Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

Authoritarian Judges Against Freedom of Speech

You’ve probably heard about Trump flunky Roger Stone allegedly violating a “gag order” that was issued by a fascist judge who sounds more like a Maduro judge than a U.S. judge. I am not a Stone fan, but his attorneys should request that this biased judge be replaced by someone who respects the defendant’s right to freedom of speech while he is outside the courtroom.

Freedom of speech applies to everyone, including criminal defendants, witnesses and juries.

But freedom of speech also implies the freedom to not speak. LRC recently posted this article by Murray Rothbard on the right to not be compelled to speak or to testify, such as at a trial.

And occasionally we hear about a news reporter who has a source for information on a case, but the reporter protects the source’s identity. Fascist judges order the reporter to name the source or the reporter will be thrown in jail. Chances are, reporters will protect a source for a story that’s revealing some kind of criminality or corruption on the part of government bureaucrats (or sometimes someone in business). The fascists want to protect their fellow corruptocrats and criminals, so they throw reporters in jail. One example was news producer Mary Richards on TV.

Another example in real life has been Bradley Manning, now known as Chelsea, who revealed corruption and criminality in the U.S. military and diplomats, as I referred to just recently.

Sadly, most government bureaucrats, including trial judges, seem to have this compulsion to either silence people or compel or coerce them to speak.

Americans “Voluntarily” Pay Their Taxes

Jacob Hornberger writes about how some Americans really believe that their paying taxes is “voluntary” and that they feel a sense of moral obligation, patriotism and loyalty in “voluntarily” paying their taxes. The Atlantic magazine writer that Hornberger criticizes doesn’t seem to want to admit that if people don’t “voluntarily” pay their taxes they will be met with IRS S.W.A.T. teams and taken off to the hoosegow. That is what we have had for a long time in Amerika, the “land of the free and home of the brave.”

Is Amazon.com Banning and Censoring Truthful Historical Books?

Paul Craig Roberts says that “whites were slaves in North Africa before blacks were slaves in the New World.” He has a lengthy article in which he cites important facts of history, and exposes how the political correctness fascists are censoring history, such as Amazon.com banning certain books telling actual history that the college campus loony-tunes don’t want their brainwashed inductees to know about. In the name of protecting black people’s and Jewish people’s victimhood identity, the censors don’t want people to know the truth.

Roberts links to another controversial article by Ron Unz, on Amazon’s book censorship and banning black historiography during Black History Month. Unz gets into those issues including the truth about the ADL.

Now, before anyone shouts, “Racist! Anti-Semite!” etc., etc., please actually read the articles.

More Transgender Totalitarians Who Want to Jail More People

I really wanted to call them the “Transgender Nazis,” like there is the “Soup Nazi” on Seinfeld, the “Sugary Drink Nazi” Bloomberg who wanted to ban sugary drinks, and the climate change nazis who want to jail “deniers.”

But I know that the use of the word “Nazi” is offensive to some people, so I won’t do that. (Why is calling someone a “Nazi” more offensive than calling someone a “Commie”? The Soviet and Chinese commies murdered millions and millions more innocent human beings than the Hitler Nazis did. Discuss.)

Instead I will refer to the anti-freedom of thought and conscience, anti-freedom of speech fascists as the “transgender totalitarians.” They are fascists who want to outlaw certain forms of speech, certain forms of discussion, or in the case of transgenders, gays and lesbians, outlaw “conversion therapy.”

Conversion therapy isn’t just the “electric shock therapy” that the fear mongering propagandists have been screaming about. Conversion therapy can include someone who is insecure with his or her sexual orientation or gender identity, such as having difficulty identifying with one’s gender that one was born with, and going to a clinical psychotherapist to talk about the issue to try to deal with it better. The transgender totalitarian censors want to outlaw that and jail such therapists.

As I wrote in this post on the 2018 elections in New Hampshire, Gov. Chris Sununu signed into law the “conversion therapy” ban in that state, New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state. He signed the bill into law in October, just weeks before his reelection. Doh! I recently heard Howie Carr interview Gov. Sununu and I have a feeling that Carr probably knows that Sununu signed that bill but won’t criticize him for it because Sununu is a Rethuglican. Were Sununu a Democrat, we wouldn’t have heard the end of it on the Howie Carr Show. Sununu comes from a very corrupt political family, with his father former Gov. John Sununu having been Chief of Staff for the war criminal then-President George H.W. Bush who passed away last year.

