Skip to content

Tag: immigration

Articles for Armistice Day

Arjun Walia: War propaganda and fake news.

Gary Barnett: Why oppose war?

Barry Brownstein: Without free speech, all speech becomes government speech.

Alex Knight: Greta Thunberg vs. Boyan Slat.

Peter Quinones: Blaming libertarianism for every “societal woe.”

Brandon Smith: There are things worth fighting for, and fates far worse than death.

Jacob Hornberger: The case for open immigration.

Robert Wenzel: New tactic from Trump administration to decrease lawful immigration.

Dr. Mercola: Stark evidence of Google censoring health news.

Mac Slavo: NBC uses propaganda to promote the “benefits” of microchipping.

Patricia Hynes: Novermber 11, remembering the tragedy and legacy of World War I.

Matt Agorist: Entire police department now gone after good cops refused to enforce quota system.

Charles Burris: Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the first leftist, and the anti-individualist, anti-capitalist “conservatives.”

Watts Up With That?: Meet the doomers, depressed climate warriors.

Reason: Michigan counties steal properties based on minor tax payment mistakes.

And Alexander Zubatov: 4 reasons why socialism is becoming more popular.

Which Is Worse: The Left? Or the State?

Well, it appears that Mises Institute Chairman Lew Rockwell will publish a new book that he describes in his article this week, Against the Left.

I think it’s a good thing to expose and critique those on the Left for their hypocrisy and ignorance, and their favoring violence over peace, and their favoring State control over freedom.

But sometimes, especially in my reading LewRockwell.com every day for years now, it seems that recently perhaps Lew has become more “Against the Left” than he is “Against the State.” It’s just my own perception, but that’s how it seems, especially with the immigration issue.

So, I’ll get my more critical points out of the way at the beginning here.

As Jacob Hornberger has pointed out many times, most recently here, the closed-border “libertarians” seem to endorse the police state on the border when it comes to immigration. What happened to free-market capitalism? And private property rights, in which a private property owner has the freedom to invite whomever he wishes onto his own private property?

And what happened to the principle of individualism? If this individual over here is not suspected of having violated the person or property of another, then you leave him alone. Period. Wha happen? Now, immigration “invasions” seem to be turning people into collectivists. (Maybe Lew has been listening to too much ditto-head talk radio?)

The closed-border libertarians don’t seem to want to bring up the reasons why there are caravans from Central America going to the southern U.S. border, which include mainly the U.S. government’s evil “War on Drugs” and the U.S. government’s aid to Central American governments who have been tyrannizing innocents in those parts.

Yes, LewRockwell.com and Lew’s own LRC blog and “Political Theatre” have had plenty of articles on the U.S. government’s prohibition of drugs and the police state that goes with it, but they seem to not make a linkage between the immigration problem and those statist policies.

And by the way, Rebecca Gordon has written on Tom Dispatch a somewhat decent article on those main causes of people fleeing those Central American countries. But an extra, made-up cause she wants to throw in there, to completely ruin her article, is “climate change.” Yes, besides the “War on Drugs” and U.S. government aid to tyrants, climate change is making people flee Central America and want to come to the U.S. And Gordon throws in this lie, citing the New York Times, that the U.S. is the “biggest carbon polluter in history,” when we know that the U.S. has become one of the least of the polluters (with a few specific exceptions like Los Angeles), certainly not as bad as China and India. But I digress.

It’s too bad the people on the Left can be very good in their anti-drug war, pro-civil liberties, anti-war views, yet still cling to propaganda when it comes to their anti-capitalism, anti-progress agenda. And that’s all the “climate change” fanaticism is all about: envy, and using the powers of government to steal even more from the workers and producers of society.

So, there definitely are still some things I agree with, in Lew Rockwell’s critiques of the Left. But he doesn’t define what “the Left” actually is. I’m sure he does this in his new book that is yet to be published.

And what actually is “the Left”? And what is the “right”? I used to see it as collectivism versus individualism. But many people on the “right” today are against individualism, against the free market, and against private property. They endorse the statist drug war and its police state, the war on immigration and its police state, they love and worship government police and military (which are products of socialism, not capitalism, by the way), and they also endorse and love huge socialist government programs, such as Social Security and Medicare.

In his article, regarding education Lew Rockwell mentions that the “young people are not taught about the evils of the Left, only its myths. They do not believe there were gigantic atrocities in the Lenin-Stalin Soviet Union, nor Mao’s China. Socialism is good!…”

I think he means that the young people are not taught about the evils of socialism or communism, i.e. the State. (Maybe “the Left” = socialism?) And on LRC he posted a link to an article by Lawrence Ludlow on how much worse the government schools are now than they were 30 years ago. The emphasis is now on grade curving regardless of performance.

Education being centralized, bureaucratized and run by the government are why we have so many dumb and ignorant students being graduated from the government schools, and why so many government teachers are also dumb and ignorant. In that article, Ludlow didn’t mention affirmative action or higher education, but we see just how bad affirmative action is when a con artist like Elizabeth Warren — white as a ghost — can scam Harvard University Law School into hiring her as a professor based on her checking the “minority” box and claiming to be Native American. She should have been criminally charged with fraud.

And Ludlow did mention the transgender phenomenon. In schools, the teachers and students are encouraged or even required to use plural pronouns such as “they” instead of “he,” “him,” “her” and “she.” But this is incorrect grammar. These are schools?

