was really the end of such moral exceptionalism.

The Founders had the right idea, but the statists, centralists and fraudsters took control, and that was the end of that.

The societal and moral advancement that the Founders took from the Enlightenment has tended to regress backwards, as America’s federal government continually expanded in size and intrusiveness, and its actions overseas became more primitively aggressive.

The moral degeneracy of America escalated considerably when Honest Abe Lincoln waged a brutal and immoral war against civilians in order to compel the population into a life of enslavement by central planners. Woodrow Wilson unnecessarily extended World War I, which contributed to the rise of Hitler. FDR’s New Deal really was the final nail in the coffin for whatever freedom there was remaining in America.

In foreign affairs, for the past century the reality of American exceptionalism has been this: that our government may interfere in the internal affairs of foreign nations, may place its governmental apparatus and military bases on other peoples’ territories, may commit acts of aggression, murder, and property destruction, and get away with it through rationalization and propaganda – but other governments may not do that on our lands or do those things to our people.

American exceptionalism is the belief that our government need not be accountable under the rule of law, while we hold foreigners accountable.

Regarding the current “War on Terror,” yes, real terrorists attacked America on September 11, 2001. But when our government then invades and destroys whole countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, then you should logically expect the targeted innocent foreigners to defend their territories.

One thing that America’s government-controlled schools (both public and private) have accomplished over the past century is the suppression of critical thinking skills. Instead, because the people have allowed the almighty State and its media stenographers and propagandists so much influence and intrusion into the entire education system, the result has been generations of people with an instilled unquestioned loyalty to the State theocracy.

Because of this, America has become increasingly authoritarian and restrictive in its liberty to the point of the police state and non-sustainable, bankrupting empire we currently suffer. Those who question The Powers That Be are themselves stigmatized and marginalized, and in some cases, punished and persecuted. Americans have been cheering their government’s illicit aggressions overseas, and booing those who stand for the Golden rule and the rule of law.

In fact, some of the same people who have been supporting the U.S. government’s immoral aggressions overseas have been those preaching the loudest about “Christian moral values.” Sorry, but when one supports one’s government invading other countries that were of no threat to us, one’s preaching of Christian morality is just hypocrisy.

And when people assert Americans’ right to defend America against invaders, yet refer to foreigners who defend their own lands, their lives and their families from invaders and occupiers as “terrorists,” no wonder Christianity and moral values have declined in America.

The narcissism of modern State worship is such that, when the exceptionalists assert that the U.S government must have a “presence” on foreign lands, it is as though they view those lands as theirs, just like a possessive child would do. It seems more like covetousness, if you ask me.

No, the narcissistic exceptionalists, who pray to the democratic god of the secular State, seem to believe that their government may commit acts of aggression against foreigners, but not the other way around. Praise the almighty State, as it can do no wrong.

Former Senator and current presidential candidate Rick Santorum seems to be one of those more outspoken worshipers of the State and its aggressive expansion overseas. Santorum even believes in the central planning of the almighty State domestically, in the social area.

Santorum wants to use the armed police apparatus of the State to impose his own personal social views onto the rest of the population, much like the Islamists that he ironically criticizes for wanting to impose their Sharia Law onto others.

If we don’t behave in our private lives as Santorum and his beloved almighty State order us to do, then we are infidels, apparently.

And I heard another American exceptionalist recently, Sean Hannity, express total cluelessness in his pushing the anti-Iran fearmongering that is being used to start yet another unnecessary, counter-productive war. In arguing with a caller, Hannity was saying that (and I am paraphrasing) he merely wanted to prevent mass violence and bloodshed that could be prevented by forcibly removing Iran’s nuclear capability. Hannity was referring primarily to protecting Israel (despite the fact that Israel has a few hundred nuclear warheads and Iran knows this).

So regarding the possibility of mass bloodshed, Hannity has apparently been oblivious to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis throughout the 1990s, killed by U.S. government violence and sanctions, and the further hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis since the U.S. government’s 2003 invasion.

Because of reliance on mainstream news outlets and talk radio for their brainwashing information, most people don’t even know recent history, and they therefore don’t seem to understand Ron Paul’s point about “blowback.”

When dissidents openly criticize the State, its intrusions and its violence, the faithful seem intensely threatened, as though they have been personally harmed. The dissidents must be booed and ostracized, even though here Ron Paul is the one with the sense of morality and he is the one who believes that our government must be accountable under the rule of law as others must be.