And now the Massachusetts House of Representatives has voted to outlaw “conversion therapy.” The vote was 147-8. So much for freedom of speech and freedom of thought and conscience in Massachusetts, the birthplace of freedom in America. Gov. Charlie Baker, a.k.a. Gov. Charlie Half-Baker, has stated that he’s inclined to sign the bill.

In England the authorities (i.e. the crazies, loony-tunes, fascist bureaucrats, etc.) are kidnapping and stealing little kids away from their parents when the parents aren’t willingly and sheepishly going along with the charade when their kids express a desire to be the opposite gender.

And yes, it is a charade with this transgender crap. Someone who is a male but believes he is a female obviously has some psychological issues going on. Maybe he’s been brainwashed by wacko parents or by demented ideologically-guided teachers at school, or there is some high level of dysfunction in the home that is affecting his personality development or his self-identity and gender identity. Whatever the situation, someone who is a male but thinks he’s a female (but clearly isn’t a female because he’s a male) or someone who is a female but thinks she’s a male (but clearly isn’t a male because she’s a female) and who wants to have a normal gender identity that’s based on what actual biological gender the person actually is, has a right to seek guidance in that regard, and the gender Nazis who want to jail therapists are very dangerous people. The gender activists who want to jail innocent people are child abusers and they are the ones who should be jailed, quite frankly.

War Crimes, War Propaganda, Corrupt and Biased Media, Militarism

Thomas Knapp on Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning), and who the real criminals are.

Glenn Greenwald discusses how the U.S. government and media spread pro-war propaganda with lies, such as the burning aid trucks in Venezuela.

Joe Lauria says that media serve the governors, not the governed.

James Bovard with an article on John McCain’s disastrous militaristic legacy.

And, just slightly controversial, Philip Weiss says that Hannah Arendt would agree with Ilhan Omar.

The Importance of WikiLeaks

As I wrote in a post yesterday, Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning, has been jailed for refusing to testify in a secret grand jury hearing on Wikileaks.

In 2010 while still in the Army, Manning downloaded thousands of documents, some “classified,” as well as videos, to WikiLeaks in order to inform the American people of the war crimes being committed by the U.S. military against foreigners, as well as corruption by U.S. and other Western diplomats. Manning was thrown into solitary confinement for 3 years pre-trial (pre-kangaroo trial, that is.) The military over-classifies documents to protect themselves from embarrassing mistakes being made public. The Manning WikiLeaks leaks caused no harm to any Americans or U.S. soldiers, and at worst the disclosures embarrassed the U.S. government. Here are the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan War logs, the diplomatic cable leaks. And of course, the video Collateral Murder, the video of U.S. military shooting at innocents.

But the same conservatives and talk radio ditto-heads who love WikiLeaks for its exposing the Hillary Clinton campaign corruption, the corrupt media, the Clinton Foundation, and the corrupt FBI and DOJ in its illegally spying on the Trump campaign, those same conservatives call Bradley Manning, now known as Chelsea Manning, a “traitor” for leaking the unjustifiably classified material to WikiLeaks. Why do the conservatives think that way? Because they are gullible and brainwashed sheeple who believe everything the national security state and the military tell them, without question. Those who expose the national security state and the military’s crimes are “traitors” (unless the people being exposed are Democrats).

I wanted to repost two posts from 2013 to give more insight on those issues, regarding the differences between Bradley Chelsea Manning’s leaks and Edward Snowden’s leaks. So here are those two posts:

The State Wants to Keep Its Crimes a Secret

October 15, 2013

Arthur Silber has a new post, this time regarding Glenn Greenwald’s alleged hypocrisy in his publishing some of the Edward Snowden-leaked documents but withholding others. Silber talks about the power that Greenwald has in his picking and choosing which documents to publish. While Greenwald criticizes the State for its secrecy, Greenwald then goes on to scoff at those who criticize him for not releasing all the documents. We should trust Greenwald’s judgment here, in the same way we should trust the State’s telling us what it wants us to know and not telling us what it doesn’t want us to know.