No, the schools are leftist cult indoctrination centers. The evil leftists, or “cultural Marxists,” are using very personal and private sexual matters to manipulate and twist the very young people’s sense of self worth and individual identity, as well as destroy their critical thinking skills and keep them ignorant of facts, truth, knowledge and history, and attempting to prevent the young people from going on to live a healthy, functional life.

And back to Lew Rockwell. And this is probably just a minor issue, really, with Lew. In this recent interview with Mises Institute President Jeff Deist, Rockwell said, regarding Supreme Bureaucrat Brett Kavanaugh and his recent confirmation battle, “And also it’s important to see the feminists defeated. So, I’m glad he was confirmed…”

Well, Kavanaugh may have won the seat on the Supremes, and defeated the feminazis who made things up to falsely accuse him of sexual assaults, but he is NOT anti-feminist, or anti-SJW. He is one of them. As I wrote here, Kavanaugh had stated at the beginning of his confirmation hearings, “Title IX helped make girls’ and women’s sports equal. And I see that law’s legacy every night when I walk into my house, as my daughters are getting back from lacrosse or basketball or hockey practice.”

What? That’s how Kavanaugh sees the “legacy” of Title IX? Are you kidding me? The true legacy of Title IX is many false accusations against innocent men at universities and colleges, professors being demoted or fired, employees being harassed or fired at workplaces…And Kavanaugh has NO idea of all this, because he spends too much time at his Washington cocktail parties, the bubble baths, and he himself has now been a VICTIM last Fall of the “legacy of Title IX”!

So, sometimes I wonder if Lew is more anti-Left than he is anti-State. He is glad that Kavanaugh was confirmed even though Kavanaugh is himself a leftist, a Big Government police statist combined with being an SJW. The worst of the worst.

Someone who is more anti-State than anti-Left would hope for Kavanaugh to be defeated, regardless of the false accusations against him.

In my view, if we had to choose between the Left or the State, I would say that we don’t need the State, and in fact we need to get rid of it, or at least the centralized State especially the U.S. government in Washington.

We need to persuade people to see the Leviathan in Washington for what it is. Even letting the fifty states have their sovereignty and independence as nation states, by way of peaceful, voluntary decentralization, would be a MUCH better start than the tyranny of enslavement we live in now.

And without the Regime in Washington, the Left would not have any power. So, we can live with a “Left” in our society, especially when those people have no power structure to grab onto and to use as an implement of totalitarian power and control over the rest of us.

And speaking of that, I also wanted to address some things in this other recent interview of Lew Rockwell by Atilla Mert Sulker. Lew says he’s “pro-nationalism.” And he says, “It’s only recently that you’re supposed to hate your homeland, and turn it over to whoever wants to come in on welfare.”

Well, I think he’s distorting things. Personally, I don’t “hate” my homeland, USA. I’m indifferent, because this “homeland” country is too big. I have no feelings toward most people in California, for example, me being from New England. (But I DO hate Connecticut, not the people, but the state in which I grew up. Now it is a communist, tax-thieving torture chamber. Who in his right mind would live there? Should I consider that my “homeland”? And love it?)

But the centralized “homeland” USA needs to be decentralized, in my view. And turning our society over “to whoever wants to come in on welfare”? This is a case against the welfare state, not against freedom of movement and people finding a better life. With no welfare state (and no income tax thefts, etc.), there would be no incentive for any would-be layabout parasites to come here.

But Rockwell also says, “And also, I notice that all the bad people in society hate nationalism, and are always denouncing it, whether it’s the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or academics, or left wingers…”

Excuse me, I am not a nationalist, and I am constantly criticizing the idea of nationalism, which is a form of authoritarian collectivism, by the way. Does that mean I’m “bad”? But I’m peaceful, a voluntaryist. I’m in my mid-50s and have never committed any criminal or violent acts against others. I’m not exactly a “left-winger” in my support of voluntary exchange, private property rights, and ending government schools.

And I do agree with Lew in that interview regarding the Libertarian Party, which has gone down hill since the days of Ron Paul and Harry Browne. Lew said, “But I must say that I don’t think the L.P.’s strategy of reaching out to the far left- you have to, for example, be a feminist, to be a libertarian, or all these other things. That’s just ridiculous. But they’re much more concerned with leftism, than they are with freedom.”

Sadly, the Libertarian Partly has become the party of “social justice warriors” in which just about everything is “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” “transphobic,” etc. So it’s “Racist, racist, racist!” (and “Russia, Russia, Russia!” too, now) with many of those brainwashed, government school-“educated” sheeple. Just like the progressives and Democrats. The Libertarian Party needs to become the party of freedom once again, not just another party of the Left, like the Democrats, Republicans, Greens and Socialists. And that means being 100% against foreign interventionism, income taxation-theft or wealth taxation-theft, and being 100% supportive of private property rights, voluntary and free exchange, voluntary contracts, and the idea of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle.

Anyway, the Left is very bad. But the State is worse. And the Left could not do nearly as much damage to us were it not for the unnecessary existence of the State, especially the evil centralized State in Washington. But a book titled Against the Left by Lew Rockwell is probably something to look forward to reading.

Time for Voluntary Decentralization

Jacob Hornberger asks, Should libertarians support Trump’s immigration raids?

Laurence Vance says we should eliminate the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). And when we’re finished doing that, eliminate CIA, FBI, NSA, TSA, DHS, ICE, FTC, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, and all the other crap in Warshington.

WND with an article on Nellie Ohr serving anti-Trump to DOJ.

Robert Wenzel on Trump’s hypocrisy with Israel/BDS movement, yet Trump imposes sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, and Russia.