But as our society gradually degenerated over the past century in its abandonment of moral values and the rule of law, it should be of no surprise now that the exceptionalists have no problem with their primitive priests of the almighty State apprehending and detaining someone without charges, without even being required to show evidence against the accused, as agents in an advanced society would have to do. The exceptionalists have faith in their beloved State (until they find themselves falsely accused and unlawfully detained, of course).

The religion of State has shown its ugliness with the Bradley Manning whistleblower case. Many people have reacted emotionally to this case, and with much ignorance, that’s for sure. It is as though whistleblower critics have been on a medieval witch hunt with the Manning case.

This young soldier allegedly released “classified” information to WikiLeaks. But, if the chat logs are legitimate, Manning’s motivations were not on behalf of any foreign government, financial interest or any element hostile to America.

On the contrary, Manning’s motive was out of love for his country, and to expose the corruption of our government’s imbecilic bureaucrats and expose the military’s war crimes. If anything were un-American, it would be covering up those crimes.

And despite the government’s hysterical propaganda, the truth is that the release of the classified information probably could not have caused any harm to any U.S. soldier overseas or to any American at home.

Some critics of Manning and WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange have been calling for their imprisonment or death. That is because the critics’ loyalty just doesn’t seem to be as much to their country as it seems to be to the government, the almighty State.

That is what our sick culture has become: an authoritarian theocracy with total rule over us. The Total State seems to be what the primitive-thinking narcissists want, and that is why so many people cheer the State, cheer its wars and the deaths of foreigners, and that is why they boo the ideas of freedom, personal responsibility and accountability under the rule of law.

With our authoritarian culture now, we are definitely surrounded – not by Muslims, but by the almighty criminal State, by federal, state and local government Gestapo bureaucrats.

And we are doomed unless we reverse course – and that means chopping away at the many, many layers of Leviathan, the bureaucracies, the foreign bases and the domestic camps, chopping away until we finally are able to restore the freedom the founders envisioned when they created America.

Don’t Ask Ron Paul to Compromise His Principles – The Left Can Compromise Too, You Know

Paul Craig Roberts has been writing some of the best articles in recent months in defense of government transparency and the truth, and in criticism of government and corporate corruption, criminality and cover-ups. Here are his article archives at LewRockwell.com.

But in his latest column, a further endorsement for Ron Paul as America’s last hope, he calls for Ron Paul to compromise on some basic principles in order to win progressives over. Even that isn’t necessary, because many on the Left are realizing how awful Obama has been on civil liberties, especially with his pushing and then signing into law the unlawful, immoral police-state indefinite detention bill, and what a warmonger Obama has been.

But I do not believe that Dr. Paul will compromise on the issues of government regulation, social welfare legislation, and environmentalism that Dr. Roberts brings up. And it is unfortunate that, in his realistic view of principled libertarians who won’t compromise, Roberts concludes the essay with the statement that “Libertarians will be pure to the end and take the Constitution and the rest of us down with them.”

First, I have read several blogs of the Left in which people praise Ron Paul for his pro-peace and pro-civil liberties positions but say they would have a hard time voting for him because of his economic views. Actually, I think it is these people on the Left who are the “purists,” as it is THEY who will not compromise in order to vote for someone — the ONLY one — who will close the bloated foreign military bases and bring all the troops home, and who will restore our civil liberties that the fascist-police-staters in Washington have thrown out the window.

The uncompromising leftists are not willing to vote for someone they KNOW will address those most important issue, and ASAP. The other economic issues that Dr. Roberts mentioned are actually less important and they can actually wait for now. Dr. Roberts also didn’t mention how Ron Paul is supportive of the progressives and the ‘Occupy’ movement when it comes down to making the big banks and the fraudsters accountable and ending the idea of tax-funded welfare for the banksters. Even Obama is bought and paid for by the banksters!

It actually is asking a LOT of a candidate such as Ron Paul to compromise and say he will support more (counter-productive) regulations and more (unemployment-causing) government-compulsory wage and price controls in order to get more votes. But it actually isn’t asking too much for voters to look at the issues that are most crucially important at this time and to vote accordingly.

After all, if we look at the character of all the candidates out there, and even all the past candidates, which person do you actually trust the most? Who is the one who won’t be on the take for this or that special interest group, or this or that corporate contributor? Which candidate actually wants us to have our freedom?

