Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

Capitalism and Freedom

Philosopher economist historian Sheldon Richman has this excellent article Capitalism and the Free Market, on the Future of Freedom Foundation’s website, in which he continues with his argument from a few months ago against using the word “capitalism” to describe free markets. He notes how prominent economists and mainstream journalists use the phrase “capitalist” to describe America’s economic system with their implying “free markets,” as they blame the so-called “free market” system for the current economic downturn.

Richman points out that we have no free market system. If you want to describe America’s economic system as “capitalist,” then you need to clarify that by being more specific with the description “State capitalist” or “crony capitalist” system, but to say that we have a “laissez-faire” capitalist system is just inaccurate. Because of business-State collusions (such as in national defense and defense contractors, Big Pharma-FDA etc., Big Medicine-Kathleen Sebelius/Zeke Emanuel/ObamaCare, etc.), the system in question is better described as State capitalism, not “free market” capitalism.

And it is also not accurate to describe “capitalism” as with its generally accepted mainstream definition: private ownership and control of property and the means of production. At least, that’s how I have been defining it. Richman notes,

But a capitalist is not one who advocates capitalism in the way that a socialist is one who advocates socialism. He is rather one who owns capital. A capitalist can be a socialist without contradiction.

It is also useful to bear in mind that the word was not initially embraced by free-market advocates; that was apparently a 20th-century phenomenon. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “capitalist” came first and was used pejoratively in the late 18th century. Of course, Marx used it and related words as condemnation. But it was not only opponents of private property who used the words that way. Most notably, Thomas Hodgskin (1787–1868), a free-market liberal and Herbert Spencer’s mentor, preceded Marx in this usage. By “capitalist” he meant one who controlled capital and exploited labor as a result of State privilege in violation of the free market.

Richman describes the history of the use of the word “capitalism,” and notes how throughout much of capitalism’s history, it has mostly involved State interventionism into private economic matters, with compulsory State powers used for the elites who enmeshed themselves with the State, benefiting from the State’s land grabs and confiscatory taxation, as well as the interference by the State into various trades and commerce activity, and the elites benefiting from State-created monopolies. (Of course, King Lincoln was especially devilish in that area, as he waged war against the South primarily for the purpose of protecting his favored Northern industries, especially in his home state of Illinois.) Economist Murray Rothbard points out that there is little difference between this State capitalism and mercantilism:

There is very little difference between state monopoly capitalism, or corporate state capitalism, whatever you want to call it, in the United States and Western Europe today, and the mercantilist system of the pre-Industrial Revolution era. There are only two differences; one is that their major activity was commerce and ours is industry. But the essential modus operandi of the two systems is exactly the same: monopoly privilege, a complete meshing in what is now called the “partnership of government and industry,” a pervasive system of militarism and war contracts, a drive toward war and imperialism; the whole shebang characterized the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The really key difference is that they didn’t have a gigantic P.R. apparatus; they didn’t have a fleet of intellectuals trumpeting to all and sundry the wonders of the system: how it promotes the common good and the general welfare, how this is Liberalism In Action. They said, “We’re out to shaft the public and we’re doing it!” They were very honest in those days.

But now, Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell et al. are the P.R. apparatus for the Obommunist leftist State agenda, David Frum and Andy McCarthy et al. are the P.R. apparatus for the warmonger-military industrial complex State agenda, and they, with their Big Gun Statists Cheney, Obama et al. have been saying, “We’re out to shaft the public and we’re doing it!” Murray Rothbard knew what he was talking about!

Sheldon Richman concludes his article by noting,

Thus those who call today’s system “capitalism” cannot be said to be misusing the term. Advocates of the real free market therefore would be well advised to avoid using it to describe their preferred social system.

Now, I did a post a few months ago on Sheldon Richman’s argument against using the word “capitalism,” and I felt there was nothing wrong with using that word to describe “private ownership and control of property and the means of production,” but now that I am better informed about the history behind the creation of that word, I’m not too sure. In my post then, I suggested “voluntarism” and “privatism” as substitutes for “capitalism” to describe free markets, laissez-faire. “Laissez-faire” means “to let be,” let people be free from intrusions, or, in the case of social economic matters, free from State interventions and State intrusions.

“Market liberalism” is probably the best phrase, because, to me, to “liberalize” means to make free. And here I mean free from intrusions and aggression. People have a right to be free from the aggression and intrusions of others. That is why we have laws against trespassing, against theft, and so on. This is why the Fourth Amendment specifically notes (I’m paraphrasing) a “right to be secure in one’s person, papers, houses and effects.” If individuals have the inherent right to life and liberty, as the Declaration of Independence declares, that means that one has a right to one’s person and property — one’s life — be free from the aggression and intrusion by one’s neighbors — and IT OUGHT TO BE THE CASE! that the right of one’s person and property be free from aggression and intrusions BY THE STATE!!

I’ll be more specific here: Take ObamaCare. Please. What Obama, Pelosi and all the other State fascists and communists want is for the State to completely control what goes on in the doctors office, the doctor’s examination and tests of the patient, the billing procedures, ordering the doctor’s office what kind of medical equipment to use (and which State-connected companies to provide it!), what insurance companies people may or may not use etc. It should be called ObamaFascism — these people are nothing but little dictators (as well as ignoramuses, parasites and racketeers — we really ought to throw them in jail for racketeering, and that’s no exaggeration!). In other words, they oppose freedom.

What these miserable wretches really are are communists, in which communism is State ownership — not just control, but ownership — of property and the means of production. One of the most important means of production is the people. They want State ownership of the people as well as industries and resources.

But individuals have an inherent right to have voluntary associations and contracts with doctors and insurance companies or hospitals, have a right to trade whatever and however much they want with whomever they want who provides a service they need, based on mutually beneficial agreements, and NO ONE — no third party — has any moral right to use the armed power of government to intrude in those matters! I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: If our medical matters are none of our neighbors’ business, then it’s none of the State’s business!

And we have a right to own our own lives and a right to our freedom. Tell the State to get lost!

The Twin Towers and Their Evil Eminent Domain Roots

The rebuilding on the site of the former World Trade Center 9 years and counting after the September 11th terrorist attacks has been slow. It appears that two of the main elements that have been holding things up have been bureaucrats and battles between victims’ families and leftists/”anti-war zealots” etc. on what kind of memorials to have on “Ground Zero.”