Silber has previously addressed this Greenwald-Snowden issue in June, in which Silber compared these newer leaks to the WikiLeaks leaks. Then, Silber wrote,

…WikiLeaks provided masses of “raw data”: the original documents themselves, whether they be battle reports, inter- or intra-agency communications, or documents of many other kinds, sometimes with redactions, often complete. And WikiLeaks offered them with no filters whatsoever: no one was going to hold our hand as we read the documents, telling us what was “important” and what wasn’t, and what its significance was, or whether it was significant at all. If we wished to understand the documents and what they revealed, all of us had to do the work ourselves.

What we discovered was that many people didn’t want to do the work. More than that, they resented the fact that such responsibility was demanded of them.

But with the Snowden-leaked documents, journalists specially appointed by Edward Snowden have the privilege of sifting through all the material and picking and choosing what the public should be told and what they shouldn’t be told, what may “harm” some people and what may not, in addition to the many Guardian attorneys who had access to the material. And, as Silber wrote in another essay last June, that is in addition to the many people — government employed and private contractors — who have been given clearances to access so-called classified or “top secret” info. All the more reason to agree with Silber that this “secrecy” stuff is a bunch of BS.

As Silber wrote,

And what “harms” specifically? And to whom — specifically? Harm to those who work for the Death State, perhaps in the intelligence and national security community? Are we concerned about harming them? I surely hope not. Since the Death State claims the right to murder any one of us it chooses, whenever it wants, for any reason it invents, it seems to me that “the public” are the ones who ought to be concerned about being “harmed.” Is it the great unwashed public that these journalists are worried about? Then let them say so. But how would that work? We might be endangered because some of the U.S.’s national security “secrets” might be exposed? The United States is the most powerful nation that has ever existed in the entire history of the human race, with a military capability that could obliterate all of life on the planet many times over. No nation would dream of mounting a serious attack on the U.S. for precisely that reason (and when I say “no nation,” I absolutely include Iran, for all the hysterics who might see this). Moreover, isolated terrorist attacks, no matter how horrifying they may be in themselves, fall far short of an “existential threat” to the U.S., no matter the vast amount of propaganda designed to convince us otherwise. No nation would dare mount a serious attack on the U.S. precisely because they know how powerful the U.S. is — because it is not secret.

The entire edifice of “secrecy,” especially with regard to national security, is a vicious lie from start to finish. Put it all out there. If full disclosure endangers those who work for the Death State, the problem — and the responsibility — is with those who choose to directly advance the Death State’s goals. It is decidedly not with the leaker, or with the journalists.

Whether it’s for “national security” purposes or not, or to protect certain employees of the national security state, it really doesn’t matter. The bottom line, for me, as far as who is “harmed” by revealing the State’s “secrets,” is this: If you are employed by the national security state and you fear for your life because of Snowden’s or others’ leaks, then don’t work for the national security state. You are at your own risk. Working for the national security state is “risky business.”

Given that the State and its entire national security apparatus is illegitimate (contrary to what many of the indoctrinated and propagandized believe), especially since the end of the Cold War, then all its material, public domain, “classified,” “top secret,” etc., should be a matter of public record. And by the way, the reason the military intentionally over-classifies material is to discourage whistleblowers like Snowden and Manning from revealing the war crimes and other acts of criminality by this so-called “national security” bureaucracy.

What the State wants to be secret is basically its own reckless behavior and its own criminality. That is what it wants to continue to be hidden from the people over whom they rule, the people who employ them and whose coercively-extracted wealth funds the goons’ extravagant paychecks, benefits and pension plans.

So the U.S. government’s national security enterprise and empire overseas has done nothing but provoke foreigners with its wars of aggression and its occupations and destruction. Thus nothing that Snowden or Manning have released and publicized could possibly have compromised Americans’ security nearly as much as the blowback of those criminal actions of the U.S. government, in addition to the thoroughly unconstitutional, immoral and disgusting surveillance state which criminally pries into people’s private lives and gets away with it with impunity.

So, getting back to the first linked post by Arthur Silber from yesterday, Silber wrote regarding Greenwald:

One of the lessons we can draw is the uniformity of the intellectual corruptions that occur when anyone is placed in a position of power — and when he seeks to protect that power, and when he enjoys its exercise. We should note that these kinds of responses to serious questioning are those of someone who can be described as an authoritarian bully (among other terms). As I said, the ironies are numerous, and awful.