Now, it is unfortunate that on those economic issues on which people disagree with Ron Paul, a lot of people just happen to be ignorant of actual history and economics. I’m sure that Dr. Roberts has probably read much of Ron Paul’s writing, as well as that of Murray Rothbard et al. But I doubt very much that most people on the Left have even heard of the ideas about which Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises have written, and I doubt that very many people have read or heard of accurate accounts of historical events in American history other than the false accounts they’ve been spoon-fed by biased teachers and their biased textbooks, as well as by the State-stenographers of the mainstream media and pop culture.

So I am going to post links here to articles and books that people can read so that they will understand the actual truths of what real liberty is. The bottom line: It is freedom that has contributed to the most prosperity and the highest standard of living for the most number of people in a society, and it has been the State that kills it.

The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray Rothbard

Outlawing Jobs, by Rothbard

Wall Street Couldn’t Have Done It Alone, by Sheldon Richman

The Minimum Wage Protects the Rich, by Jacob Hornberger

Making Economic Sense, by Murray Rothbard

Free Banking and Contract Law, by Ludwig von Mises

How Unions Scheme to Keep Black Americans Out of High-Paying Jobs, by Walter Williams

America’s Great Depression, by Murray Rothbard

The Clean Water Act vs. Clean Water, by Rad Geek

Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution, by Rothbard

The Socialist Bailout of Wall Street, by Jacob Hornberger

“Living Wage” Kills Jobs, by Thomas Sowell

The Case Against the Fed, by Murray Rothbard

Future of Freedom Foundation articles on Environmentalism

Future of Freedom Foundation articles on Social Security

FFF articles on Regulation Policy and Welfare

FFF articles on Taxation

The Moral Case for Drug Freedom, by Laurence Vance

Trying to Make Sense of Santorum’s Irrational Lawless Authoritarianism

Here is a quote by Rick Santorum that has been referred to quite a lot on the Internet:

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture

But the hypocrisy is extreme with Rick Santorum, who constantly speaks about the “War on Radical Islam” or on “jihadism,” even though he’s the one on the religious crusade. He is right there along with the other neocons who are warning us that the Islamists are trying to spread their religious repression and Sharia Law, and that “they want to kill us,” yet Santorum has been supporting these wars, U.S. government invasions and occupations over the past ten years that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, mainly in Iraq. And he is the one who wants to use the government and police to force his social and cultural views down other people’s throats.

As I have pointed out, the warmongers of the past 20 years — the neoconservatives — who started two wars against Iraq (1991, 2003), and one in Afghanistan as well as several unofficial wars, are not really “right-wingers,” because their ideal of “reshaping the Middle East in our image” is a socialist, central-planning ideal, and is therefore on the left. They are collectivists who either are hostile to or just do not understand the concepts of individual liberty, natural rights (to life, liberty and property, etc.), property rights, voluntary association and voluntary contracts, and especially, the rule of law.

In his strong anti-individualism, anti-natural rights feelings and his wanting to have a Big Leviathan Government empowered to make rules regarding how individuals must live in their private lives, Santorum therefore is not a “right-winger,” but a left-winger. That is because, as I noted in the above linked post, individualism, private property and voluntary exchange are on the right, while collectivism and all its forms such as statism, communism, socialism, etc. are on the left. Santorum is a collectivist because he strongly opposes the very ideas and principles of individualism upon which America was founded, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and many other writings of the Founders and American Revolutionaries.

And it’s not as though he is saying the things he’s been saying just to get votes (as opposed to Willard Romney, who has no strong views or principled stands on anything). Santorum really believes strongly in his collectivism, and his wanting to use the armed police powers of government to intrude into other people’ private lives as well as invade and occupy the territories of foreigners. I hope people are beginning to understand the relationship between anti-individual freedom central planners (Santorum’s culture war collectivism, “progressives’” anti-traditional values culture war central planning in schools, etc.) and the government-interventionist foreign policy central planners. Santorum is a dangerous collectivist and statist with the both domestic and foreign policy intrusions he craves.