Had those properties been privately owned, you can bet your sweet bippy the whole area would have been completely rebuilt long ago. But the problems with the rebuilding are because the government-run Port Authority owns the property, as is the case with every other government-run entity or function.

Gary North in 2003 brought up the actual history of the World Trade Center: “The Twin Towers began with acts of legalized theft.” Eminent Domain.

It all started with those great freedom-loving Americans, believers in the ideals of the Founding Fathers, the Rockefellers.

No, I’m just being sarcastic. The Rockefellers, in this case then-NY Gov. Nelson Rockefeller and his brother David Rockefeller. It is a sad case of eminent domain, 1960s government confiscation of private property, with politically connected parasites destroying the lives and businesses of small business owners and entrepreneurs, so that some bureaucrats can play with their new properties like little girls play with their little dollhouses. It was a central planner’s dream come true. As Gary North notes,

The Twin Towers project was a combination of four crucial factors: (1) David Rockefeller’s desire to raise property values in lower Manhattan; (2) Gov. Nelson Rockefeller’s appointees, who controlled the Board of the Port Authority; (3) taxpayers’ credit, which was used to underwrite bonds to build the Twin Towers; (4) exemption from all New York City building codes and taxes….

The Twin Towers were conceived in the sin of eminent domain and leased in the iniquity of state ownership. They became symbols of state capitalism, towering emblems of technology and tax exemption.

And North quotes at length from a City Journal article with the details:

Virtually every important consideration in developing the World Trade Center had nothing to do with business and everything to do with politics. Costs, which the public would ultimately have to pay, mounted rapidly. To get New Jersey’s backing for the project, for example, the Port Authority agreed to take over the financially strapped Hudson tubes that brought many New Jersey rail commuters into Manhattan (today, it’s called the Port Authority Trans-Hudson, or PATH, train). The World Trade Center development thus extended the agency’s state-capitalist reach beyond real estate into mass transit. The final cost of the twin towers, as usually happens with publicly financed projects, swelled far beyond initial estimates. Supporters of the development had low-balled those estimates to win public support.

Since the World Trade Center originated as government’s idea of what lower Manhattan needed, rather than as what the market really called for, it’s no surprise that it misfired commercially….

Rather than attracting new firms to New York, as its planners thought it would, it drew tenants from other lower Manhattan offices, driving up vacancy rates throughout the area. With the towers still unfilled, New York State moved nearly all its Gotham offices into them, becoming the center’s biggest tenant. Similarly, the Port Authority moved many of its own offices there…

Such deal-making, with the public footing the bill, guarantees inefficiency, since there’s no free market in place that – by rewarding good work and disciplining bad – would pressure administrators to hire the right people for the right jobs and make sure they worked hard…

So, the Twin Towers really weren’t symbols of actual capitalism, actual free markets and private property, the principles upon which America was actually founded and that the Founding Fathers believed in. The World Trade Center towers were symbols of State capitalism, that is, State confiscation of property and wealth, in which it is the politicians, hacks and bureaucrats doing the wheeling and dealing, not only with the property that their bureaucracies stole from private citizens but not even paying the same taxes that their neighbors have to pay (which is already immoral enough).

All these arguments over memorials and rebuilding would not be happening if the property in question were not publicly, or, more accurately, State owned. We need some kind of Constitutional amendment or law — or something — that clearly states: “Separation of commerce and State!”

The Real Story Behind the Story of the “Ground Zero Mosque” and other items

Robert Wenzel has this post bringing up the possibility that the CIA might be behind the NY “Ground Zero mosque” controversy in order to foment “right-wing hate” toward Muslims, such as being a means to get stronger support for extending the current unnecessary and counter-productive wars and build up support for attacking Iran, a country that never threatened the U.S. and hasn’t done anything to Israel.

And Philip Weiss has this post on the funding for the mosque opposition campaign. I wonder how foaming warmonger Frank Gaffney would react to hearing that his beloved CIA might be behind the whole “Ground Zero mosque” funding and Imam Rauf.

But I have a further theory. I wonder whether the Mosque controversy is in the news at this time, as being heavily emphasized by the MSM, with the deliberate cahoots of Imam Rauf and company, yes, to foment “right-wing hate,” but as a means of affecting millions of November voters who are somewhat sympathetic to the Tea Party anti-incumbent movement, but, while still being on the fence, when seeing all the (deliberately manipulated by the media and Rauf, and political strategists behind the scenes) “right-wing hate,” will then decide against voting Republican and still vote for their usual Democrat.

I think my theory stated above does have some legitimacy, given how Democrats have manipulated elections particularly in primaries, such as going into the Republican primaries to nominate John McCain, and in ’96 doing the same thing to nominate the other fossil, Bob Dole. (Of course, Republicans are not strangers to that kind of manipulating either, given Rush Limbaugh’s self-destructive Operation Chaos to deliberately nominate then-apparent lightweight Barack Obomber, to avoid a President Thunder-Thighs Rodham, which we’ll eventually get anyway.)

The Coming Famine and Food Freedom

George Noory interviewed Julian Cribb, author of The Coming Famine: The Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It. Cribb believes there will be a worldwide famine by around 2030, because of increased demand for food and increased shortages of water, agriculture and fuel. Part of his agenda includes promoting genetically engineered (GE) food crops, and that also may include promoting various members of the biotech industry. According to Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network,

Recently, the biotech industry tested the eco-PR waters with articles arguing that genetically engineered crops should be accepted in organic agriculture (GE is currently prohibited in organic farming), a move that stands as testimony to the growing strength of organics and the coming showdown between organics and GE where only one will survive.

They seem to be pushing biofuels as well. Julian Cribb will be the keynote speaker at the Agricultural Biotechnology Industry Conference (September 12-15) in Saskatchewan. Another issue that is related to the coming food shortage crisis that Cribb has been emphasizing has been climate change, but he doesn’t really seem to be stressing any kind of World Government. And it doesn’t seem as though he’s some kind of genetic engineering corporate shill. Cribb’s main emphasis is really more to convince people to change their diet and eating habits, which they should do whether or not there will be a worldwide famine in 20 or 30 years. Sharratt continues,

At best, genetic engineering is a distraction that diverts resources and attention away from the real solutions; the worst-case scenario is that it actually destroys the possibility of creating those real and long-lasting solutions. The more we rely on high-tech solutions, the more we place ourselves at the mercy of those corporations that own and sell them. Faris Ahmed of USC, Canada’s oldest development agency, argues, “Most of all, food sovereignty is about making choices that will keep land, resources, and food production practices in the hands of those who know their landscapes best: farmers.”