And Michael Rozeff comments on university sources of gender and other sexual madness in our schools.

Immigration and the Anti-Capitalistic Socialists on Conservative Talk Radio

I was listening to “Pat and Stu” filling in for Glenn Beck the other day, and they seemed to be glad that the Trump administration has cracked down on “illegal immigrants” by raiding places of employment. The talk radio Beck flunkies were even sounding like liberals in their show of concern for the “below-minimum wage” work the illegal people were being made to do.

I thought I was going to toss my cookies. These conservatives are pathetic. They’ll say anything and make anything up to justify their irrational anti-free market, anti-capitalistic mentality, and their anti-foreigner tribalism and collectivism.

As Jacob Hornberger and Robert Wenzel point out, the immigrants who were raided and arrested were not the “rapists and murderers” that Donald Trump was complaining about throughout the campaign in 2016. These people were arrested at their jobs, in places of employment, not the welfare office to get on the dole. They aren’t out on the streets selling drugs or engaged in sex trafficking like the now late Jeffrey Epstein allegedly. They are working and honestly providing for themselves and their families.

These immigrants are not criminals. But the people who are criminals are those government goons who are harassing them, violently seizing and detaining them and throwing them in a cage, just because the workers didn’t get the permission of the government to work where they wanted to work and attempting to make a better life for themselves and their families.

Socialism includes having to get government authorization to do what you want to do or go to where you want to go. So, like Rush Limbaugh and Howie Carr and the rest of the ignorant ditto-heads on the radio, “Pat and Stu” on the Beck show certainly qualify as socialists.

In contrast, a true capitalist believes in the free market, in which people sell their labor, goods or services to others and it’s between these traders as long as they are peaceful. They don’t get a government bureaucrat’s authorization or permission, like in the old Soviet Union, Cuba or New York City.

More News and Commentary

Robert Murphy on plastic bans: imaginary benefits, real costs.

Gary Barnett says the technocratic state is the mortal enemy of the individual.

Jacob Hornberger says that open borders is the true libertarian position.

Chris Calton on how qualified immunity for government police became absolute immunity.

Daniel McAdams tells Rosie Gray that no, Tulsi Gabbard is NOT this election’s Ron Paul. (The smear of Tulsi Gabbard is intensifying in the same way as the statists smeared Ron Paul in 2008.)

Tom Luongo says that the Empire is coming for Tulsi Gabbard.

Kevin Gosztola on judge rejecting DNC lawsuit of WikiLeaks and defending journalists’ First Amendment rights.

Danny Sjursen says that U.S. troops back in Saudi Arabia will end badly.

David Stockman on the great fiscal miscreant making America broke again.

Brandon Smith tells us how real mind control works.

Lee Friday on recycling: wasting resources while claiming to conserve them.

Allen Mendenhall says the United States is not a nation: the problem with “National Conservatism.”

And Jonathan Tepper on the doctor monopoly killing American patients.

News and Commentary

James Bovard on attorney general William Barr: defender of FBI snipers.

Daisy Luther on California’s creepy “Cradle to Career” data system to track everything about children.

Mac Slavo says the CIA wants to make it easier to jail journalists, and Congress isn’t stopping it.

Ernest Canning explains why we must restore the title, “War Department.”

Jack Burns on a police commissioner being arrested for questioning the cty’s use of facial recognition.

Jacob Hornberger on immigration hypocrisy, left and right.

Jeff Jacoby asks, Trump blasts “the Squad” for not loving America — does he?

Charles Burris on the disaster of the House voting to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour

Zero Hedge with an article on an immigrant student losing the Miss World title for refusing to try on an hijab.

And Daniel Mitchel on the Green New Cronyism, Solyndra on steroids.

Trump’s “Racist Tweets,” And Pressley Ordering Black People to Only Have a “Black Voice”

Before I address the Dear Leader’s series of “racist tweets” directed at 4 “congresswomen of color,” Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib, I wanted to first respond to some comments made by Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Marxachusetts).

This past weekend, Pressley spoke to some people and she stated, “This is the time to shake that table. … We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need any more black faces that don’t want to be a black voice…”

I really don’t understand what it is with these people on the left who seem to be extremely obsessed with race and skin color. Why does Pressley insist that someone with a “brown or black face” MUST be a “brown voice,” or a “black voice”?

And what exactly is a “black voice”? What if a black person wants to go to Washington and express a voice of FREEDOM, regardless of race?

And who the hell cares about skin color?! Does this mean that I should refer to Ayanna Pressley as Black Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, since she finds it so important to be a “black face with a black voice”? How about calling her a “Congressblack”?

Even the Congressional Black Carcass is siding with Madame Establishment Speaker Pelosi against the four “Congresswomen of color.”

But seriously, if I were a black person going to Congress, I would be a voice for freedom, regardless of what my skin color is. Repeal each and every drug law and abolish the DEA, repeal the income tax and abolish the IRS, dismantle the entire national security state and get rid of the evil CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, TSA, and all the rest of them. Those totalitarian agencies violate the lives, liberty and property of black people, white people, Hispanic people, Irish, Italian, everyone.

Why are the people on the left so obsessed with race and skin color? And gender and sexuality as well?

Now about Donald Trump’s “racist tweets.” He basically said that those four Congresswomenpeople should go back to the countries they came from, even though three of the four were born in the U.S. and all 4 are U.S. citizens.

Divided into three tweets, The Donald wrote, “So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly……….and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how……..it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

So obviously Trump doesn’t understand the First Amendment, which explicitly protects the right of the people to criticize their government and propose changes to it and to its policies. Duh, Donald.