Here is the hypocrisy of Santorum’s anti-”radical individualism,” which some conservatives tend to view as “self-centered” or accusing people of “self-worship.” They just can’t see how they themselves are very “self-oriented” and narcissistic in their policies of intrusion into the lives of others. The “libertarianish right,” in contrast, tends to view the individual as having rights to life and liberty, and the right to live one’s life however one pleases, as long as one does not interfere with the same rights of others to live as they want to live. That is not Santorum’s view at all. He wants to have his way of life, but he wants to use armed force of government to force others to live in his particular way, just as the so-called “Islamists” about which Santorum warns us. This is an extreme, aggressive form of self-centeredness, a total disregard for the lives and rights of other human beings. The collectivists are much more “selfish” in their agendas than individualists.

That is why the Santorum authoritarians and collectivists do not believe in the rule of law, in which The Law is there to protect the individual, one’s person and property from the aggression of others. In contrast, Santorum wants to use the armed apparatus of “law enforcement” to impose his way of life onto others, i.e. to commit acts of aggression against others’ persons and property, the opposite of protecting others from aggression.

And then there is the idea of authority. Santorum collectivists and statists are authoritarians. They do not believe in the right of an individual to have authority over one’s own life. The authoritarians believe in a paternalistic authoritarian government. (Another aspect of the Nanny State War on Drugs.) The Santorum collectivists seem to say they believe in God, but really, quite frankly, their god is government, the State. Or perhaps a merger of God and State. Now, I am an individualist who believes in individual freedom, but I don’t exactly “worship” myself as the conservatives tend to accuse individualists of doing. I merely have a sense of self-respect. I do believe in God or Superior Intelligent Being who created human life and everything else around here. In fact, as long as I’m going back to past posts, here is something I said about that back in 2009:

Recently, there have been criticisms by people in the news media of conservatives’ “listening tour,” with the pundits bringing up the old creation vs. evolution debate. They are constantly labeling those who believe in God or a creator as knuckle-dragging, flat-Earth-thinking Neanderthals. Most people who believe that we were created by a superior being or beings also believe that we were products of evolution from earlier life forms, and gradually over a period of centuries, millennia, etc. It’s just as each individual evolves from conception to birth to adulthood to death.

One may ask the critics of creationism how exactly humans formed, with the heart the way that works and the brain and how it functions, and so on. Is their answer that it all came about by total randomness, with particles and matter and chemicals coming together and developing the means of life on their own? What are the chances of our heart and entire circulatory system being the results of spontaneous events and randomness? Just look at how every part of us works, and how everything functions, and all working together. Look at the eyes and how complex the optic nerve is, communicating visual messages to the brain. It’s all coincidental?

All these biological facts of existence and their complexity really should be seen as evidence that we were created, because the odds of being the results of such randomness are so great, you’d have to believe in that randomness as a matter of faith.

Unlike the Santorium collectivists and authoritarians, while I believe that God (or Superior Intelligent Being) created human life, I don’t believe that God has any particular agenda for us to follow. We already have free will (which the Santorum authoritarians and collectivists don’t believe in, because they believe in State force and dictates), and I believe in that free will, and that things were not “God’s will,” and so on. Our culture has declined not because of “radical individualism,” as Santorum describes it, but because of the Santorum religious collectivists and central planners, and from the FDR New Dealers and Wilson “make-the-world-safe-for-democracy” expansionists to the Bush-Cheney-Obama “remaking-the-Middle-East” leftists.

Another recommended way of understanding all this is Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book, Democracy, the God That Failed. And in his article, Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy, Hoppe notes the idea of time preferences, and the post-World War I period when private government ownerships (as in monarchies) were completely replaced by public government ownerships (as in democracies), which were characterized by present-orientedness and government exploitation. In modern governments, the temporary caretakers exploit whatever public government resources they can while they still can.

We can see how in the past century selfishness and immediate-gratification have been the traits of our declined culture. After 9/11, the Cheney-Bush central planners exploited to a maximum whatever fears Americans experienced after that day, as a means of implementing police state policies and starting wars that had already been planned well in advance. They rushed through policies to further strengthen and expand the power of the centralized Leviathan U.S. government, for these non-productive professional bureaucrats to gratify themselves with power-grabs and for their corporate sponsors to further enrich themselves at taxpayer expense as well.

So the present-orientedness, immediate-gratification exploitation of publicly-owned government isn’t just from the Obommunist Left welfare statists. It has also been, especially in these past 20 years, from the Cheney-Bush-Santorum warmongers and corporatist military-security-industrial complex who have been starting all these wars and provoking foreigners as a means of expanding the federal government as much as possible to shake down the workers and producers of America while these people still temporarily have their access into the public trough.

