Skip to content

Tag: envy

More News and Commentary

Alex Knight has the real reasons why the people on the left are so hysterical over guns.

Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Trump NSA wants to continue spying on innocent Americans without suspicion or warrant.

Jacob Hornberger says to look to China to learn about America (see above).

John Solomon with an article on another FBI failure involving the Clintons and James Comey.

Elias Marat on a new study revealing how ADHD drugs alter the structure of children’s brains.

Matt Agorist on a mom thrown in jail and her child stolen, to punish her for treating child’s cancer with CBD oil.

Robert Murphy with a study finding that planting trees reduces carbon better than carbon taxes.

Jon Rappoport on Scuzzball Twitter, Inc.

Murray Rothbard on the impossibility of equality.

And Randall Holcombe with three assumptions the people on the left make about economic inequality.

Socialists Are Fascists, and Vice Versa

Thomas DiLorenzo writes on the LewRockwell.com blog:

Socialist Economists Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty Want to Know Where All Your Money Is.

They belong to an “independent commission” that advocates a “global asset registry” that would use blockchain technology to track all assets in accounts over $10,000.  Like the advocates of firearm registries, they want an asset registry so that the state(s) knows where to go to steal your property when the time is right.  Other members of this “commission” include various United Nations political hacks, fellow far-left academics, and various tax collectors, such as the former revenue commissioner of Nigeria, all of whom favor some kind of globally administered socialist welfare redistribution scheme.  (Thanks to Kyle J.).

Related: Yuri Maltsev has an article on Alexandria Obama-Chavez (AOC) and her proposals that would end up resulting in the same kind of death and destruction of all past socialists regimes and dictators.

Ocasio-Cortez is attractive and well-spoken individual, but so were Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara and Fidel at her age. All of them disguised their insatiable lust for power by “altruistic idealism” and when they have fooled enough “grey masses” and “useful idiots” to get the power, they all became the worst mass serial killers as the logic of these ideas demanded them to.

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.

The Ongoing Mueller Kangaroo Court

Apparently former Trump lawyer and “fixer” Michael Cohen has postponed his testimony before Congress for a few more weeks.

The latest controversy includes some emails that have surfaced between Cohen and Felix Sater.

Sater is known as “Individual 2” in the case against Cohen in this kangaroo Mueller fishing expedition. Sater, a felon, bar-brawl fighter, and Mafia-tied longtime FBI informant, is yet another sleazy character among the Trump universe.

Given that Sater has been an FBI informant since 1998 and had infiltrated the Trump organization as early as 2003, I would not be surprised to hear that the FBI has been using Sater to go after Trump for many years now. I would also not be surprised to hear Michael Cohen just make things up in his congressional testimony, like according to whatever made-up stories Herr Mueller told him to say.

Those latest controversial emails between Sater and Cohen include Sater allegedly writing, “Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it.” And, “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected.”

The emails seem to indicate, at least to me, that Sater is writing the things he wrote in order to try to fabricate some sort of connection between Trump and Putin, on behalf of the FBI’s possible entrapment obsession. But, you can believe what you want to believe. Given the sleazy and corrupt characters in all this, I would not be surprised if Sater wrote those things like directed by the FBI for the purpose of entrapment. Call me cynical. (Call me realistic.)

Now, I’ve written this several times now, so, sorry if I sound like a broken record. The reason that government apparatchiks like John Brennan, James Comey, James Clapper, Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller go after successful entrepreneurs in the private sector, like Martha Stewart and Michael Milken, Aaron Swarz, Joseph Nacchio and John Kinnucan, and now Donald Trump, is that bureaucrats are a different breed of human being (if I can use the phrase “human being” to even describe them). They are parasites, generally with no real talents or abilities, except for playing along in an organization or racket whose main purpose is siphoning off the earnings of others, benefiting from the labor of others.

Bureaucrats, a.k.a. apparatchiks, have an anti-capitalistic mentality. Their persecution is of those whose success is based on voluntary action and the voluntary choices of consumers. The bureaucrats’ persecution is motivated by envy and covetousness. It’s the same kind of motivation behind those who want to steal as much as possible from “the rich,” from entrepreneurs. The apparatchiks are those who enrich themselves from such “taxation” i.e. theft and plunder. The government-monopolized “justice” system enables and empowers those parasites to go after peaceful traders who are guilty of made-up non-crimes in which there are no victims.

Ludwig von Mises called the apparatchiks and parasites’ mentality an “anti-capitalistic mentality.” [Also see Mises’s Bureaucracy (.pdf)]

It looks like, given that the FBI has probably been after Trump for decades, this is going to never end, until they see him taken down from the Presidency, by hook or by crook, or throw him in jail based on minor technical “offenses” from his taxes from 10 or 20 years ago.