I like that phrase: “food sovereignty.” Mmmm. It’s so….libertarian.

But I don’t know about Sharratt’s conclusion, “The future of food relies on the level of control in the hands of farmers while the success of the biotechnology industry fundamentally requires eradicating that control.” Can’t we have both local farmers with control and a successful biotech industry?

On his own website, Julian Cribb elaborates quite a bit on what he’s trying to say about his prediction of famine. One problem with his thinking is, as he notes,

On top of the scarcities of land, water, energy and nutrients the world’s farmers are driving into a huge technology pothole.

This is the result of decisions by national and regional governments worldwide, by aid donors and academic institutions, to slash resources for agricultural research and extension over four decades.

Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to understand the inherent nature of governments, national and local, which is the governments’ siphoning of capital that would otherwise be used for food crops and crop materials and technologies, as well as for research and development, and the governments’ constantly increasing burdensome regulations and intrusions into the food producing industry. But Cribb does point out something important:

Global funding for agricultural research, public and private, is estimated to total around $40 billion.

There is a stark contrast with the $1500 billion the world now spends on weapons.

Now, I don’t know how he arrived at those figures, but the point is well made, especially with the U.S. government needlessly and wastefully funding the military machine for no good reason whatsoever, except to redistribute the wealth to the corporate welfare parasites, and take control over the Middle East.

If we fail to secure the world’s food supply, governments in many countries may collapse under the onrush of people fleeing regional sustenance disasters.

Yes, let the governments collapse. That will create the needed resurgence of Liberty and prosperity.

Every nation will face heavier aid and tax burdens and soaring food prices as a result.

Well, there will not be heavy tax burdens if the governments collapse, will there? Less government, no taxes, more capital, more food production, lower food prices. Got it?

However, Cribb’s best advice:

abolish all trade barriers so food production can go wherever it is most efficient…

You betchya. But he also suggests to pay farmers a “fair price.” Now, I don’t know if he’s implying some kind of government-imposed farmer “minimum wage,” or if he means through the system of free exchange. Perhaps he should read some Mises and Rothbard.

Economist Bryan Caplan explains in his “Concise Encyclopedia of Economics” entry on Communism, how the communists seized control in Russia at the end of World War I, using violence, terrorism and mass starvation, and how collectivism created food shortages:

…communist revolutions triumphed only in heavily agricultural societies. Government ownership of the means of production could not, therefore, be achieved by expropriating a few industrialists. Lenin recognized that the government would have to seize the land of tens of millions of peasants…

The mechanism of Stalin’s “terror famine” was simple. Collectivization reduced total food production. The exiled kulaks had been the most advanced farmers, and after becoming state employees, the remaining peasants had little incentive to produce. But the government’s quotas drastically increased…

In the capitalist West, industrialization was a by-product of rising agricultural productivity. As output per farmer increased, fewer farmers were needed to feed the population. Those no longer needed in agriculture moved to cities and became industrial workers. Modernization and rising food production went hand in hand. Under communism, in contrast, industrialization accompanied falling agricultural productivity. The government used the food it wrenched from the peasants to feed industrial workers and pay for exports. The new industrial workers were, of course, former peasants who had fled the wretched conditions of the collective farms…

That’s correct. Collectivism or statism is not the way to prevent famine, because that’s actually a main contributor to it.

Big Government Socialist Republican Wants Governorship

One of the talk radio hosts in Boston was talking about the Massachusetts gubernatorial race, and stated that if incumbent Gov. Deval Patrick (D-Pepperland) wins, then that is a guaranteed tax hike for 2011. Jeepers, these people never learn, do they? (I think he was smoking something.) Given that the Republican is Charlie “Big Dig” Baker, who loves RomneyCare, I’m sure that you can count on a Gov. Charlie Baker to raise those taxes, like Mitt Romney did when he was governor. These people I listen to on the radio here were so psychotically in love with Scott Brown and promoted him as a “conservative” and  “Tea Partier,” despite knowing that he was a RomneyCare guy who opposed cutting the state income tax.

Neither Charlie Baker nor Scott Brown have an understanding of how government interference with the medical marketplace is what has caused the entire medical system to go downhill, and that RomneyCare fascism has done nothing but distort the natural pricing mechanisms that occur based on individual circumstances among doctors, health organizations, patients and insurance companies.

Given his incompetence involvement with the Big Dig and his lack of understanding of the medical system’s problems, Charlie Baker is going to be another tax-and-spend Republican Massachusetts governor (but only if independent Tim Cahill drops out of the race — otherwise, Gov. Patrick wins reelection), because Baker — like most other politicians — doesn’t understand that the whole system of “public governance” is inherently flawed, and because he will eventually oppose eliminating all the waste in government and cutting taxes because he won’t risk offending special interest groups (like unions, etc.).

Even though Jill Stein is a Green/Socialist, I might vote for her, because she’s a nice person, and the only non-politician in the race, and an actual private sector professional (physician) who has actually provided something of actual value to others. I’m so sick of professional politicians.

Massachusetts gubernatorial elections have not had a Libertarian (someone who actually understands the concepts of markets, civil liberties, voluntary exchange and private property rights) in the race since 2002.

The State’s Role in Global Disorder

While filling in for Rush Limbaugh a few days ago, Mark Steyn said,

The danger in the message Obama’s speech sent to the world is that this is a country being led by a president who does not understand America’s role in guaranteeing global order in the world today.

What do you mean by America’s role in “guaranteeing global order”? Can Mark Steyn refer to any statements by the Founding Fathers that America is responsible for “guaranteeing global order”? Can he point to where the Constitution authorizes the U.S. government to “guarantee global order”? I don’t think so.