And now we have a police state that is expanding each day and becoming more and more oppressive. So, it is not we individualists (the ones who believe in non-aggression, individual liberty and private property) who are the cause of the cultural decline and loss of liberty. Right along with the Obama-Pelosi-Clinton-Kennedy leftists, the Santorum collectivist authoritarians and Cheney-Bush foreign aggressors and police-staters have all been the true moral relativists of our time.

Homeschooling in USSA Amerika

Author Tom Woods had this post regarding the chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, who believes that Ron Paul is a bad choice for homeschoolers, based on differing views of states’ rights and Constitutional reasonings. Woods provides a rebuttal by history professor Kevin Gutzman. I disagree with the Constitutional arguments of all these people, including Ron Paul.

To begin, I think that reliance on a central government’s constitution for protection of our rights has been a lost cause. The U.S. Constitution may have a “Bill of Rights,” but it doesn’t protect our liberty. It empowers a central government, and such a document and such a centralized governmental apparatus will always grow once they have been initiated. It was doomed to be that way from the beginning because that is what happens with the institutionalizing of a compulsory, centralized territorial monopoly. And this homeschooling issue, along with the drug war and the so-called War on Terror that the government created to further empower itself, are all part of the same problem.

Regarding the homeschooling issue, for the time being — that is, until the impending collapse of the system and subsequent decentralization process that will occur — at least Dr. Paul considers the Tenth Amendment as an available means for homeschooling parents to protect themselves from the overreach of federal bureaucrats. However, given how inherently flawed and destructive the U.S. Constitution has been, and how hostile the Supreme Court has been to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Dr. Paul’s wanting, according to Gutzman, “citizens to work (these matters)  out in their respective states through ordinary state-level republican politics,” would be just as destructive to homeschooling freedom.

But how are families to protect themselves from overreaching local government intruders who invade families’ homes and private matters that are none of the bureaucrats’ business? Go to the state supreme courts or the U.S. Supreme Court? I interpret Dr. Paul’s view on homeschooling as similar to his view with the issue of drug criminalization or legalization, in which Paul wants to let the states via state governments have control over those issues (which means that if one state wants to throw people in a cage for ingesting a particular chemical, i.e. seizing control over an individual’s ownership of one’s body, that’s okay). With the homeschooling issue, as with other educational matters, there seems to be a struggle over who controls the child’s education (and the child in general, as a matter of fact), the parents or the community at large and its compulsory government.

Here is the real issue, regarding homeschooling: Who has higher authority over your kids (including their educational matters), you? Or the State? This should be a no-brainer. When you allow government bureaucrats to order you to disclose how or where you educate your children, and when you submit to a government bureaucrat’s order to educate your kids in some particular way that bureaucrats approve of (but that you may not necessarily approve of), you are giving the State ownership of your kids. Now, I’m not saying that parents “own” their children (more about self-ownership below), but, morally and thus it should be legally, you have higher authority over your children. Certainly higher authority than some government bureaucrat. And higher authority than your neighbors as a collective or community on whose behalf the agents of the State act.

Now, to digress a little bit, I want to briefly address the issue of self-ownership, and when an individual’s right to self-ownership actually begins, with this post from 2009:

Last week, S.M. Oliva wrote for the Mises Economics Blog:

“Let’s say that, in fact, creation is a source of property rights. Does that mean parents have intellectual property rights in their children? After all, they created them.”

Since then, I’ve had some thoughts on that.

Parents can’t own their offspring, regardless of their labor they exerted  and “tools” they used, because their “product” happens to be another separate, individual human being.

Human beings inherently have natural, inalienable rights, among them the rights to life and liberty. Part of the right to life and liberty is the right of an individual to self-ownership. The right to self-ownership begins when the human being begins. But when does the human being’s life actually begin?

At the time of the  Roe v. Wade decision, the concept of “personhood” was brought up by Justice Harry Blackmun:

“(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

I’ve seen references to “personhood,” “viability,” “sentience,” and “consciousness, “  and I have some questions.

What is the viability of a born baby? If baby is left alone for a particular amount of time, one cannot survive for very long, because at that early stage of development one is dependent on one’s caretakers for feeding. The same can be said of a 2-year-old, maybe even older children, although the older the child, the more able one is to go out and seek food, unless one is locked inside and can’t get out. Is there a difference between the viability of a born individual and an unborn individual (at whatever stage of development)?