“Green New Deal”: Rule by Crazed, Brainwashed Fanatics

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey have presented their hysterically irrational plan of nearly-total government takeovers of the energy sector or of the entire economy, in the name of “saving the planet.”

But it is really in the name of giving more elitists in Washington more control over the lives of others, in the name of slowing down and reversing society’s growth and progress it has experienced over the past 100 years, and reversing the rise in our standard of living.

It is in the name of punishing those who are successful and wealthy and taking away from them the justly acquired fruits of their successes in order to “equalize the wealth.” In other words, rather than strive to make more people wealthy and prosperous, let’s strive to make the masses poor and impoverished. And we’ll implement our fanatical mythological beliefs as part of the process.

Ed Marxey has a history of this kind of insanity as part of the Massachusetts moonbat tradition. And no, Alexandria Ocasio-Loonytunes, the world is not going to “end in 12 years” if we don’t do the progress-reversing, mass poverty-causing things you think are necessary.

“Climate change” fanatics: the climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years. There have been ice ages, and there have been warming periods. Nothing you can do about it. The effects of human industrial activity and fossil fuels could only be so infinitesimal as to not have any real effect whatsoever. Climate change is a natural occurrence of the Earth, regardless of human behavior.

The climate change hysteria is mainly based on computer models that don’t pan out, and fraudulent, junk science. But people believe what they want to believe. The hysterical fanatics refer to skeptics of the global warming/climate change fanaticism as “deniers,” explicitly referring to Holocaust deniers to insult and denigrate those who are not a part of the hysterical, irrational chicken littlers. The fanatical climate change crusaders have also called for jailing skeptics. These fanatics are literally crazy, brainwashed people.

I heard Glenn Beck this morning lambasting Boston University, where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got her degree in economics. But ALL the colleges are like that. The colleges are turning out brainwashed robots who think thoroughly irrational things. And those young people already begin by being products of the government schools, who make the kids dumber and dumber as they go from K through 12. Sad.

The State of the Union

Apparently Donald Trump has been permitted by the high queen of botox to give his State of the Union this week. I hope that Rex Reed and Jaye P. Morgan don’t come along and gong him. But here is my take on the “state of the union.”

As I’ve written before, the territory of America is just too big a territory and too big a population to be all one single country or culture, all ruled over by one bureaucracy in Washington. It needs to be decentralized.

On the one side, we have the mystical nationalists who want that single nation and culture, from coast to coast, border to border. And their tribalist mentality, endorsing the police state and government wall to lock out foreigners. Many of these same people who say they are against the killing of unborn babies, couldn’t give a damn about babies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and so forth.

And on the other side, we have the leftists who want to kill babies, steal money and property away from people and who want the government to be in control of taking in foreigners, mainly to have new voters to help further empower Democrats.

Many on both sides are lacking in moral principles, and are in contempt of freedom, individualism and private property, the very principles upon which America was founded. I’m really getting tired of all this.

The latest controversy is Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam who admits to being in a yearbook photo in which 2 people are shown, one wearing “black face” and the other in a KKK shmata. The news articles aren’t saying which one is Northam. But this is coming up at this time because of further scrutiny of Northam now that he has expressed the sentiments of abortion-promoting Democrats and Planned Parenthood.

In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was Democrat strategists who found the yearbook and brought that to people’s attention, just to take attention away from Northam’s quote in an interview on abortion.

The recent abortion controversy has been revived by New York state whose anti-freedom governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a much loosened abortion policy, in which non-doctors may perform abortions, and if the baby is “not viable.” (A lot of born babies and young kids are “not viable,” because they are dependent on their mommies for feeding. Should it be legal to kill them, too?)

And then in Virginia this House delegate Kathy Tran introduces a “partial-birth abortion” bill, to allow the killing of a baby just as it’s being born. Now, some talk radio people have been saying that Tran’s bill would allow the killing of the baby after the baby is born, which would be murder. However, there is not much difference between killing a baby just as it’s being born and killing a baby after it is born.

But Gov. Ralph Northam was asked about the bill in an interview and it is really this quote that Democrats are trying to sweep under the rug. Northam misunderstood what the actual bill would allow, but obviously he gets what the pro-death activists and the abortion industry really intend. Here is the quote, according to the Daily Caller:

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Like the narcissism of the social activists who want to compel others to have to use certain pronouns that are incorrect or accept as truth that someone is a male even though he is a female just because he says he is a male, narcissism is what abortion activism is all about. “The baby is inconvenient for me, so kill the baby. I can’t be bothered to go through 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth. I can’t be bothered with using birth control, etc., etc.”