After all, wasn’t it Trump throughout the whole 2016 campaign who was criticizing just about everything that Bush and Obama had been doing and their terrible policies and wars and all that? So maybe Trump should go back to where HE came from, and “help fix the totally broken and crime infested places,” etc., etc. (And where is Trump from again? Oh yeah, that foreign regime of New York City.)

More on Fascism and Socialism in Amerika

Jacob Hornberger on Ricardo Salinas’s statist solution to the immigration problem.

Daniel Lazare says that Robert Mueller is in a pickle now that a judge has shut down half of Mueller’s Russia interference case

Aaron Maté says that Mueller’s own report undercuts its core Russia meddling claims.

Robert Wenzel explains how to smash Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s climate scare lunacy (using her own method).

The Daily Caller with an article on Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff admitting to what the Green New Deal is all about (not the climate).

Michael Krieger says that Alex Acosta reportedly claimed that Jeffrey Epstein “belonged to intelligence [sic]”

Kurt Nimmo on the crimes of the CIA and FBI, they only matter when the political class is targeted.

Dave DeCamp says it’s about time we recognize what fuels terrorism.

MassPrivateI on Gen Z adults encouraging each other to sign up for facial recognition at music festivals.

Barbara Boland says that Americans are shocked to find that their rights literally vanish at U.S. airports.

Ron Paul on the anti-Iran warmongers.

David Stockman on “Pusillanimous Powell”: pivoting toward subzero junk.

Richard Ebeling on progressive promises and the cost to liberty.

And Philip Giraldi on the death of privacy: government fearmongers to read your mail. (Don’t they do that already?)

More News and Commentary

John Whitehead says that you can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.

Judge Andrew Napolitano asks, Can government punish twice for the same crime?

Ron Paul on medical IDs, the enemy of privacy, liberty, and health.

Reuters exclusive: Pompeo keeps Saudis off U.S. child soldiers list.

Jack Hunter says that Tom Cotton is a maniac.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers with U.S. foreign policy exposed.

Judicial Watch on the Obama State Department at the center of anti-Trump coup cabal.

Benedict LaRosa on background checks: they violate property rights.

Brian Shilhavy on a government report: $160 million paid so far in 2019 for vaccine injuries and deaths.

William Anderson asks, Why are progressives so bad at governing?

Joe Jarvis says that fake news does more for real journalism than “real journalism.”

Andrew Bacevich calls Brett Stephens a warmonger.

And Walter Williams discusses black education decline.

Conservatives Love Socialism: Immigration

Last week there was another thought-provoking post by Jacob Hornberger on the immigration issue. He notes how conservatives tend to abandon their alleged advocacy of private property when they try to suggest that America’s territory has some sort of common ownership and the American people have a right via the U.S. government to restrict travel across the borders.

Conservatives often use the national-home argument to justify their support of a system of immigration controls. They say that America is a “national home,” one owned and controlled by the U.S. government. As the owner of the “home,” the argument goes, the U.S. government has the “right” to lock the door and determine who to let into its home. Conservatives sometimes say to me, “You lock your front door, Jacob, and you don’t let everyone into your home. Why shouldn’t the federal government have the ‘right’ to do the same with our home?”

In fact, I heard these same exact words uttered by talk radio personality Jeff Kuhner just this morning. If you’ve heard Michael Savage, you probably have heard Jeff Kuhner filling in for him. But now Kuhner has his own local show in Boston, so he can bless Bostonians with his own fingernails-against-the-chalkboard nationalism idiocy.

Anyway, Hornberger goes on to write that America is not a “national home,” but a society of private property, in which the private property owners have a right to invite whomever they want onto their own private property, or to exclude anyone they want from their property. That applies to our homes, businesses, etc.

But Kuhner and his idol Donald Trump, et al. don’t get this concept. They seem to think that the whole territory is communally owned by the people, which would negate the idea of private property. And given that these so-called conservatives are collectivists and authoritarians, they obediently support the U.S. government in Washington as the true owner-caretaker of the territory as a whole. When either the centralized government or the entire population of “citizens” have ownership of the territory, then they have a de facto ownership of everything within the territory, in my view.

And I am going to go further than what Jacob Hornberger writes (as I have done so previously), regarding the socialism aspect of the nationalists’ policies of collective ownership of the territory. Yes, it actually is the nationalists and conservatives who are the socialists on this issue, while the libertarian advocates of “open borders” are the capitalists, the advocates of free markets. (However, those on the Left who want government sanctuary cities and government-forced welfare for immigrants are the other side of the same socialist coin, not free market.)

Socialism being government ownership of the means of production, and given that one of the most important means of production is the people, the nationalists like Kuhner and Trump support all the socialist government controls which attempt to control the movements of millions of people, which is impossible.

The nationalists and conservatives say that foreigners must get a government bureaucrat’s permission or authorization to go somewhere to work. But, if one must have government authorization to do what you want to do, then that means you are not the owner of your own life and your labor. The government is the de facto owner.

And the same thing applies to when a business owner must get government permission or authorization to hire someone that businessman wants to hire. That means the government is really the ultimate owner of the business. Ownership is control. If the owner-on-paper businessman really were the owner of his business, then he is the ultimate decider on whom to hire and whom not to hire. So these certainly are socialist policies of government, they are authoritarian and disrespectful to private property rights and the idea of unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Some people such as the nationalism fanatics say that one must have “citizenship” to be able to “get in to the country,” and otherwise are “breaking into the country,” etc. And they compare that to a burglar breaking into your home. But those are two different things, as mentioned above. But the idea of citizenship itself is government ownership of the people. To have “citizenship” means that you have government authorization, which is what socialism is. So, these concepts and policies of nationalism and citizenship really are policies of socialism. They certainly are not policies of free market capitalism.