If anything, the use (or misuse) of the U.S. government apparatus as a means to “guarantee global order” has caused global chaos. I don’t know what it is with these globalists and internationalists who really believe that America is responsible to fix the rest of the world’s problems — really, they mean the U.S. government is obligated to do so. In actuality, these neoconservatives with their delusions of grandeur God Complex and their love of the State (as we clearly saw in Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin’s preachfest last week) have done nothing but destroy the rest of the world with their military aggression, from Iraq starting in 1990 to Afghanistan, and economically with their Federal Reserve as they continue to also destroy America. The neoconservatives are not really that different from communists (as Gary North pointed out today), in their love of always expanding government and collectivist State control over the individual. As Robert Wenzel pointed out yesterday, regarding “Basel III global banking capital regulations,”

…When implemented, it will, over time, result in a lower standard of living on a global level for nearly all and greater separation between the super-wealthy tied in with global governments, and the rest of us…

The highly technical Basel III rules are all about driving bank money, on a global scale, away from making what banks would consider prudent investments and forcing them into investments into often highly questionable paper such as sovereign debt and Fannie and Freddie paper…

It is nothing but a huge power grab directing money to governments and the elite. Further, since it drives banks to buy extremely risky debt, it will result in making the global banking system more unstable, and set the stage for a huge global inflation, when governments will be forced to bail out these bad investments by printing more money.

It’s So Sad to Hear Delusional Election Fantasizers

It is just so sad to hear these radio talk hosts and their callers looking forward to this November’s elections, actually believing that ousting Democrats and putting in Republicans will improve America’s ongoing economic and psychological depression. Yesterday I was actually feeling sorry for Howie Carr on WRKO while they discussed how “vulnerable” some Massachusetts Democrat Congresspeople are, as though it really matters. As I mentioned in my November 2010: More Rearranging of Deck Chairs, those kinds of changing of the guard is just a matter of, as Gary North would say, “kicking the can,” because they won’t make any damn bit of difference (for the better, that is, but it could make a difference for the worse). As long as we keep extending the inherently flawed system of federal government and constitution that we have, it will never be fixed.

So, how many Republicans voted for the Wall Street Bailout in 2008? How many of them actually told the truth that a big reason the medical care system is so dysfunctional and why health care so expensive is all the bureaucratic red tape, the regulations and taxes, and that if you get rid of all those government intrusions, the prices will come down? Why don’t any Republicans introduce bills to impeach Obama, given all the unconstitutional crap he’s been forcing on America?

And what are the chances that Republican leaders McConnell and Boehner will be replaced this January? I think we know the answer to that question.

And I’ve pointed this out several times in the past, but the 1980 Reagan Revolution did nothing to reduce the size of the federal government. Reagan raised taxes, added more bureaucracies and continued to sign budgets with huge deficits. Reaganomics was a myth. After the 1994 Republican Revolution, the size and power — and intrusiveness — of the federal government grew and grew, and after Bush the warmonger-socialist was elected, and with 6 years of Republican majorities, the federal government continued to grow and its intrusiveness continued and now with no end in sight. So, you really think that this time is different? Well, if you think that, you’re living in a real fantasy world.

Hmmm. Let’s see who some of these new people are that are going to “change things” in Washington. Well, there’s Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul but not nearly as Libertarian, nor as straightforward about things, i.e. Rand seems to me to be quite the typical mealy-mouthed politician. Given his neocon-leaning positions on several issues, I don’t think Rand Paul has an understanding of the Founders’ principles upon which America was founded.

Oh, and in Connecticut, the Republican nominee is former World Wrestling executive and degenerate Linda McMahon. I’ve written about her a few times here. McMahon knows how to run a business: World Wrestling. Now there’s something. McMahon has real experience that will make her important work in the U.S. Senate quite useful, such as her steroids scandal. And as an actual participant in World Wrestling, she has experience in feigning a coma in a wheelchair and participating in simulated sex and rape scenes, hence “degenerate.” She can join in the other senators as they continue to rape the country and our freedom. McMahon is such a Republican and a “conservative” that before this year she has contributed to several Democrats’ campaigns including Rahm Emanuel and Mark Warner. So much for Linda McMahon.

And the reason that Republicans in Connecticut chose McMahon over Peter Schiff was because they didn’t know about him, because the local press sees Schiff’s views as very similar to the Founding Fathers, and that he has actual intellectual and economic proficiency so therefore he’s a “fringe” candidate, so why report on his campaign? There are actually two independents on the ballot, but will the local press mention them? (Nope.)

This is very similar to the Scott Brown fiasco here in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. There were actually three candidates in the race, Brown, Martha Cuckoo and Joe Kennedy the libertarian independent. It was Joe Kennedy who was daring to mention the constitution and why foreign military expansionism is against America, etc. I was saying well before the election how the nutsos on local talk radio were swooning over Scott Brown and deluding themselves into believing he was “conservative” and a (choke, barf) “Tea Party” candidate, despite the fact that he supported RomneyCare (and still does), opposed cutting the state income tax and supports the kind of environmentalist wacko regulations Al Gore ignoramuses would love. But, noooooo, the local talk hosts had their man-crush with Scott Brown, and that was that. He may have voted against ObamaCare, but he did vote for the Dodd financial regulatory bill, to show how much of an understanding of economics and finance he really has.

And speaking of Massachusetts, the talk hosts just yesterday were talking about the two Republicans fighting for the nomination of who will oppose Barney Frank, like THAT actually matters! This district is so gerrymandered, there’s no WAY anyone can beat Barney Frank, regardless of what scandals he’s had (like having male prostitution rings operating out of his apartment, like his male lover who worked as an executive at Fannie Mae and benefiting financially from Frank’s legislation, and the list goes on and on) because the people of the People’s Republics of Newton and Brookline just love their fellow leftist nincompoop.

Speaking of Newton, Michael Graham was discussing on his show today the new “Taj Mahal” High School in Newton, Barney Frank’s home town, that cost $200 million, and $40 million of that came from Massachusetts state taxpayers, people who don’t even live in Newton! It is one of the most disgusting rip-offs at the public trough I’ve seen in a while. (The Big Dig comes to mind.) These richy rich rich rich people in Newton and Brookline (See all the multi-million dollar homes in Brookline, and in Newton) have no idea how they are going to lose much of their extreme wealth when the policies of the hacks they have been voting for all these years finally crash back in their faces.