Related to all this, Democrats want “Medicare for All” or “single payer,” but most important is that the government has complete control over our medical matters, has complete access into our private medical and personal information. The anti-freedom socialists don’t believe that people have a right to privacy (except when it comes to abortion!). They don’t want a society of private property, so your home is not yours, and your private medical matters are not for just you to know, or just between you and a doctor. The socialists will want to know everything about the people among the population. They especially will want to know who might be a Christian or a conservative, or who homeschools their kids, or who owns firearms.

So with the abortion issue we have had a good idea of how some people really think, such as when we heard that Planned Parenthood was selling body parts of aborted babies. That is how some people think of their fellow humans.

And there is the narcissism and economic covetousness of many of the same people.

Elizabeth Warren says that billionaires should “stop being freeloaders,” even though probably in most cases billionaires became billionaires by way of consumers voluntarily paying their money for products or services those billionaires are offering.

Why does Elizabeth Warren want to steal even more income or wealth from people than the government already steals from them? And yes, when the government orders someone to hand over one’s earnings involuntarily at gunpoint and with the threat of being thrown in a cage, that’s stealing.

Warren stated:

“All I’m asking for is a little slice from the tippy, tippy top. A slice that would raise — and this is the shocking part, Jim — about $2.75 trillion over the next 10 years … That’s money we need so that every kid in this country has a decent child care opportunity, has an opportunity for pre-K, has an opportunity for a decent school.”

Barf. Me. Out.

But the federal, state and local governments have been throwing more and more money into government-run education, and the schools are producing dumber and dumber, and more and more ignorant graduates. What about that, Pocahantas?

And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to tax, i.e. steal, a much higher percentage of people’s earnings as well. Some people have been referring to her as “AOC,” but that reminds me too much of “AOL,” which I had from 2001-2005 and that ruined my then-computer with a terrible virus. So AOL sucks, and I will not refer to “AOC,” and just type out her name.

Steal 70% of someone’s earnings? Will it ever be enough? And for what? What exactly does the government in Washington do that is worth ANY of the money it steals from us? NOTHING!

And now the new congressperson from Detroit Rashida Tlaib wants to seize GM’s closed plants using eminent domain, and use such places for the “Green New Deal.” She’s the degenerate who spewed a most profane and disrespectful tirade at a bar recently.

Nothing about paying GM for the use of the closed plant, or offering to buy the closed plant from GM with funds from the philanthropists who generally seem to agree with these crazy clucks and their environmental fanaticism, such as Bill Gates or George Soros.

Nope. their mentality is “let’s steal property and confiscate wealth,” robbing and thieving, make use of other people’s hard work and labor to serve our own narcissistic agendas, etc. “All these producers and creators of wealth in our society are too ‘rich,’ so because of our own selfish envy and covetousness we must take it all away form them and steal their property.”

And kill babies just before they’re born (or after they’re born), because they are inconvenient.

But the people on the other side, such as conservatives, talk radio ditto-heads, nationalists, are just as bad. They don’t believe in private property and free markets, and they also believe in stealing private wealth, imposing fines on those who trade with non-government-authorized producers or sellers, jailing employers and laborers who do not comply with orders to get government authorization to exist, in their trade idiocy and their anti-foreigner immigration collectivism and tribalism.

I’ve heard plenty of the egalitarian “everybody has to pay their fair share” crapola from the talk radio ditto-heads and so forth. They do not get what America is all about: private property, free markets and voluntary trade, individualism and freedom.

Each person is an individual. If you don’t suspect an individual of violating the person or property of others, then you leave him alone. An employer wants to hire a worker the employer thinks is most qualified, so he hires him, and you leave them alone. No going to Mommy and Daddy government for permission or authorization to work somewhere or employ someone. But the dittio-heads don’t get that. For them, freedom stops at the border, and outsiders may not come into “our home” without a bureaucrat’s authorization.

So, both the leftists and the other side are for the police state, government intruding into people’s private lives, and, most of all, government central planning.

It’s enough already.

Enough of the Control Freaks and the Covetous (the Ocasio-Cortezes, Tucker Carlsons, et al.)

Sometimes all this is so frustrating. That is, advocating for freedom. The free America that the Revolutionaries founded has slowly and gradually become a place in which criminals and parasites can rob their neighbors and get away with it.

The biggest mistake committed by the early Americans was to create an apparatus with compulsory control to rule over the people.

And now we have generations of brainwashed serfs who comply obediently, and really believe that the racket in Washington is something that shouldn’t be completely dismantled.

On the Hill there is a poll showing that majorities of Americans support raising the top income tax rate to 70%, including people identifying as Republicans.

Meanwhile, appearing on 60 Minutes was Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who, regardless of her denials, promotes the socialism of Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela and not the “socialism” of Sweden, Norway and the U.K. The latter group are capitalist countries (private ownership of the means of production) with a welfare state, not socialist countries.