One last thing about the conservatives is their short-sightedness. They see that there is an immigration problem, and so they support all these socialist government controls. They never seem to ask what is causing the problem in the first place. One major cause is the war on drugs, which is itself another socialist scheme. Another problem the conservatives refuse to address is the welfare state. A system of forced income-theft and wealth redistribution is immoral and in fact, criminal. But conservatives don’t want to get rid of the welfare state, because they believe in it, because they love socialism.

And finally, some people call the government immigration controls and the drug war “fascist” policies, with their police state and all that. And they are fascist policies. Fascism is a system of government controls although property and industry are still privately owned. However, as I have stated, ownership is control, and if you supposedly own property or a business, and in fact own your life and your labor, if you don’t control those things and the government is the final and ultimate authority with control, then you don’t really own those things. The government is the de facto owner, so really fascism is just a form of socialism with the pretense of private ownership.

Some Comments on the Immigration Issue

I have been wanting to write more on the immigration issue, but I think I’d rather concentrate on other matters. So, I am going to repost some past posts on that issue from the last two or three years, or excerpts of posts. These issues are more on a philosophical level here. But the bottom line is, do we want freedom in America, or do we want a police state? Right now it’s a police state with a “Constitution-free zone” along the borders and coasts (and all points between, quite frankly, thanks to the imbeciles and fascists in Washington).

So here are some of those past posts or excerpts:

In the post, Freedom Matters, I wrote:

In the article, titled “Culture Matters,” the writer Jim Cox compares the U.S. territory and its public or collective ownership to a condominium made up of several buildings with commonly owned areas, in which the condo owners “own the land between the 27 buildings and the pavement in common and own only our individual units separately.”

And he continues: “This is a very analogous situation to US citizens owning private property as well as public property via government. The condominium association has rules about people coming onto the common property.”

In Cox’s example, each condo owner buys one’s own unit with the rules of the condo association in mind.

Already Cox confuses private and public property. The entire territory of a country is not a commonly owned parcel of private property and can’t be compared to that.

Outside of each individually-owned unit, the property of the condo buildings and real estate is commonly owned by the condo owners. But it is still all private property.

In contrast, “public property” is supposedly publicly owned. Actually, as Jim Davies pointed out, public property is unowned. Either no one has actually legitimately homesteaded or honestly acquired it, or it was owned but the bureaucrats of the State have seized and occupy it.

Many individuals, groups and business owners own individual parcels of private property. But it’s more difficult to define who the actual owners of public property are. An intruder onto the condo property is trespassing onto private property. But if the “public” supposedly owns non-privately-owned public property, just which part of the public can be considered an owner or an “intruder”? “Citizens” or non-citizens? Taxpayers or non-taxpayers?

As I asked in this critique of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, what about non-taxpaying citizens, such as those who work but don’t earn enough to be required to pay income taxes? Are they less owners of the “public” property? Are they “intruders”? What about working, taxpaying non-citizens?

And what exactly is a “citizen”? As Carl Watner notes, a “citizen” is a “member of the State.” Other sources define citizen as someone who is legally recognized by the government. But who is the government to “recognize” or authorize someone as legitimate?

Sadly, statists look to the ruling government bureaucrats for validation. But just who exactly are the ruling bureaucrats, and what exactly is the State?

As Murray Rothbard has pointed out (.pdf) in his Anatomy of the State,

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.

And, in his great treatise The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard asserts,

Thus, the State is a coercive criminal organization that subsists by a regularized large-scale system of taxation-theft, and which gets away with it by engineering the support of the majority (not, again, of everyone) through securing an alliance with a group of opinion-moulding intellectuals whom it rewards with a share in its power and pelf.

But there is another vital aspect of the State that needs to be considered. There is one critical argument for the State that now comes into view: namely, the implicit argument that the State apparatus really and properly owns the territorial area over which it claims jurisdiction. The State, in short, arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area — larger or smaller depending on historical conditions, and on how much it has been able to wrest from other States.

If the State may be said to properly own its territory, then it is proper for it to make rules for anyone who presumes to live in that area. It can legitimately seize or control private property because there is no private property in its area, because it really owns the entire land surface. So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property.

So what we have from Cox is the collectivist notion of a common ownership of a territory. He writes: “Until we can shift to a Private Property Society we are stuck with a government handling immigration.”

Unfortunately, “government handling immigration” is the police state that we have now. Bureaucrats empowering border control agents to violate due process rights, arrest innocent people who have not harmed anyone, arresting employers for not getting government permission to hire a worker, arresting workers who are peacefully making a living, an out-of-control “ICE” working to take citizenship away from naturalized citizens, storm troopers ripping whole families apart. All this because the people have gullibly empowered a centralized government to decide who is and who isn’t on the premises legitimately.

And Cox lists “negative cultural traits” of possible immigrants that people wouldn’t want to invite in. He neglects to mention, however, that it’s the government planners (that we are “stuck with”) who are responsible for bringing in the violent criminals he mentions.

But the collectivist-minded writer is putting ALL immigrants into one big group, the “undesirables,” the riffraff and the actual violent criminals, all lumped together with the peaceful people, the hard-working laborers, the honest folks.