Oh, well. So much for democracy.

China vs. India, and the West vs. Itself

Eric Margolis: China and India: A War of Giants

Chris Floyd: Innocent Executioners: An Illustration of the Principles of Western Civilization in the Modern World

When I saw in the Eric Margolis article (linked above) the line about the British drawing the India-Tibet border (which apparently was in 1914), I’m thinking, “Oh, no, not that ‘British Mandate’ stuff again!” Those damn British really have been responsible for so much crap over the last century, particularly throughout that entire hemisphere, and I’m still learning one new item of information after another that continually confirms that.

There’s the British Mandate (I guess “mandate” means they date men.) expropriating lands and fortunes from Arabs/Palestinians in Israel, displacing indigenous Middle-Easterners to make way for European (not Middle-Eastern) Jews (and later the UN doing the same thing), there’s the Brits enslaving Iranians and more or less stealing their natural oil resources, as Stephen Kinzer has noted, and now I learn this about this current tension between India and China has its roots in Britain’s meddling into the affairs of all these other countries. If it’s true that Fate engages in retribution, then I’m not surprised to hear of predicted Islamization of Europe, particularly the U.K., as Mark Steyn has noted.

Speaking of Britain, last night I only heard a few minutes of the out-of-control, overly emotional Michael Savage (a real friend to the British, these days), responding hysterically to the news of the two guys who allegedly engaged in a “dry run” terrorist attempt. Savage is typical of our generation of short-term thinking, immediate-gratification oriented Americans, who can’t see very far into the past to understand the true origins of our current troubles.

The terrorists themselves have constantly been telling us what motivates their terrorist intentions, and it’s not because they hate us for our freedom and values (see the above linked article by Chris Floyd on modern Western values), or to spread their Islamic religion. Their primary motivation has been political: they don’t like the U.S. occupying and trespassing on their territories, for many, many decades — really since World War II. They don’t like the U.S. government planting military bases and other governmental apparatus on their lands. It’s no wonder that the neocons who support such socialist land grabs don’t understand these basic points, given their Trotskyist roots.

Such expansionism was never intended by the Founders, and neoconservatives should stop claiming to be advocates of “original intent.” Unfortunately, like many others who worship our federal Leviathan government, Michael Savage is too self-centered to understand that the principled, moral and practical solution to the problem is to remove all U.S. military bases and government agency offices from all foreign lands — they don’t belong there — and get the hell out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other Middle-Eastern and Asian territories, and Europe as well! Their presence abroad has no benefit to the United States, only drawbacks.

And, regarding the British as well, it looks like the dysfunctional U.S.-British co-dependence really wasn’t ended with the American Revolution — or since then.

The Chicken Little Kleptocrats

Yesterday on his radio show Jason Lewis was talking about how the government is taking away our liberty and property, and discussing the 9th Circus Court’s approving of the government having the power to trespass onto private property and stuff GPS intrusions onto or underneath people’s cars, in order to unconstitutionally track their every move, and discussing the 2nd Amendment that protects (or was intended to protect) our right to bear arms and self-defense. And Robert Wenzel gave his analysis of Fed chairman Clueless Ben Burnbanker’s speech in Wyoming yesterday, describing Burnbanker as a “mad scientist.” Gary North has his own translation of the speech. And many local talk hosts here in the Boston area were talking about Sarah Palin’s dissing of Scott Brown (Ooooo, Sarah said nasty things — albeit true — about Scott Brown…Oooo…).

Like all central government bureaucrats and monopolists, Ben Burnbanker has a God Complex — delusions of grandeur. Meanwhile, their precise manipulating and tweaking of America’s money or monetary system, in the name of preventing recessions, depressions and crashes, has been the actual cause of the recessions, depressions and crashes. But if these high-and-mighties would just leave things alone, stop intruding and trespassing their grubby paws into private economic activities where they don’t belong, and let people be free to use competing currencies and engage in voluntary exchange without external intrusions, financial, banking and monetary irregularities will naturally adjust themselves. We know that as an historical fact, from the levels of freedom vs. levels of government intrusions and the effects more or less government intrusions had on American economic matters in the 19th Century and during the 1920s.

But these fat cats of Big Government have their selfish God Complex and they like to have the power to intrude and violate private financial matters and exchanges and private wealth and property, so they don’t like freedom. More freedom means less power for them — that’s the bottom line.

And these central bank manipulators and intruders actually are criminals, in my opinion. I calls it like I sees it. Like George W. Bush’s Chicken Little (and Chicken Hawk) hysteria to invade Iraq, in the central banksters’ Chicken Little hysteria of September 2008, they engaged in acts of terrorism and extortion: terrorizing the population by threatening economic collapse and civil unrest, as well as looting and martial law, if the Congress didn’t comply with their demands of extorting “public” wealth for their private interests in their dreaded and ghastly Wall Street Bailout redistribution scheme.

It is those Chicken Littles and Chicken Hawks who have been ruining America. The leftist Al Gore environmentalist wacko Chicken Littles are also extortionists and terrorists, with their warning us that if we exhale, we are destroying the planet. They want to outlaw exhaling.

I say we outlaw the Al Gore environmentalist wacko Chicken Littles as well as the central bank Chicken Littles.

The real answers to the problems that these totalitarians have been causing would have been to repeal congressional mandates that forced private lenders to lend irresponsibly, repeal each and every restrictive regulation, tax, mandate that prevents those at the bottom from climbing up the ladder of success and prosperity.

But nooooo, the Chicken Little terrorists and extortionists, in their selfish wallowing in the public trough out of greed to take other people’s stuff, had to do their bailouts and “reforms,” all of which will have only exacerbated the problems and contribute even more to any future possible economic collapse, looting and civil unrest, and martial law. I hope that the doom-and-gloomers such as Gerald Celente are wrong about the extremely negative future for America, because, quite frankly, I don’t know how I personally will be capable of getting through such a situation.