And there can be no doubt that Greenwald is enjoying his power over the dissemination of the Snowden documents, and that he keenly appreciates the many values that power confers on him. Not least of those values are the marketing advantages that he seeks to exploit.

And, the 2nd post:

The Gatekeepers and their Controlled, Redacted Leaks

October 24, 2013

Arthur Silber has another post regarding Glenn Greenwald’s control and timing of which Snowden-released documents to reveal and when to reveal them. Silber has stated that if there are documents which reveal the State’s various crimes, they should all be disclosed to us, and immediately. Check out my recent post on Silber’s several posts on Snowden and Greenwald.

And no, there are no “national security” interests to protect by continuing to withhold, censor or redact documents, despite what the State and its flunky pundits try to assert. If you honestly want to protect our national security, then tell our stupid bureaucrats to stop initiating wars of aggression and occupations and provoking foreigners. Duh. These national security bureaucrats are like the dog chasing its tail, and they’re doing it intentionally to continue to “create monsters to destroy” to justify their parasitic bureaucracies.

In Silber’s latest post, he points out how Establishment news writer Richard Cohen of the Washington Post now praises Edward Snowden as “careful” by releasing the NSA information to “responsible” news organizations such as the Guardian and the New York Times, as opposed to “tossing it up in the air” as WikiLeaks had supposedly done. (See Arthur Silber’s post comparing Snowden-Greenwald to WikiLeaks.)

Greenwald’s slowly and “carefully” releasing the redacted documents is being approved by the Ruling class, which also consists of the Rulers’ gatekeepers including Richard Cohen. And now we know whom the “Guardian” is guarding.

As Silber noted, and as I have seen on various blogs now, such as the comments on this post on EPJ, some people seem to have a problem with criticizing Greenwald for his “control” over document releases. “At least he’s informing us as to what the NSA has been up to,” etc., so we shouldn’t criticize him. Well. I happen to believe in calling out those who on the surface are on our side, but who nevertheless give clear signs that, ultimately, the State and the Rulers (and their surveillance agenda) matter most.

In contrast to the “careful” and “responsible” Edward Snowden and Greenwald who do not seem to believe that the information in question belongs to the people but rather to the Rulers, Bradley Chelsea Manning had stated, correctly, that the information is in the “public domain.” And Manning also noted, “… Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . – i want people to see the truth . . . regardless of who they are . . . because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.”

The people don’t need the State’s gatekeepers to sift through material to decide for us what we can or cannot (or may or may not) see. Let it all out now and let the people sift through it all. We own it.

However, in this column just today by Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Judge also brings up the revelations of NSA criminality. The Judge asks, “Where is the outrage?”

Arthur Silber answers that:

The conclusion should be painfully obvious. The manner in which the Snowden leaks are being delivered to us represents no serious threat to the ruling class and the Establishment whatsoever. The ruling class is entirely comfortable with the leak stories. In fact, the ruling class affirmatively benefits from leaks of this kind: Americans are becoming accustomed to a startlingly comprehensive level of surveillance, and they are granting it their approval. That we are surveilled much if not most of the time is barely even “news” any longer. It’s just the way things are. Perhaps we need to make a few adjustments at the outer margins, but basically everything is hunky-dory. Add a little “transparency,” “oversight” and “accountability” and Americans will let the State surveil them 24/7. Don’t you want to be safe? Of course you do.

Immigration, Welfare, and the Nincompoop Republicans

What a week. With the snowstorm and now the deep freeze, and then an Internet outage (it’s back), and everything else that’s going on. And all these annoying things in the news. There’s that new Congresswoman from Minnesota who has sparked a hysterical “We Condemn Anti-Semitism and Hate Language” bill in Congress, and Nancy Pelosi has to scold her. But the former head of Greenpeace has called another new Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a “pompous little twit” and criticized her “Green New Deal” as “eco-fascist.” Good.

Anyway, speaking of Ocasio-Cortez, in my post on the socialism of both Ocasio-Cortez and Trump vs. freedom, I mentioned some of the causes of the immigration problem at the southern border. One thing I didn’t mention is that the U.S. has a welfare state, a huge system of welfare handouts that includes Social Security and Medicare. This welfare state is unfortunately one aspect of America that attracts the “undesirables.”