Now, a lot of people, for example this Fox News commentator, think that Ocasio-Cortez is the voice of an ignorant generation. But the above poll suggests that much of the entire population is ignorant of economics and history.

Regarding her proposal to tax high incomes at 70%, Ocasio-Cortez said, “That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder you should be contributing more.”

Oh, yeah? “Contributing” to what? Most of what the federal government is unconstitutional, that is, unauthorized by the U.S. Constitution.

And “contribute” usually means to pay into something voluntarily. But who would voluntarily pay to keep U.S. armed forces overseas? Such invasions and occupations mainly have resulted in provoking foreigners into retaliatory actions against us, and trillions wasted.

And who would voluntarily pay into a scheme of molesters, gropers and thieves, also known as the TSA?

The list goes on and on, totaling more than 4 trillion dollars, much of it needless, useless crap.

But Ocasio-Cortez says that “there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”

Morally right? Now, there’s a knee-slapper. On the social spending side, Ocasio-Cortez wants to spend other people’s money, stolen from their paychecks and other income, on “free health care, free education,” free stuff, free this or that.

I think she’s one of those True Believers who really believes that everyone has a “right to health care,” or a “right to education,” even though there are people who do not take care of themselves, eat terrible foods, drink like fish or smoke like chimneys. Those people, quite frankly, should not be considered to have a “right” to force a doctor to have to treat them.

Redistribution of wealth schemes, especially when made involuntary on the people, encourage people to not take care of themselves. Why bother being conscientious with eating habits or avoiding poisonous drugs and booze when someone will be right there to involuntarily treat you, and it’s all paid for?

Unfortunately, as those polls suggest, conservatives have been bitten by the tax-theft bug as much as “liberals,” for decades now. The envy and covetousness is equally spread on the left and right, and all points between, especially since so-called conservatives caved on FDR’s New Deal and more so LBJ’s “Great Society,” with Social Security, Medicare, etc.

Tucker Carlson of Fox News is himself quite ignorant of economics and history, and has been showing an anti-capitalistic covetousness in his talks recently. Shame, shame, shame on anti-free market “conservatives.”

Carlson feels the Bern, last August (and more recently last week).

Regarding Carlson’s slipping into anti-capitalist socialist rants, Tom Mullen points out,

It’s hard to believe Carlson could get so many things wrong in under five minutes, starting with his general premise. He and Bernie argue the problem is the corporations not paying enough, resulting in taxpayers having to pick up the slack. But business enterprises in a free market are supposed to seek the lowest prices they can find for labor and other inputs. That’s how market economies drive down the costs of consumer goods and make all members of society richer.

Carlson does not seem to understand that about the free market.

More recently, in a not-particularly-coherent rant, after noting the decline of American society and the importance of marriage, Carlson states:

Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate as someone who’s living off inherited money and doesn’t work at all. We tax capital at half of what we tax labor. It’s a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.

Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You’d have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.

But he never really seems to get what might be the root cause of so much societal decay. In my view, it is the institutionalization of theft, a.k.a. “taxation,” and the population allowing bureaucrats to impose intrusive policies into the private lives of the people.

Involuntary redistribution of wealth schemes empower parasites in central bureaucracies to wield control over others, a control which should not exist in a free society.

If there weren’t an income tax which is imposed coercively and with threats, then many of the power-wielding tyrants would otherwise be sweeping floors in the local Wal-Mart. That is because if there were a genuine free market and no government monopolies over a population compelled to support them, such skill-less bureaucrats would never be able to find actual work, in my view.

But, like Carlson, many people don’t seem willing or able to look at the income tax itself, or understand that it is a scheme of involuntary wealth confiscation via coercion and threats (otherwise known as “theft”).

The income tax-theft has been the underlying basis that has enabled and empowered criminals and gangsters to commit their crimes against their neighbors and get away with it. (For example, would the FBI, CIA, and DOJ have been able to do their dirty deeds had they not been involuntarily financed with the coercive tax-thefts? Nope.)

On the tax-thefts, Murray Rothbard wrote in his Ethics of Liberty,

For there is one crucially important power inherent in the nature of the State apparatus. All other persons and groups in society (except for acknowledged and sporadic criminals such as thieves and bank robbers) obtain their income voluntarily: either by selling goods and services to the consuming public, or by voluntary gift (e.g., membership in a club or association, bequest, or inheritance). Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion, by threatening dire penalties should the income not be forthcoming. That coercion is known as “taxation,” although in less regularized epochs it was often known as “tribute.” Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State’s inhabitants, or subjects.

It would be an instructive exercise for the skeptical reader to try to frame a definition of taxation which does not also include theft. Like the robber, the State demands money at the equivalent of gunpoint; if the taxpayer refuses to pay his assets are seized by force, and if he should resist such depredation, he will be arrested or shot if he should continue to resist…

And on the State, Rothbard wrote in his Anatomy of the State (.pdf),

The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the “organization of the political means”; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory. For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute.