What about “sentience” and “consciousness?” How do we know whether or not a two-month-old “fetus” or a 2-day-old “fetus” can have any physical sensation or conscious awareness? If it is important whether or not that individual has sentience or consciousness in considering whether that individual has any right to life and liberty, and self-ownership, then, what about a born human being or a grown adult who has a neurological disorder and has no “sentience” or who is in a “persistent vegetative state” and has no consciousness, but is still “alive” (or can be kept alive via artificial means)?

I can’t say for sure that a human life begins at conception (although I believe that to be the case and have believed that for 20 years now), but I can sure say without any doubt that, IF a human life begins at conception, then self-ownership begins at conception…

And in a later post, I wrote this:

However, more recently I’ve seen in Murray Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty, his comments on the abortion issue. Rothbard asks this question:

….when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership?

If one has a natural right to liberty and self-ownership, and “natural rights,” as far as I know, means “inherent” in us as human beings (i.e. from conception onward, or just a part of the human being’s “nature”), then how can you “acquire” a natural right to liberty and self-ownership?

But back to our discussion on homeschooling, the inherent, natural rights of families extend from the rights of individuals to have control (and authority) over one’s own life, and one’s own family. For outsiders — whether they are next-door neighbors, the majority amongst the community, or government bureaucrats — to step in and give some orders as to how that family must live or raise their children is, in my view, a gross violation of the family’s right to exist peacefully, and right to self-determination.

The real problems of our society and its cultural, moral, educational and economic decline are really caused by statism and collectivism. And the worst form of statism, in my opinion, is centralized statism, such as with our current 230+ year-old federalism structure with a U.S. Constitution for which government officials and bureaucrats care very little, just as they care very little for the rule of law in general. If you look around or see on the Internet, you will see all the abuses now, thanks to the centralization of government bureaucracies and the government-monopolization of everyday life, from local CPS police goons breaking into families’ homes and kidnapping innocent children from their innocent parents, to police traffic Nazis randomly stopping middle-aged soccer moms and pulling them out of their cars and beating up on them, to neanderthals nonchalantly spraying pepper spray into young protesters’ faces.

Individual rights and family rights have all been usurped and encroached egregiously by criminal local, state and federal government bureaucrats and armed thugs here in USSA Amerika. And it is continually getting worse. Do you really believe that a constitution or a Supreme Court is going to protect you or your family from these government criminals?

As I have noted in the past, the Supreme Court justices are employed by the State. They will not protect you from the State. They will not protect you from CPS Nazis or from the airport’s TSA gropers and cancer-scanners. And that is not only because the justices are employed by the State, but also because they are just not accountable. The Supreme Court, as Hans Hoppe has pointed out (more here) has a monopoly in ultimate judicial decision-making, and monopolists are not accountable, no matter how “prestigious” they are. The lettered State-guardians on the High Court are there on behalf of the State. It seems that soon homeschooling families may have to forget about the U.S. Constitution and use some sort of alternative forms of protecting their children from government goons.

Will New Hampshire Pick the Orwellian ‘Conservative,’ Willard Mitt Romney?

January 9, 2012

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

MITT ROMNEY IS A CONSERVATIVE

~ An updated version of the Ministry of Truth’s slogan from George Orwell’s 1984

The media pundits and the talk radio hosts and their callers have been bending over backwards to label Willard Mitt Romney a “conservative.” They have been desperately trying to fit their ideal of a conservative into Romney like fitting a piece into a puzzle that will never fit – not without a pair of scissors, that is. It is truly Orwellian, this thing with calling a far-left socialist a “conservative.” They might as well call Barack Obama a “conservative.”

In addition to that, many people are trying to find a Republican who is “electable,” someone who can beat Obama in the November, 2012 election. But if Romney does become the Republican nominee and then wins the election, then what? Given that he is bought and paid for by Wall Street, do you really believe that Romney will do anything to fix the underlying causes of our current economic depression (central banking, the Fed, the collusions between Wall Street and the U.S. government, the government’s expansionist empire abroad and deficit spending and ever-increasing debt)? Given what a tax-raiser he was as governor, do you really believe Romney will not be exactly like George H.W. Bush and Bush Jr. in caving like a jellyfish to the Capitol Hill big spenders?