Whatever happened to the individualism and free markets that used to be associated with libertarianism? Whatever happened to presumption of innocence? If you don’t suspect an individual of something, leave him alone.

And why would libertarians want bureaucrats to control markets, labor and employment? “We’re all socialists, now”?

Regarding the crime problem, the rapes and assaults, murders, etc., why are the anti-immigration crowd so bent on being dependent on centralized bureaucrats and government police for their protection from criminals? Why don’t they ever bring up the right of the people to keep and bear arms? They only seem to bring that up when the gun control debate is in the news.

When criminals know ahead of time that their prospective victims are armed there would be far fewer rapes, assaults and murders, and attempted rapes, assaults and murders. That would be the same with violent foreigners entering the territory, no?

Is the “culture” stuff actually more important to these immigration critics than their security? So instead of promoting the right of people to keep and bear arms and use the arms to protect themselves from actual criminals, the anti-immigration crowd are more concerned with promoting government-controlled social engineering.

And to say that someone not violating the person or property of another, who is peacefully exercising one’s freedom of movement to find a better life for himself and one’s family, is a “criminal,” is to not understand the libertarian non-aggression principle.

***

In the post, Walter Williams on Immigration: Very Collectivist-Minded, I wrote:

Walter Williams has been considered very “libertarian” in his thinking and his writing, although a conservative libertarian. He has been great in his essays raking the political correctness crowd and the college hystericals over the coals, and his books Up from the Projects and Race and Economics should be read by everyone, especially the youngins in college if they want to get a dose of reality in life.

However, when it comes to nationalism and immigration it seems he is less libertarian and, unfortunately, extremely collectivist, and his latest article on that subject is no exception. So, I feel I must fisk Dr. Williams on this one, because clarification of the issues, ideas and principles is necessary here.

First, Williams asks,

How many Norwegians have illegally entered our nation, committed crimes and burdened our prison and welfare systems? I might ask the same question about Finnish, Swedish, Welsh, Icelanders, Greenlanders and New Zealanders.

How many U.S. citizens who are here legally commit crimes against others? And who has committed more crimes against the American people, immigrants or the government in Washington (and the bureaucrats of the state and city governments)? (Answer: It’s governments, no contest.)

Williams continues:

The bulk of our immigration problem is with people who enter our country criminally from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East. It’s illegal immigrants from those countries who have committed crimes and burdened our criminal justice and welfare systems.

No, the bulk of our immigration problem is that immigrants from those “undesirable” countries are brought in under the control of government bureaucrats in Washington. The bureaucrats have no incentive to strive for better outcomes in their policies because government bureaucrats are not accountable. They have a monopoly in their control over immigration, and monopolists are not accountable.

In the debate about illegal immigration, there are questions that are not explicitly asked but can be answered with a straight “yes” or “no”: Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.? Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country? Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?

“Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.?” This is not a “yes” or “no” question. Everyone has a right to live wherever one finds it to be a better place for oneself and one’s family, as long as one doesn’t violate the persons or property of others. I know, some people have the mistaken belief that the U.S. territory is “our” property, and outsiders entering the territory sans authorization are “trespassing.” Nope. The territory contains many, many parcels of private property. The owners of the private property have the ultimate right to decide who enters and who does not enter their private property, not the community, and not the government. This applies to people’s homes, their businesses, churches, and so on.

“Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country?” Again, not a “yes” or “no” question. Many people believe that Americans as a group, by majority rule, have a right to decide those things, and that the government has the authority (constitutional or moral) to implement those decisions, regardless of a private property owner or employer’s decision to invite someone. If the collectivists’ vision were the case (as it currently is now), then we don’t really have private property rights, and the majority of the territory’s population and the government really are the ultimate decision makers of who may enter private property.

“Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?” Why is there “U.S. border control”? That’s referring to U.S. government border control, which is a police state now. A “100-mile Constitution-free zone”!

And then Williams gets into the cultural aspects of the problems of today:

People who came here in the 19th century and most of the 20th century came here to learn our language, learn our customs and become Americans. Years ago, there was a guarantee that immigrants came here to work, because there was no welfare system; they worked, begged or starved. Today, there is no such assurance. Because of our welfare state, immigrants can come here and live off taxpaying Americans.

Then get rid of the welfare state! THAT’s the answer to that problem. It’s the welfare state that FDR and LBJ (and Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, et al., ad nauseam) have forced on us. Dr. Williams has many times written in his articles that it is immoral to take earnings from one person to give to another, by force. Why doesn’t he say outright here that involuntary contracts and theft (i.e. taxation), Social Security, Medicare and all their spin-offs should be abolished?

There is another difference between today and yesteryear. Today, Americans are taught multiculturalism throughout their primary, secondary and college education. They are taught that one culture is no better or worse than another. To believe otherwise is criticized at best as Eurocentrism and at worst as racism.

Well, that’s because governments in the U.S., federal, state and local government, control education in America! Get the government out of education, completely! And THAT’s the answer to that problem, this “multiculturalism” crapola. You think that an all-private schools system, without any government handouts and without the imposition of monopolistic government bureaucrats’ sick, irrational, kooky claptrap would survive in an educational free market?

Very unfortunate for our nation is that we have political groups that seek to use illegal immigration for their own benefit. They’ve created sanctuary cities and states that openly harbor criminals — people who have broken our laws.