Throughout the course of this blog here, I have been critical of government, particularly the federal government, and some people think that’s “unpatriotic.” However, some people just have a misunderstanding of what “patriotism” means. It is supposed to mean “love for one’s country,” but some people seem to think that means “love for one’s government.” Those are two entirely separate beings: the country and the government. If you actually step back and observe the history of America, you will see how every action committed by the U.S. government has done nothing but destroy America, little by little, from economic policy to foreign policy. That is because the federal government had long ago abandoned the principles upon which America was founded: individual liberty, private property, freedom of association and voluntary exchange.

We have learned that Major Chicken Little – Chicken Hawk George W. Bush took the U.S. into war with Iraq based on lies and propaganda, and we are learning that the Wall Street Bailout and other gimmicks by Bush, Ben Burnbanker and Henry “Hank” (or is it Pat?) Paulsen were based on lies and propaganda. The sole purpose of both those actions was not to protect Americans from terrorism or from financial disaster, but to expand the size and power of the federal government — for special interests like Goldman Sachs and defense contractors (but mostly for Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street parasites, including the military actions). I am hopeful that Americans are starting to wake up to what these criminals have been doing, and will stop being the sheeple who allowed the criminals to have the power that they have had.

I think that we must insist that Ben Burnbanker, Hank (or is it Pat?) Paulson and Bush be charged with “high crimes and misdemeanors” and tried for extortion and terrorism, as mentioned above. And if Bush took the country to war in Iraq, totally unnecessarily, based on lies and propaganda and that resulted in the deaths of thousands of his own fellow Americans and thousands of Iraqis, he should be treated as a war criminal.

With all that said, and seeing how the federal government has done nothing good for America and has done nothing but destroy America, I will reiterate what I’ve already mentioned several times here and elsewhere, that this November’s elections will be another rearranging of deck chairs on the titanic, and what needs to be done is completely changing the system, and dismissing the federal government (As Col. Klink would say, “Dis….missed!”), allow the states to have the independence and sovereignty that they were originally intended to have by the great people who founded America.

More Spying, More War

Philip Giraldi has this article in American Conservative, on how the Israeli government is continually spying on America. It is particularly disturbing that Israeli intelligence officers are portraying themselves as American intelligence officers to members of the American Muslim community. The Israeli government must be a very paranoid one (as is inherent in the nature of monopolistic government bureaucrats), to feel it’s necessary to spy on the United States.

And as part of their paranoia, the Israeli government and its military probably will strike Iran, or pressure the U.S. government to do it for them. Even if the Israeli government starts a war against Iran, it will pull the U.S. military into it, and it will all be as unnecessary and counter-productive as were the U.S. government’s two wars against Iraq. Typical of State territorial monopolists. Those who initiate acts of aggression as a means of “defense” will find such acts of aggression backfire against them.

If Israel strikes Iran, that will make Israel the aggressor. Aggression is immoral, except in self-defense. And for those who will rationalize a strike on Iran as “self-defense,” no, that is not self-defense. Self-defense is when you use aggression in response to an actual act of aggression that has been initiated against you. If one is the aggressor, the initiator of the aggression, then that is not self-defense. Claiming that one’s initiation of aggression is justified because one predicts that the object of one’s aggression might aggress against you is not self-defense. For aggression to be morally justified, it needs to be in response to an actual initiation of actual aggression. Thus, the ones who start wars are the aggressors.

So why all this continuing Israeli spying on America? Who knows. But that’s okay — they’re Israel, they can do whatever they damn well please, and get away with it. If you criticize them, you’re an “anti-Semite.”

Speaking of spying, someone said she downloaded Google Chrome, and wasn’t sure if it was okay, so I said if it’s just there in your computer it can’t do anything, like tracking your browsing habits, as long as you’re not using it. But she uninstalled it anyway.

Google Chrome is a relatively new web browser to compete with Micro$oft’s Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, etc. Google’s Chrome browser does keep track of your browsing habits, but that’s not too bad a thing, except they do that by keeping track of your computer’s IP address. Now that’s not good. It is especially disturbing when you know that the people high up the Google chain of command are in cahoots with the Obama Administration, who wants to do even more spying on Americans than did the Bush Administration.

Besides former Google global public policy officer Andrew McLaughlin, who is now White House Internet Policy Director, according to the New York Times,

Mr. McLaughlin is the latest Google executive to take an official role in the Obama administration. Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, has been a close adviser to President Obama’s transition team and is now a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Katie Stanton, a former Google project manager, joined the White House as its director of citizen participation. And Sonal Shah, former head of global development at, now heads the White House Office of Social Innovation.

Some critics fear that the growing presence of former Google employees in the administration could lead to purchasing and policy decisions that improperly benefit the company at a time when the company’s power is likely to come under increasing scrutiny from regulators. Already the Federal Trade Commission is looking into whether the ties between the boards of Google and Apple amount to a violation of antitrust laws. The Justice Department is inquiring into the antitrust implications of Google’s settlement of a lawsuit with publishers and authors.

Do we really want Google to keep track of our browsing habits via our IP address to act as a specific identifier of our actual individual identity, which may some time down the road be used by government officials (like the SovietObamaCare medical takeover isn’t bad enough already in that regard!)?

And speaking of Apple — and SPYING — the company has applied for a patent for a new technology that will enable Apple to spy (and I mean really spy) on its own users. According to Julie Samuels of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,

More specifically, the technology would allow Apple to record the voice of the device’s user, take a photo of the device’s user’s current location or even detect and record the heartbeat of the device’s user.


One big reason why governments (and their private business helpers) spy on their own people is paranoia. Government bureaucrats don’t want their power checked or questioned. They insist on having access to every detail of what the people are up to, and they insist on total secrecy of what they themselves are up to.

A Stern Yet Fair Criticism of Today’s Conservatives

August 15, 2010

© 2010 (Link to article)

Among conservatives in general, I am in the minority in actually opposing Big Government, and think that moral laws are absolute and that no one is above the law – not even agents of the State. Alas, today’s conservatives in general have been supporting a huge growth in centralized, bureaucratic federal government, at home and overseas, and are not actual conservatives. Many conservatives have abandoned traditional moral values that respect life, liberty and property, and have abandoned the principles of the Rule of Law and God-given rights as recognized by the Declaration of Independence, and have for many years embraced the interventionism of socialist central planning and the expanded intrusive State.