What has been lacking in America for over a century is freedom, economic freedom including the freedom to keep everything you earn (or otherwise honestly acquire) and do with it whatever you want. Americans used to have the freedom to save, invest, spend, contribute to charity, start businesses without government permission or government stealing from the people.

If there is to be an “America,” people need to know that it was founded to be a place of freedom, in which people are protected from others taking their earnings or property by force.

And an America in which people can come and go as they wish. No government permission, no visas, no passports, no being questioned by goons at the government border.

And early on the Revolutionaries who founded America recognized that it was the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the government to keep and bear arms. A free society is one in which people have whatever means of defense they wish to have. No government permission, no license, no registration, etc. That is actually a safer society.

I think the masses now for generations have been so brainwashed with propaganda, they really believe that it is right that they be subjugated by government authorities, that they must seek bureaucrats’ permission to do this or that, that they must submit to government rulers and enforcement goons stealing their money away, and accept all the other totalitarian, police state crimes that government criminals commit against the people.

We need to change that.

Freedom goes with free-market capitalism, while socialism and government theft of private wealth and property are anti-freedom, a police state, and a life of serfdom.

Further reading:

Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt

Taking Money Back, Making Economic Sense (.pdf), Free Market, For a New Liberty, and The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard

And Soak the PoorTaxation is Robbery, and The Income Tax: Root of All Evil by Frank Chodorov

Why Do People Still Embrace Socialism, Despite Its Failure Throughout History?

Jeff Deist of the Mises Institute has a concise overview of the “last war against socialism,” asking, “Why does support for socialism persist?” Despite all its historical failures, the immorality and criminality of it. The self-proclaimed socialists want a planned society, and they don’t care about the lives of those who get in the way of their plans. It is a utopia of extreme narcissism, in my view.

Elizabeth Warren the Mad Power-Grabber

Elizabeth Warren is the U.S. senator from Massachusetts running for a second term that she supposedly will easily win on Tuesday. But she is campaigning in other states, most recently Ohio and Wisconsin (two very big electoral college states for a Presidential election), supposedly for candidates in close races in those states. I am sure that this trend of Warren staying outside of Massachusetts will continue and escalate after she is reelected to the U.S. Senate, given her statement that she would “take a hard look” at running for President in 2020.

You see, power hungry politicians love power so much that they are constantly seeking higher offices and more power.

Warren, a.k.a. Pocahontas, isn’t the only political hack from Massachusetts to begin a run for President while supposedly “serving” her constituents in a current office. During the 1980s, Gov. Michael Dukakis was reelected in 1986 to a third term, and already “testing the waters” for a 1988 Presidential bid.

In 1987 and ’88 Dukakis was absent from Massachusetts so many times, he should have resigned as governor and let Lt. Gov. Evelyn Murphy take over officially as the acting governor. But noooo, Dukakis was not able to let go of his current power in his drive for even more power. Just as Elizabeth Warren is doing now.

And then when Evelyn Murphy ran for governor of Massachusetts in 1990, Dukakis wouldn’t help her and didn’t campaign for her, as Barack Obama and Donald Trump are doing now on behalf of their respective party candidates in elections this Tuesday. So, Dukakis (who turns 85 today, by the way — must be all those turkey carcasses), was kind of walking all over his Lt. Gov. Evelyn Murphy while he ran for President, in which she performed all the duties as governor in his absence, but he wouldn’t resign and make it “official,” or help her in her 1990 election bid, which she lost even in the primary.

And then we had Gov. Mitt Romney, a.k.a. “Willard” Romney, who walked all over his Lt. Governor Kerry Healey, a.k.a. “Muffy Healey,” while Romney was absent from the state for over 200 days in 2006, his last year as governor while Healey performed all the duties of governor. And then Romney wouldn’t help her in her election bid for governor in 2006, just like Dukakis in 1990 (because Romney was so power hungry, like Dukakis and Pocahontas in their lust for higher political office). Healey lost, of course.

In 2006, when Willard Romney was already running for President and abandoning his duties as governor, he shoved the mandatory health insurance law down the throats of the people of Massachusetts. So, right there he’s telling people not only is he not a free-market kind of guy, but he’s ramming mandatory health insurance regardless of how destructive it would turn out to be, just so he can campaign with some new government scheme to brag about from his time as governor.

Brag? About “RomneyCare”? By 2012 RomneyCare didn’t control costs, but he did cause the state’s largest provider for the poor to have to make cuts because of the impact of RomneyCare.

I think politicians with power love to order the masses to do this or that, whether you like it or not. “You must — MUST — have health insurance,” Romney commanded. Just like Michael Dukakis ordering the people of Massachusetts you vill wear a seat belt, and you vill enjoy it.