As governor of Taxachusetts, Romney raised corporate taxes, and he also raised hundreds of millions of dollars in higher fees, on guns, marriages, property transfers, you name it. And “Massachusetts conservative” Willard Romney, who went on record in 2002 opposing getting rid of the state income tax, dramatically increased the state budget, according to Center for Small Government President Carla Howell. Any income tax, whether it be federal, state or city, is so dreadfully invasive of property rights, privacy and contracts, and so violating of freedom, who in his right mind could possibly oppose getting rid of it?

And many people have been saying that they support Romney because of his business experience. He had a lot of experience at his Bain Capital firm driving some companies out of business and getting rich from the early investments and tax deductions in the process. But how much of his work in the private sector was spent providing something of actual value to others? To me, given his record with Bain, it is as though they were trying to act like government bureaucrats, many of whom currently in Washington having also gotten rich off the backs of working class Americans.

Given the way he treated various businesspeople during his time with Bain, one wonders just how – in the political world – he will deal with dissenting Americans, especially those of the Tea Party movement and the Occupy movement who are extremely critical of the federal government. How will Romney handle the further expanded powers of the presidency if he is given the new powers of indefinite detention of anyone he chooses, without due process?

Speaking of security issues, Romney is also unwilling to oppose cutting “defense” spending. In fact, he wants to increase spending on the already bloated military-security-industrial-complex. Romney supports the Big Government foreign interventionism of the military central planners in Washington, and wants to expand the intrusions and aggressions abroad.

While some people in New Hampshire might disagree with me on this, true conservatives oppose any governmental interventionism, foreign or domestic. Unfortunately, so many people have been taken in by the government propagandists who have been insisting that the wars and expanded military bureaucracy of the past ten years had been necessary, and some still believe it despite the wars’ utter failures, destruction, counter-productiveness, waste of lives and bankrupting costs.

Many people do not want to believe that terrorism of the 1990s and 2000s were direct results of the aggressions committed overseas by the U.S. government especially since 1990 and especially in Iraq. Some people just don’t like to hear reality told to them, which is why Ron Paul got booed at those debates. But generally, the events of terrorism blowback were results of central planning.

This central planning by the government interventionists is not conservative, nor is it liberal. It is statist. (See Jacob Hornberger on libertarianism versus statism.) The statists believe in using the monopolistic, armed power of the centralized federal government not only to interfere with the lives of their own people domestically, but with the lives of foreigners. Willard Mitt Romney aligns himself with these Bush-Cheney-Feith-Wolfowitz central planners of foreign interventionist statism and all its destruction.

Some of Americans’ support for such foreign interventionism and central planning comes from this idea of American exceptionalism, which Romney has repeatedly stated should be renewed and projected across the globe. Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, American exceptionalism means that our government should have the power to intrude into and interfere with the internal affairs of foreign peoples – and militarily no less – but foreigners shouldn’t have the right to place their government apparatus and military bases on our lands. This philosophy contradicts the Christian principle of “Do unto others what one would want others to do unto you,” and “Don’t do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you.” Such a Christian philosophy is exactly that of Ron Paul, certainly not of Willard Romney.

My own personal opinion is that, given Romney’s past insincerities and flip-flopping, I don’t particularly believe his sincerity in the national security debate. He seems to be pandering to the public’s post-9/11 fears, and to the fear-mongering of the neoconservatives. And, just as Romney will probably have a hard time saying “no” to his Wall Street benefactors, so too will it be hard for him to say “no” to the defense contractors, the merchants of death.

In a nutshell, Romney is no conservative, nor is he a “liberal.” Romney is a politician. In fact, he is the epitome of “weathervane politician.” He would fit right in as a character in Orwell’s novel, 1984 (and a very scary one at that).

“But, we need someone who can beat Obama in November. We can’t afford to take the chance of Obama getting reelected,” people cry. Yeah, and once your “electable” Willard Romney were to take the oath of office in January, 2013, he will continue the socialism, the environmentalist voodooism and the warmongering, as well as the Fed’s inflationary money printing, and drive America completely into the ground like he did those businesses from his Bain Capital steering wheel.

There actually is a conservative, however, who believes that the government should only do what the Constitution says, and who actually will reduce the size, power and intrusiveness of the federal government, and restore the protection of our natural rights and civil liberties. Most readers here know who that is.