For some inexplicable reason, while many conservatives have shown skepticism of much of Washington’s Big Government domestic agenda, such as the recent medical and financial takeovers and other usurpations and power grabs, when it comes to foreign policy they seem to show a dangerously blind faith in the State.

I believe that one main reason why Americans including conservatives are out of touch with traditional values of morality and personal responsibility is the century-long proliferation of collectivism in America. War is a collectivist concept. To be blunt, war has been waged for the sake of war, for the sake of power, and to strengthen the power of the State, regardless of the emotion-filled rhetoric the politicians and other nudniks have spewed upon us to rationalize it.

In the Bush Administration’s and now Obama Administration’s wars and anti-terrorism short-term fixes, conservatives have been supporting an emotion-driven carte blanche unleashing of the federal Leviathan that has enabled so much corruption, usurpation of due process rights, as well as violating the absolute Rule of Law against killing innocent human beings. But this abandonment of American principles and contradiction of the Declaration of Independence is nothing new.

When conservatives opposed U.S. entry into World Wars I and II, they were incorrectly labeled “isolationists,” when in actuality they were “non-interventionists.” In Woodrow Wilson’s taking the U.S. government into World War I to “make the world safe for democracy,” his grandiose plan backfired against the U.S., because it was an abandonment of the Rule of Law and George Washington’s and Thomas Jefferson’s wise anti-”foreign entanglements” doctrine.

Intervention begets further dysfunction: Woodrow Wilson made the world safe for World War II.

A few years into post-World War II Cold War, conservatives joined the anti-communist crusade, exemplified by National Review Founder William F. Buckley, Jr., writing that “We have to accept Big Government” to prevent communism from spreading to our shores. But it’s the conservatives who have seemed like communists in their supporting a huge federal Leviathan, and supporting the forced, intrusive “spread of democracy” abroad (and the destruction of life, liberty and property abroad that goes with it).

Many conservatives oppose domestic interventionism, but for some reason foreign policy is different. Many just don’t seem to recognize – or want to acknowledge – that the U.S. government’s intrusions and aggression into foreign lands have elicited much anti-American sentiment especially from inhabitants of Middle-Eastern territories.

For example, the 1953 CIA-led coup that replaced Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh with the Shah gave Iranians 25 years of brutal dictatorship, so it should have been no surprise that such U.S. government interventionism would inflame anti-Americanism in Iran and throughout the Middle-East, and would lead to the 1979 taking of American hostages in Iran.

More fuel for anti-Americanism continued with the U.S. government’s providing Iraq with weapons and intelligence during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war. From the mentality of socialist central planning bureaucrats in Washington, the U.S. government aided Iraq in a “strategic planning” effort to counter the Iranian Revolutionaries, when it would have served America better in the long run to stop interfering in Iran’s, Iraq’s and other countries’ affairs.

Such socialist interventionism backfired much more intensely against the United States after the U.S. government’s invasion and destruction of Iraq beginning in 1990. The U.S. government’s non-retaliatory1990-’91 invasion of Iraq and subsequent destruction of water and sewage treatment facilities, and blocking the means necessary for rebuilding through sanctions throughout the 1990s, led to widespread disease, increased cancer and child mortality rates in Iraq, and further inflamed anti-Americanism. Sometimes I wonder if today’s conservatives, especially the younger ones, even know about those U.S. government actions during the 1990s. It seems that many people are now eager to do the same things to Iran, rather than learn the lessons of history.

After the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, conservatives abandoned their otherwise intuitive distrust for the State and fell prey to George W. Bush’s emotionalism and fear mongering, leading to a blind acceptance of what has now been one intrusion after another of domestic spying and unnecessary airport searches, a policy of randomly rounding up totally innocent people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, and remote-controlled drone bombings and killings of innocents, especially non-combatants, women and children. How can someone claiming to be a “conservative” and to believe in moral values support these kinds of immoral State-executed actions? And how can any conservative rationally support the Big Government Leviathan that has been shown to be nothing but counter-productive against America?

Despite repeatedly hearing from terrorists themselves the terrorists’ actual reasons for their terrorism – the U.S. government’s constant intrusions into Middle-Eastern territories for six decades – conservatives still fantasize that it’s because the terrorists dislike America’s freedom and values. But the truth is that they don’t like America because our government has been committing the most intrusive, invasive and harmful acts in their territories for many decades, since well before 9/11.

Unfortunately, the internationalists and collectivists, from the Wilson Progressives to the Bush neoconservatives, have considered a “moral” government as one that actively involves itself in the business and lives of others, domestically and internationally, using both government social workers and government soldiers. But that misuse of government has been the source of many problems and conflicts. In practical terms, the desired results of society’s collectivist planners are not actualized in the long term, because government intervention and socialist central planning involve violations of liberty and property, and cause further destruction of society. That applies to both international and domestic interventions.

Let me put it this way: If I hire a bodyguard, his job is to protect me from the aggressive acts of others. I don’t want him to do anything else. I don’t want him to go into the neighbors’ home next door to organize their home for them, and I certainly don’t want him to act aggressively against others. But if he starts a fight with someone, or interferes with someone else’s fight, at that instant he is making me more vulnerable to subsequent aggression by the objects of that bodyguard’s aggression.

Governments that impose intrusions into other territories or start wars make their own populations more vulnerable. Poking Middle-Eastern hornets’ nests has made Americans less safe.

But I believe that the Rule of Law is absolute. Never intrude into the lives, liberty or property of others anywhere. No theft, no trespassing, no killing of innocent human beings, period.

Call me old fashioned.

To the Founders, a moral government does not violate any individual’s right of sovereignty, one’s right to life, liberty and property, in or outside of America. And the denial of due process is not only contrary to the Founders’ original intent, but conservatives may very well have been supporting policies that could be used against them by presidents and their flunkies who do not believe in the idea of inalienable rights. We have already learned that about Elena Kagan.

We really must decide whether or not “all men are created equal,” and “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” To be a truly moral society under absolute Rule of Law, a society must decide in the affirmative.

I wish that conservatives agreed with me on that.

The Left’s Totalitarianism vs. Liberty

With all the Obama Administration’s power grabs and the media’s manipulations, one can now get a clear picture of the left’s true totalitarianism, while in some ways, the conservatives have become the new liberals. Through the Tea Parties and other renewed activism, the conservatives protest the increasing government intrusions into our daily lives as the leftists build their totalitarian centralized State in Washington.