That’s because “sanctuary cities” are run by city governments — THAT’s the problem! Bureaucrats should not be empowered to get involved in bringing in foreigners, unless those actual bureaucrats invite the foreign visitors or workers to live in their homes, the bureaucrats‘ own homes, and they pay for their visitors, not the taxpayers. Sadly, government bureaucrats mainly just want to have as much welfare parasites (and voters) brought in, because getting reelected and expanding their tax-funded racket is what bureaucrats really care about.

And also, it’s not really about “legal” vs. “illegal” with many of today’s anti-immigration conservatives, unfortunately. A lot of this anti-immigration stuff is just coming from a collectivist, nationalist anti-foreigner mentality. “We are all one ‘family,’ and we don’t want ‘them’ invading ‘our’ home,” and all that. I’m hearing that on a constant, daily basis from the conservative talk radio personalities and their dittohead followers calling in.

This immigration stuff is mainly to do with a collectivist nationalism, which is not what “America” is all about. America was all about individualism and private property, NOT collectivism and collective ownership of a territory that overrules the will of the private property owner.

And “America” is also not about central planning as well. Most of the early Americans who founded the country would not have agreed to empowering central planning bureaucrats to have authority over controlling immigration matters. Leave those matters up to Americans themselves, not the government.

***

And finally, in Immigration and Private vs. Public Property, I critiqued a speech by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in which I wrote, among other things:

Unfortunately Hoppe gets into some confusion between private property and “public property,” and some of his “rights to exclusion” seem quite collectivist, in my view. He seems to advocate a public, collective right to exclusion, whereas the only legitimate right to exclusion is the private property owner’s right to exclusion, and the individual self-owner’s right to exclusion, and the right to inclusion as well.

For instance, Hoppe states: “In a fully privatized libertarian order there exists no such thing as a right to free immigration. Private property implies borders and the owner’s right to exclude at will.”

But he goes on to say that “’public property’ has borders as well.” Wait a minute, the “public property” borders he’s talking about are government-drawn borders, therefore they are not legitimate.

Hoppe states that public property “is not unowned. It is the property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners.”

I have some questions here, using the U.S. as an example. Just how did the taxpayers come to own such “public property”? Did they inherit the property? Was it by way of a voluntary contract? Or was such ownership imposed on them involuntarily along with the tax-thefts that were imposed on them involuntarily?

My answer is that, if there is any ownership at all of so-called public property, and he suggests the owners are the taxpayers, then of course such ownership is involuntary just as are the tax-thefts imposed on them. Therefore, such ownership is lacking in any moral justification.

Some further questions: Millions of undocumented workers’ presence and labor in the U.S. have not received proper bureaucrat-parasite authorization, but they have paid billions of dollars in federal taxes. And while some of their legitimate, honest earnings are withheld by employers to pay the feds the demanded booty, they are nevertheless ineligible for Social Security from those earnings. But they are “taxpayers.” Do they thus share in ownership of U.S. “public property”?

And also, do you divide ranks in “public property” ownership”? For instance, do very wealthy people have a higher percentage of ownership than lower-class workers, and thus have more ownership rights of control than the others? What if many wealthy progressive thinkers have a larger percentage of ownership/control, and want to have marijuana dispensaries, abortion clinics, etc. on “public property,” but a minority of the tax-payers disagree with that scheme? Is that legitimate?

When Hoppe says that public property is the “property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners,” what about domestic non-taxpayers? What about “citizens” (non-foreigners) who do work for a living, but don’t make enough to be required to have to pay income taxes? Are they denied rights of exclusion or inclusion because of this? So in other words, those who don’t pay the feds anything in tax-thefts should have the same denied rights of access to public property as the foreigners/non-“citizens”?

And also, it seems here in Hoppe’s justification of taxpayers’ involuntary ownership of public property he apparently, at least for this topic, accepts the State’s existence. Although he does admit that “the State is a criminal organization,” but its inaction regarding border control “will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry.” Does Hoppe here seem to abandon his description of so-called “fake libertarians” at the very beginning of the speech, in which he says a “fake libertarian” is one who “affirms or advocates” “the necessity of a State” or “of public or State property”?

Now back to Hoppe’s recent speech (as shown at the top), he states that “immigration must be by invitation only,” and that “immigrants must be productive people and hence, be barred from all domestic welfare payments.” But he gets into a lengthy discussion of his proposed rules that seem very central planning-like, in my view.

For instance, immigrants “or their inviting party must place a bond with the community in which they are to settle, and which is to be forfeited and lead to the immigrant’s deportation should he ever become a public burden.”

And with whom in the community will such a bond be placed? Who is to be in charge of that? What if a foreigner peacefully travels to the community and doesn’t give anyone a bond?

So are you saying that the immigrant is morally obligated to pay some third party some payment, without any voluntary, mutually-agreeable contract? What if he finds a room to rent or buys a home, who is it that owns the property? Does the individual landlord or property seller own the property, or does the community share in ownership of those properties? Is the entire community collectively owned by its inhabitants (regardless of separate private property parcels)?

It seems to me that Hoppe is suggesting that the community shares in ownership of property within the community. Not good.

In the just society, each property owner has full, 100% sovereignty over one’s property and its property title that he and only he may decide to whom to transfer, and he and only he may decide to whom to rent, and for whatever reason.

Hoppe continues: “As well, every immigrant, inviting party or employer should not only pay for the immigrant’s upkeep or salary, but must also pay the residential community for the additional wear and tear of its public facilities associated with the immigrant’s presence, so as to avoid the socialization of any and all costs incurred with his settlement.”

Who is going to decide how much “wear and tear” one immigrant has caused or might cause in the future? Who has the authority to charge the employer such a fee and decide how much to charge? Sounds very central-planning, if you ask me.