There shouldn’t be handouts to immigrants (or to anyone, quite frankly) that are redistributed from money or earnings stolen from others. The whole system of forcibly taking something from others to give to the “needy,” the elderly, or anyone whose contributors did not give the loot voluntarily, is an immoral system. That is because the ends can’t morally justify the means of taking by force, by coercion, involuntarily. That’s just theft.

But why do conservatives continue to accept this immoral system? I listen to these hypocrites on the radio, the talk radio ditto-heads, and they say nothing about this immoral system of theft and plunder.

Therefore the conservatives love welfare and wealth redistributionism. They love the income tax, Social Security, and Medicare and Medicaid. I know they love it all, because they never say a thing about it or how immoral, dishonest and criminal it is.

Conservatives and Republicans caved when Democrat Wilson pushed the income tax-theft-enslavement on the people. They caved when FDR pushed the socialist/fascist New Deal, and they caved when LBJ pushed the “Great Society,” that turned out to not be so great. (And see Jacob Hornberger’s recent post on the idolization of Nazism.)

And see Laurence Vance on what the Republicans could have done when they had majorities, the Republicans making America socialist again, and, Who are the efficiency experts for the welfare state? Republicans and conservatives.

If Republicans and conservatives are worried about “illegal” immigrants coming into the U.S. and getting on welfare, they have had their chance again and again and again to pass bills to prevent immigrants from receiving welfare. But they dare not do that, because they are devoted welfare statists. (And as I wrote in my earlier post, ending the drug war will solve much of the immigration problem, the gangs and the violence. But dumb Republicans love the drug war and worship the police state.)

Republicans and conservatives are not serious about the immigration problem. They are not serious in their criticism of “socialism,” because they ARE socialists! And Donald Trump isn’t serious, either, in my view. Their neanderthal authoritarianism drives their conservatard mentality, as well as their strong belief in the welfare state and the empowerment of the centralized bureaucracy in Washington.

Should 16-Year-Olds Be Able to Vote?

It appears that Congresswoman Elvis Ayanna Pressley is proposing that we lower the voting age to 16. The measure has failed, of course.

Well, I don’t see why not. There are plenty of people above the age of 18 or 80 who have voted for kooks, gangsters and nincompoops like the Bushes, the Clintons, Bob Dole and Bernie Sanders. We might as well lower the voting age.

But I’m sure there are plenty of 16-year-olds who, if they were informed of the actual truth, would not vote for those aforementioned statists.

How about a choice on the ballot of “None of the Above,” Elvis?  (It would win in most elections!)

Actually, I think that no one should vote. Voting has given 51% of the people the power to use the armed apparatus of government to steal away the earnings of the other 49%, and violate their civil liberties, invade their homes, their businesses, their churches, and their freedom. The system of voting and elections enables the enslavement of some by others. It’s immoral.

So, however old a voter might be will make no difference. And it’s the same thing with a legal drinking age, cigarette smoking age, or whatever. For those other things, it’s the parents who should determine whether their kids may smoke, drink or take drugs, not the State.

Articles on voting and non-voting

Non-Voting, and Is Voting an Act of Violence? by Carl Watner

Non-Voting as an Act of Secession by Hans Sherrer

The Illegality, Immorality and Violence of All Political Action by Robert LeFevre

And The Non-Voter’s Right to Ignore the State by Herbert Spencer

More Articles

Jeff Tucker says the socialists always come for the kids eventually.

Walter Williams says that our planet is not fragile.

Richard Enos with an article on a Harvard immunologist who says that unvaccinated children pose no risk to anyone.

Veronique de Rugy with a NY Times op-ed asking why the Republicans are embracing economic State planning.

Laurence Vance on gun rights and property rights.

Richard Ebeling says the global economy desperately needs freedom.

And a Fox News article stating that Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning, has now been jailed for refusing to testify on behalf of the gubmint’s secret grand jury investigation of WikiLeaks. Here is more on the story. Manning is a true hero for defending the freedom of speech and freedom of the Press, and the right of the people to know the truth about the criminality their own government is up to. Manning is the kind of hero that Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and all those talk radio chickenhawk ditto-heads will never be, as they are the ones who love and defend the authoritarian State. WikiLeaks is good for them only when it reveals Democrats’ corruption, but God forbid it should reveal the corruption and criminality of their beloved U.S. military and national security state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds good to me.