And Elizabeth Warren, who wants to order private businesses to organize themselves via sex, national origin or race on their boards and their management teams, whether they like it or not, consumers be damned. Since when does Elizabeth Warren, creator of the Democrats’ money-laundering racket “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” care about consumers? What Pocahontas cares about is power, and more power for bureaucrats. In her bizarre world of irrationality, businesspeople must be accountable to bureaucrats, not to the consumers as it would work in an honest world.

Anyway, back to Romney. Here is Willard at the signing ceremony for his mandatory health care atrocity, introducing his unindicted co-conspirator Ted Kennedy:

As I wrote about Romney regarding his upcoming easy win for U.S. Senate from Utah (one of his many home states):

During his 2012 Presidential campaign, Romney said that, regarding taxes, “everything is on the table,” including raising taxes on the wealthy to reduce the deficit. No surprise there.

During his time as governor of Massachusetts, Romney raised taxes on corporations. The tax hikes, according to columnist Deroy Murdock, “totaled $128 million in 2003, $95.5 in 2004, and $85 million in 2005.” And, according to Murdock, Romney “created or increased fees by $432 million…Romney charged more for marriage licenses (from $6 to $12), gun registrations (from $25 to $75), a used-car sales tax ($10 million), gasoline deliveries ($60 million), real-estate transfers ($175 million), and more. Particularly obnoxious was Romney’s $10 fee per Certificate of Blindness.”

My, what a great guy, this Willard.

You see, he is typical of the elitist political class, taking from the poor and middle class and redistributing the wealth to the rich fat-cats, as we saw in his support of the Wall Street Bailout in 2008. To show how clueless he was about the Federal Reserve and the financial crisis of 2007-2009, Romney endorsed the reappointment of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in 2010. During his 2012 campaign, Romney received the most among the GOP candidates (and more than Obama as well) from the Big Banks in campaign contributions between just January and September of 2011, according to Michael Snyder: $352,200 from Goldman Sachs, $184,800 from Morgan Stanley, and $112,500 from Bank of America.

As a crony capitalist with Bain Capital, Romney used government subsidies with some of the companies Bain bought out to restructure and sell and profit from.

Speaking of crony capitalism, when it comes to “climate change” interventionism, Romney is all in. No free market solutions in sight with this Willard. For instance, in 2012 he cited a study in support of carbon taxes, and, according to Forbes (or you can view that article here), Romney’s advisors were all for cap-and-trade legislation/regulations, subsidizing renewable energy, with one advisor who was involved in the “Department of Energy loan guarantee program that funded Solyndra,” and another who was responsible for getting the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments passed.

If you live in Utah and would rather not vote for Romney for U.S. Senate, then you might want to consider the Libertarian Party candidate, Craig Bowden.

So this Willard Romney person is the one who called Donald Trump a “phony,” a “fraud,” a “fake,” and a “con man”! (Watch Willard begin his next run for President immediately after getting elected to the U.S. Senate, just like Elizabeth Warren. They are drooling for POWER!)

But when it comes to Elizabeth Warren and honesty and integrity in politics, I think that Liawatha comes very close to Willard in being a “phony,” a “fraud,” a “fake,” and a “con man” (or con-woman) in her claiming to be a minority to get her position on the Harvard Law School faculty. Because Warren knows nothing about law, and virtually anything else that matters, she had to take the sleazy way to “success.”

Incidentally, not that you would want to be reminded, but here is what Elizabeth Warren thinks of entrepreneurs, the producers of wealth that she as a bureaucrat wants to take away by force:

She’s trying to take down those who actually create the wealth in society by claiming that she and others share in the accomplishments based on “paying” for roads, schools, and police.

But, as Robert P. Murphy wrote,

For one thing, a factory owner already does pay a lot for use of the government roads and labor services of his employees. In contrast to other “public goods,” roads often have a much more dedicated payment stream, in the form of tolls and gasoline taxes. So the factory owner, who pays trucking companies to ship products around, is already paying a lot more to maintain the interstate highway system than is a lower-income person living in Manhattan with no car.

Politicians don’t really think things through, do they?

So, in that video Warren roars, “You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory…”

You mean, like power-grabbing socialists, Elizabeth? Like the Venezuelan regime? Like Cuba? The Soviet Union? Like you greedy bureaucrats in Washington? The ones for whom nothing is ever enough, no amount of taxation is enough for you crooks!

As with most politicians, has Elizabeth Warren ever produced anything of value in her nearly 70 years? Should we compare her or any politician or bureaucrat to Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Andrew Carnegie, or Martha Stewart, or Oprah?

Nope. That bunch of entrepreneurs created wealth with their talents and many, many people have benefited from their accomplishments. They were or are creators. Wealth creators.