This all sounds very communal or “private club”-like to me, and seems to abandon the principles of private property and freedom of association. My neighbor doesn’t own my property and has no authority to dictate to me whom to let on my property, quite frankly.

And Hoppe continues: “Moreover, even before his admission, every potential immigrant invitee must be carefully screened and tested not only for his productivity but also for cultural affinity (or ‘good neighborliness’)…”

“Carefully screened”? By whom? The employer? Landlord? Prospective home seller? The community? Who will be in charge of this? Who owns the lives of the immigrants? Do they lose their self-ownership when moving to a new territory, even though they are peaceful and there’s no reason to think they might be a burden on the public? What if some family from a different area just moves into a home they’ve bought or rented and they don’t submit to screening, and there’s no reason to suspect them of not having “good neighborliness”? How about just letting property owners, businessmen and home sellers make those decisions, not by some some preset rules but by random events that take into account multiple, spontaneous factors? Whatever happened to Hoppe’s promotion of “Natural Order”?

So Hoppe’s “right of exclusion” seems to mean that the collective public may decide who gets in and who stays out. But how? By some sort of democratic vote? How else could a large group, such as U.S. taxpayers who supposedly own the public property, be able to come to a decision regarding who gets in and who stays out?

The true free market way is when an individual anywhere in the world who wants to make a better life for himself and his family travels to wherever he sees an opportunity, as long as he doesn’t violate the persons or property of another. He can rent a home or purchase one from a willing landlord or seller. And the property owner who rents out or sells a home is the owner, not his neighbors or the community.

I don’t see any moral obligation to pay the community some advance tribute, as the aforementioned family never entered into any contract with the “community,” only the employer, landlord or home seller, etc.

The end.

Washington Is Filled with Morons, Psychopaths, and Ignoramuses

What is wrong with Donald Trump? And all his followers. Why are they so much against freedom?

Trump wants to close the border. That’s ridiculous. America is supposed to be about freedom, free markets, free trade, not government restrictions on everybody’s freedom.

The Authoritarian-In-Chief now wants to impose a “Border Czar,” or “Immigration Czar,” apparently in the same way that Ronald Reagan appointed a “Drug Czar.” That sure worked out well. The “Drug Czar” put a stop to all those druggies and potheads out there, for sure.

The police state dingbats will do the same with immigration, you betcha.

And why all the short-sightedness from Trump and others? They are hysterical regarding the problems at the border. The “crisis.”

Hysterical loony-tunes panic and call for closing the border altogether, as well as escalating their police state.

“Oh, all the drugs coming through the border.”

Actually, it’s the war on drugs that’s mainly to blame for that “crisis.” Your nanny state dictating to the people what chemicals they may or may not put into their own bodies.

You’re not going to stop people from getting their goddamn drugs.

It’s 50+ years of the drug war now, people including teens are still getting all the drugs they want. It’s your prohibition that’s causing the black market that incentivizes the low-lifes to want to profit from the weaknesses and vices of others, as the black market in drugs creates the drug pushers who get people addicted and the drug traffickers who profit from the black market, the drug lords and drug cartels.

Another cause of the immigration crisis is the U.S. government’s foreign interventionism in Central and South America. Cut it out.

And America’s welfare state. Are there immigrants coming to the U.S. and getting on welfare? Welfare is a truly immoral policy, because it is not funded voluntarily. Welfare is funded involuntarily by the government’s stealing earnings from the workers and producers of society. Stealing is immoral, and criminal. Please Donald shut up about crime coming from “illegal” immigrants, when you preside over the largest crime syndicate ever in the history of man, the U.S. government. Stop stealing from the people.

But he wants to close down the border, rather than end the criminality, corruption, stealing, and the police state coming right out of Washington.

What else is The Donald doing that’s stupid, criminal or evil? He is now saying that Republicans will be the “party of healthcare.” What? Are they doctors? How will Republicans do anything in healthcare? They’re politicians (i.e. morons).

And now he’s saying that he will wait until after the 2020 election to do something with healthcare. “We’ll pass the bill and then we’ll find out what’s in it.”

In other words, he’s doing a Nixon: I have a secret plan to end the war. But really Trump has a secret plan to end our healthcare completely, by caving and giving in to the socialists who want total government-run healthcare. But isn’t that what Trump has been calling for all this time?

And the idiots are so concerned about people with pre-existing conditions, they really want to force insurers to go out of business. The Rethugs are either just dishonest or they actually don’t understand that forcing insurers to cover pre-existing conditions will cause such coverage to get progressively worse for those with pre-existing conditions.

I hove no doubt that Trump does not understand that, as well as many other things in healthcare, government, and life.

And yesterday on the Sean Hannity radio show, Rep. Steve Scalise was pushing his born-alive abortion bill. There are people, mainly Democrats, who want to allow people to murder a newly born baby, because the mother has changed her mind. How sick is that? But Scalise and other Rethugs in CONgress love the wars and sanctions and detaining peaceful people traveling to find a better life for themselves and their families. The Rs are just as bad as the Ds, quite frankly.

And then we have women complaining about Joe Biden. He likes to be “affectionate.” No, he likes to touch and feel and grope and be intrusive on others, just as any other pathological narcissist likes to do. Which is to say, most politicians. They love to have the powers of government, and the apparatus of spying and intruding, making the people have to report to the bureaucrats the details of their private personal and financial lives, involuntarily. And the Rulers love siccing the government police on people who don’t comply.