While the left are true authoritarians in their political agenda of total State power, it is really many conservatives who are “liberal” in the conservatives’ and Tea Party movement’s advocating less State power and authority over our lives and fewer State intrusions into our privacy and businesses. It is the conservatives who want to liberate us from the serfdom of the left’s medical, financial and otherwise State intrusions.

If only the conservatives and Tea Partiers could step back and see that there isn’t really much difference between the growth of the centralized security bureaucracy-military socialism and the growth of the left’s domestic social bureaucracy and usurpation of control over every aspect of our daily lives. If only the Tea Partiers could let go of their worship of the Leviathan State security bureaucracy that has made America less safe.

But here I want to address the deceit and totalitarian intentions of the left. The recent JournoList emails disclosure by the Daily Caller is but one small demonstration of the left’s true intentions. Journalism used to be a profession in which the truth was to be uncovered and told. We are now seeing how the left’s suppression of the truth comes from their mystical worship of the State.

As the Daily Caller has exposed, the JournoLists schemed to manipulate their news coverage in 2008 to deliberately suppress stories about then-candidate Barack Obama, such as his relationship with the hate-emitting Rev. Jeremiah Wright, as part of those reporters’ way to manipulate voters’ opinion of Obama and affect the election, which the reporters did accomplish.

The left can be harshly yet accurately characterized primarily as immature adolescent punks. More specific Freudian analysis could cause people to ponder whether the reason the news and entertainment media trashed Sarah Palin so much in 2008 and afterwards was that those leftists hate their mothers. But we’ll leave that for the psychoanalysts out there to consider.

Also in recent years the left’s being anti-authority has been a misdiagnosis. Like the conservatives, in the left’s love of their god, the State, the left love the authority of the State, they revere the State, and they merge their identities with State power, à la George Orwell’s novel 1984.

They just loathe traditional authority in the context of the family, the church and in communities, or, what economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe has described as “natural” authorities. And frankly, I think that deep down, the conservatives’ rhetoric of favoring family and church authority above the State has been just rhetoric (to get votes). The conservatives, too, revere the State as a god.

The left’s agenda is not one of “love and compassion,” as their rhetoric tends to proclaim. If they were compassionate toward others and loved their neighbors, the left would not support policies of government theft and trespass against their neighbors, policies of intrusions into the private property, homes, businesses and private lives of others. Were the left friends of the poor and disadvantaged, they would not advocate one government mandate, tax and regulation after another that restricts those at the bottom from entering various fields of endeavor.

The left just isn’t a friend of equal opportunity, freedom of association, voluntary exchange, and the sovereignty of the individual. The left consists of collectivists who love the democratic way of majority rule as a means of empowering groups and gangs against the individual. Their philosophy is totally contrary to that of the American Founders.

And the use of deceit exemplified by the JournoList emails is pervasive among the left, not just within the journalism guild but in a whole range of activities in which a leftist agenda is prevalent, including academia, pop culture and government. Only months ago we witnessed how Congress rushed through a massive health care bill without much debate. The mainstream press did not inform the public of what exactly the conniving politicians were up to – the role of informing the masses was taken up by conservative and libertarian talk radio and blogs, and members of the Tea Party movement. The destructive financial regulatory bill was also rushed through Congress deceitfully, and all these acts of legislative shakedowns and swindling are inherent in the left’s agenda.

A few months ago, Hot Air published a lengthy article by former ACORN employee turned whistleblower Anita Moncrief detailing ACORN’s true agenda of “stealth socialism,” and the true tactics of ACORN following the Saul Alinsky method of how the Have-Nots can take power (i.e. wealth and property) away from the Haves. America has already been a socialist society especially since the New Deal.

Communism is State ownership and control of industry, wealth and property. We have seen before our very eyes that once-stealth and now direct and blatant agenda in Obama’s taking over whole industries including much of the auto industry, the medical industry and the banking and financial industries.

And after all the federal takeovers, usurpations and power grabs by the Bush Administration in the name of “national security,” I put them in the same category of implementing State ownership of not just security related industries, but our what had been an otherwise inherent right of self defense. And I am not one to put the Bush bunch on the right, either.

It just seems that so many on the left hate individual liberty, individual responsibility and independence. We have seen the inherent dishonesty and immorality of communism, combined with the deceit and shenanigans used to promote and implement such a wretched scheme. In contrast, those of us who advocate restoring the sanctity of private property rights and freedom of association call for not “stealth” and indirect, but direct and aboveboard the outright dismantling of all the intrusive laws, regulations and extortionist policies the Big Government leftists have put into place this past century. And this especially includes ending all confiscatory taxation, because it is nothing but theft.

It comes down to this: either the individual has a right to the reward and compensation for one’s labor, as agreed to with mutually consenting traders (employer, contractor, client, buyer, etc.) or one does not. Either the individual has an inalienable right to one’s life, one’s person, one’s labor (initially) or one does not have that right and is therefore obligated to be a servant for others by compulsion, for the collective, the community, the State.

And it really is either/or. There’s no in between, no compromise. You either have Liberty or you have serfdom. Liberty is the right to be free from the aggression of others. Serfdom is a state in which others may use aggression against you to take what they want, particularly the rewards and compensation for your labor.

There is a problem when you allow any institution — in this case the State — and its agents to have the power of compulsion over others. It is immoral to allow someone to have the power of compulsion over someone else. That is what we have had for many decades in America. Because when one does that, one is contradicting the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and one is saying that all men are NOT equal, that some are above the law, and that all individuals do NOT have inalienable rights to life and liberty, and that it is permissible for some people to commit acts of aggression, theft and trespass against others.

When you allow some people to have that power of compulsion over others, the power to commit aggression, theft and trespass against others as we have in America for many decades, then those who are given positions of power will abuse it. And that’s simply because of human nature. Whether they be national security power grabbers or domestic social welfare power grabbers, the power will be abused, and it has and will continue to be abused. That is why the American Founding Fathers were skeptical of the State, and their words of experience and wisdom had stopped being taken seriously (except by only a handful of people per generation) since their time.

People just believe their lying leaders and promisers of better times ahead, because they want to believe them.

Don’t believe them.