But the power grabbers and power seekers of politics and government continue their push for more and more power over others. They are not the wealth creators of society, it’s just the opposite. They are the takers, the confiscators, the thieves, the obstructionists, the true “oppressors” of our time.

A “#MeToo” Movement for Political Consent

James Bovard writes that we need a #MeToo movement for political consent, comparing to non-consensual sex the fact that even though you vote for your elected officials chances are that you don’t really consent to their votes or policies that result in violating your rights and your life, liberty or property. Yet, that is mostly what public officials and their enforcers do.

But that is the system that we have in place. The masses elect people to “represent” them and to “serve” their needs, but because the system is a compulsory monopoly and the masses must obey the authorities’ laws, policies, mandates or prohibitions, those in power can really do whatever they want and get away with it, no matter how dishonest, corrupt or criminal.

And it is worse the more centralized the system is. That is why if this society is going to survive as a civilized society, it must get rid of the centralized apparatus in Washington. It shouldn’t have been created to begin with. The more decentralized the better.

A lot of people just can’t or won’t grasp that. The conservatives who say they love “limited government” don’t want to admit the truth, because they are so mystical in their “love of America” and just a little too indoctrinated to love the government in Washington whose bureaucrats have more or less ruined America. The talk radio crowd are authoritarians who love and worship government police and government military and thus they love the Washington apparatus. The thought of dismantling the empire overseas, closing down all those U.S. military bases and bringing all the troops back to the U.S. (and putting them in the private sector!) frightens the conservatives and nationalists who “love America.” They believe in American Exceptionalism, not the Golden Rule.

And the people on the left want “democratic socialism,” or socialism, or communism, whichever word you like. They mean the same thing, quite frankly. They want to “destroy capitalism,” even though they have cars, iPhones, TVs, and all the crappy junk food they can eat as a result of capitalism, not socialism. What’s going on in Venezuela is what they will get if they really want socialism in America, the empty store shelves, the long lines, the mass starvation, the government killings of dissidents, military takeovers of industries, and their beloved Maduro and his minions living high off the hog at the people’s expense. That is what happens when the government takes over industry and has the power to steal wealth and earnings from the people. The rulers live off their slaves’ labor, which is pretty much what we have now in Amerika.

And as we have seen from the anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant morons like Trump and his ditto-head followers is that they actually love socialism, too, and not capitalism. Capitalism being “free markets,” that is, which necessarily includes a free market in labor and employment. If the anti-immigrant crowd wants to deport foreigners or block people from coming to America, arrest businessmen for hiring unauthorized workers regardless of their being peaceful and not harming anyone, then those anti-immigrant collectivists are really against free markets, and for government-controlled or government-owned markets, i.e. socialism.

So now we have elections next week. And for what? So Democrats can be empowered to impeach Trump or have special investigations of him, and attempt to repeal the Trump tax cuts that have enabled people to keep more of what rightfully belongs to them? Like the conservatives, the people on the left don’t seem to like freedom very much, as their policies have been mainly to confiscate the wealth or earnings of others, based on envy and covetousness. But then, the anti-immigrant crowd are also acting on covetousness when they approve of government police-state interfering in the honest, peaceful labor of foreigners. “They’re taking jobs away from Americans,” and all that crap. American “citizens” are entitled to a job by an employer in America. So, it isn’t just the people on the left who have a covetous entitlement mentality.

And let’s elect more Republicans to Congress to further expand the police state, further empower the military as they’re doing now, further expand the surveillance state, and all the bureaucracies that Republicans love as much as the Democrats. The Rethugs are True Believers, that’s for sure. (Read Laurence Vance’s articles exposing the Republicans.)

So I’m not sure if we can have a #MeToo movement for political consent as long as the system of institutionalized non-consent is in place. Let’s have a free society instead. Okay.

Why the “Civil Rights” Act Should Not Apply to Private Property

In my unusually long recent post on the “enslavements of socialism and social justice,” I included some comments on the LGBT “civil rights” issues, such as the bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the transgender bathroom intrusions. And even though that post was a follow-up on an earlier post, I now have this follow-up on the “enslavements of socialism and social justice” post.

Regarding the Christian bakers refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, I wrote that because the business is privately owned the owners have a right to serve or to not serve prospective customers. That’s a part of property rights. And I wrote that the couple being refused service taking the bakers to court and suing them can be considered an enslavement of the bakers, because the prospective customer is using force or coercion to make the businessperson provide something involuntarily. Some people react to my writing that in a negative way, but the actual truth about some things does bother some people.