The people of New Hampshire will make a choice this week. The choice is between continuing the socialism, corporate-government cronyism and central planning which are destroying America from within and will leave us to ruin – or reason, common sense, and the restoration of the rule of law and freedom. Let’s hope they choose the latter.

It Can’t Happen Here

Russia and other Eastern Bloc countries recently observed the 20th anniversary of the official end of the Soviet Union. During the late 1980s-early 1990s millions of people were freed from the repressive shackles of the almighty Soviet communist State. Unfortunately, over these past 20 years, here in the U.S. the federal government has grown and grown and become increasingly oppressive and tyrannical. As I noted recently, the FEMA camps are being manufactured by the feds that, unless the police state trend is stopped, will most probably become very much like the Soviet gulags.

And this is coinciding not accidentally with the new law that the dupes and criminals of Congress passed overwhelmingly and that Barack Obama signed that gives the president the power to have the military apprehend any American and detain indefinitely anyone the president labels a “terrorist” or accuses of conspiring or being an accessory to terrorism, without evidence brought forward (as the president assassinated U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without evidence provided). You see, if someone accuses someone else of something — regardless of how horrible or heinous the crime — the accuser is morally and legally obligated to show evidence against the accused. This is because anyone can claim that someone is a “terrorist” or a pedophile etc., but you need proof of your claim. It doesn’t matter who the accuser is, an ordinary civilian or the president, it doesn’t matter. Especially given that the government is a compulsory monopolist of territorial protection and judicial decision-making, and that such monopoly police powers attract the worst amongst us, we must never trust the word alone of any government official. Even the Nuremberg Tribunals were obligated to give alleged Nazi war criminals their right to due process.

In 2002, Ron Paul gave this speech before the House of representatives, Are We Doomed to Be a Police State? in which he foresaw that the post-9/11 hysterical policies the Bush Administration put into place could very well cause America to become a police state. Given the political nature of government — the power that such an apparatus gives to individuals working for it or associated with it — if you know the history of past governments, the Nazi regime and the Soviets especially, then you can see that giving government officials, military or police these extra intrusive powers that violate civilians’ persons or property without due process is the way to tyranny.

Even back in the 1980s, White House basement Iran-Contra organizer Oliver North wanted martial law, particularly as a means of stifling political dissent. (Further info on North, and please read my piece on martial law, if you haven’t already.) North’s ideal of stifling political dissent is what the Soviet gulags were for. People on the side of State power and its police powers do not like political dissent. Such dissent undermines their power, although they like to lie and fool the masses by saying that such dissent “undermines the country.” As we have seen, it is the government and its expansionism and intrusiveness that have been undermining America.

It is unfortunate that so many people on the Left support groups such as ACORN, S.E.I.U., AmeriCorps, and other pro-Obama, anti-liberty organizations, even though it is these organizations of the Left who will be the “brownshirts” that, along with Obama’s obedient yes-men of the military, will apprehend people from their homes and offices, from the baseball park and from the local diner, people known to be political dissenters and critics of the regime, and detain them indefinitely. That is what the FEMA camps are for. That is what ObamaCare is really for: let the government have access into every aspect of everybody’s medical matters, as a means for greater control.

There is little to no difference between the Obama-Leftists and the Oliver North-Dick Cheney military central planners. They are all of the same anti-liberty, pro-absolute government control ilk. Both sides believe religiously in the Total State.

The Establishment — politicians and their media stenographers — have been ignoring, smearing, and shunning Ron Paul and his message of individual liberty and private property, free markets and freedom of association, because the State’s brownshirts, Stasi, Gestapo and KGB-wannabes do not want major changes to their regime, their precious government wealth-confiscating and expropriating apparatus. They are as clinging to it as the communists were in their resisting the desocializing and “capitalizing” efforts of their people (See this on how the Gorby communists and their clinging prolonged the pain of desocializing, and Rothbard on the right way to desocialize).

As the 20th anniversary of the official end of the Soviet Union comes and goes, we must remember that the people of the old Soviet Union wanted to cut the shackles with which the State enslaved them, and the State’s criminals couldn’t cope with the thought of such a loss of control over the people. We are experiencing all that now, as those Americans who desire freedom want desparately to dismantle that oppressive regime in Washington and cut their own shackles of repression, while the DC resisters panic and want to impose martial law against the dissenters. Some people are just evil, and thrive on control over others.