People have a right that’s a part of property rights to associate with or do business with anyone they want to, as long as it’s voluntary. No coercion is allowed in a civilized society, because using force or coercion against someone is … uncivilized. Laurence Vance explains it all very well in this article and this article. All people, private citizens or businesspeople, have a right to discriminate for or against anyone else, for any reason they have, based on ignorance, prejudice, race, gender, political views, any reason whatsoever. It’s not just to do with freedom of association and property rights, but freedom of thought and conscience as well.

No one has a “civil right” to be served by someone else. No one has a “civil right” to access private property. There are no such “rights.”

Which brings me to the “Civil Rights” Act of 1964, which repealed and prohibited government laws segregating people by race (“Jim Crow” laws), and outlawed government-imposed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That anti-discrimination law applied to all government-run operations such as the schools, parks, city buses and subways, and so on.

In my view, as long as we have a “publicly-owned” government ruling over all of us, then of course that government (or those governments, in the case of city and state governments), its bureaucrats and enforcers may not discriminate against any citizen based on those kinds of subjective, arbitrary factors. A “publicly-owned” government belongs to the public, which consists of everyone in the public. It does not belong to the bureaucrats in charge or their goon enforcers. So of course this Act should have outlawed such discrimination.

But the Act also outlawed discrimination on privately-owned premises such as restaurants, hotels, cafeterias, movie theaters, concert halls, etc. that were referred to as “public accommodations,” but are nevertheless privately owned and exist mostly on private property. The “Civil Rights” Act of 1964 and subsequent Amendments should NOT have applied to ANY privately owned business, function, place of worship, and other facility that is not owned by the government.

The social activists have eviscerated private property and private property rights, which are the last vestige of a free society and civilization. The social activists began their crusade against private property with the whole progressive movement. In the 19th Century with their intrusions into education by getting local governments to usurp the function of educating children away from parents and neighborhoods, imposed mandates, compulsory attendance laws. They continued with getting local or state governments involved in marriage, in which prior to those times the idea of a government-mandated marriage license would have been seen as absurd.

The social activists then imposed the income tax. Your earnings are no longer “yours,” but from then onward your earnings first belong to the gubmint who will then allow you to have whatever the bureaucrats determine you are allowed to have. Slave.

FDR imposed further intrusions, usurpations, wealth tax-thefts with all the New Deal, “Social Security,” and then LBJ with Medicare and Medicaid, and the aforementioned “Civil Rights” Act.

I think a lot of it also has to do with the institutionalized envy which is what socialism is all about. Some people are making use of their talents and abilities and making a living independently, or are successful with a large company, and the envious don’t like that. There seems to have been this impulse to use the armed force of government to take away from people who are successful. And if that’s not enough, use the armed force of government to intrude into their businesses and property.

Anyway, now that sexual orientation and gender identity have been added to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin among the list of aspects we may not discriminate against, we now have gay and lesbian couples intentionally suing private businesspeople not for those plaintiffs to get their just service that they demand from the businesses (even though most of the plaintiffs were nevertheless able to find someone else to bake their cakes or photograph their weddings), but to exact revenge on their victims who didn’t want to associate with them or do business with them. And who do not accept their particular lifestyles. Narcissists, as I was writing in that earlier post.

Could the people concerned about being discriminated against based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, have foreseen that sexual orientation or gender identity would be added to the list? I think not, because why didn’t they include them at that time? And why stop at sexual orientation and gender identity? I’m sure that, given how the social activism movement on the left has become militant in their attempts to push their non-conforming, odd or deviant lifestyles down the throats of others, they will get legislators to add “lifestyle” or some similar word to “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity,” and so on.

Recent laws also affect private therapists or counselors who are forbidden by law to even discuss “conversion therapy” with gender confused clients who actually want to try to become accepting of their actual gender. So freedom of speech is now being affected by these “civil rights” laws. So is the idea of common decency.

Private properties and businesses who are forbidden to discriminate were initially hotels, restaurants, i.e. actual “public accommodations,” that now include small businesses such as bakeries, florists or photographers, and practitioners such as psychotherapists and other doctors are now affected. Even churches are included. “Houses of worship” are in the list of “public accommodations.” Did people in 1964 see ahead as to where that would all lead to?

But where is all this leading to? If small businesses, a professional’s private practice or “houses of worship” are considered “public accommodations,” then how far away from actual public accommodations such as hotels will the social activists use their new legal powers to impose onto others? Will it eventually include people’s homes?

Remember, there is a difference between “civil rights” and “civil liberties.” “Civil rights” laws should repeal any and all government laws or policies in which the government is discriminating against people. But not private citizens, whether their discrimination is in their personal lives or their economic lives.

But now with “civil rights,” the social activists have proclaimed a “civil right” to access someone else’s private property and a “civil right” to demand to be served by someone else, involuntarily. So with this bunch of stuff, actual civil liberties have been eviscerated as well as private property rights and common decency.