Skip to content

Tag: socialism

Nationalists Prefer Socialism in Trade and Immigration

Donald Boudreaux has this article on free trade and the false idea of “trade deficits,” and says that the “American economy” is not a single economic entity to be compared to a household or a corporation. “Americans do not work for America, Inc. And there are no goods or services that we Americans are managed as workers to produce for sale to non-Americans. America is not a business that operates according to a shared, unitary plan the success or failure of which is recorded on a meaningful budget.”

But those who seem to have this authoritarian nationalism stuff drilled into them see things otherwise. Many of them are with Donald Trump on government-controlled trade, rather than free trade which would be a part of free-market capitalism. The Trumpies are opposed to the ideas of individualism and economic freedom, in which people have the freedom as consumers to do whatever they want with their own money, trade with whomever they wish and from wherever, and as producers to buy whatever capital goods they need to run their businesses and from anyone they want anywhere in the world.

The Trumpies are also opposed to economic freedom in the immigration issue. They have this irrational view that workers and employers must get a government bureaucrat’s permission to work wherever or hire whomever they determine to be best for them.

Free-market capitalism and free trade — including people trading their labor with employers, customers and clients — are not impeded by government borders. If so, they are no longer free markets and free trade. The nationalists say otherwise. They prefer government restrictions on labor and trade, i.e. socialism. But I doubt that the Rush Limbaugh talk-radio ditto-heads would admit that (if they could actually understand the difference).

The “unalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence coincide with the free market and free trade. The nationalists’ utopia of socialist, central-planning economic controls in immigration go against the people’s unalienable rights. ALL human beings have “unalienable rights,” not just “citizens.” Right?

So the nationalists also seem to be obsessed with “citizenship,” like an individual must be “authorized” by the gubmint to live some kind of life and earn a living. What kind of life is that? It isn’t freedom, for sure. But sadly we have authoritarians who look to government as their god whose permission and authorization we must have to live.

The nationalists have this mentality that foreigners are “invading” America, invading “our” country, and “breaking into our home,” because they reject the concept of private property. In the same way that no one “owns a culture,” as Robert Higgs wrote just recently, no one “owns a country.” This territory of America is a territory, that consists of many parcels of private property. Each parcel of private property is individually owned, it is not owned by the community, by the entire population, or by the government.

But sadly, whether they are willing or able to admit it to themselves, the nationalists reject the idea of private property, and they consider the property within “America” to be ultimately owned by the collective. So to the nationalists the collective of the population has the right to determine (via their beloved government rulers) what privately-owned business owners may or may not do with their businesses, whom they may or may not hire, based on the whim of the collective and the diktats of the beloved government rulers (and based on anti-foreigner sentiments especially).

So really the nationalists and Trumpies really believe in a communal ownership of everything, and thus they are certainly closer to the communists than to the libertarians who believe in private property rights.

Now, regarding “public property,” which is supposedly owned by the “public” (although some people say it’s owned by the “taxpayers,” which I don’t agree with), as Jim Davies noted, “public property” is not legitimately owned by the government, but is unowned (although occupied by the government illegitimately).

If Only “Democratic Socialists” Learned More About Socialism

Benjamin Powell, co-author of Socialism Sucks, has an article at the Independent Institute asserting that “Democratic Socialists” really need to learn more about socialism. If those who declare themselves to be socialists went to actual socialist countries like Venezuela to see first hand how bad things are there because of socialism — just like the old Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, etc. — then maybe they might have a change of heart.

Here is an excerpt:

But here’s the problem. The word “democratic” isn’t magic fairy dust when put in front of “socialist.” The socialist portion of democratic socialism still means the state—the government—has undue control over economic decision-making that will result in stagnation.

And, as history has shown over and over again, you can’t really have a free society and free people without economic freedom. Democratic freedoms and economic freedoms go hand in hand.

In his 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom, Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek made the case that democracy is only compatible with competitive capitalism and that once a country becomes “dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself.”

The reason is simple. Centrally planned socialist economic systems necessarily concentrate economic power in the hands of government officials and planners. Without such power they can’t hope to “run things.” Yet this same power limits citizens’ ability to freely exercise their power when they become dissatisfied with the government. That’s because the government can punish them financially if they choose to oppose those in power.

More Articles

Matthew Silber writes about defusing a second civil war through peaceful secession. (In my view, the choices are voluntary, peaceful secession and decentralization, OR, let the society in Amerika collapse with chaos, violence and bloodshed. I prefer the former, not the latter.)

Thomas DiLorenzo asks, Where does the Constitution call for black-robed dictators?

Laurence Vance says that “libertarian” proposals to “reform” Social Security with new mandates are privatizing coercion. (With libertarians like that, who needs fascists?)

And Daniel Mitchell says that a Trump-Pelosi budget deal is a recipe for the worst kind of tax increase.

The Selfish, Keynesian, Socialist Election-Cheaters in Florida

These recent elections, with all the cheating going on Florida and other states, seem to be an exaggerated version of many times in the past in which we’ve seen people who will do anything for their immediate gratification fix for power and control over the lives of others.  I am reminded by an article I wrote in 2013 on Keynesianism and its policies of selfishness, irresponsibility and immediate gratification. So, I will repost that article here.

Keynesianism: Policies of Selfishness, Irresponsibility and Immediate Gratification

September 27, 2013 (LewRockwell.com, Link to article)

Our fanatically Keynesian President Barack Obama believes that governments should spend money they don’t have and put the country into debt. So he is whining to Republicans to continue raising the debt ceiling so the federal government can continue on its wild spending spree.

And Obama has the nerve to say that the opposing Party’s not wanting to do the President’s bidding by irresponsibly raising the debt ceiling is “extorting” the President. He claims that it is extortion when some of the people’s representatives tell the Dear Leader to stop stealing from our grandchildren!

This Obama person is just as bad as the Bush that preceded him. And the power-grabbers of the Federal Reserve and the banksters are just as dishonest and irresponsible.

But they are merely reflecting the general population now, the selfish, impatient and id-oriented population of America.

And some people are speculating that Janet Yellen, Vice Chairman of the Fed’s Board of Governors, will be picked to be the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, replacing Ben Bernanke.

Like Bernanke, Ms. Yellen apparently believes in using the apparatus of government intervention to control economic matters. And she certainly favors Keynesian policies, “easy money” and continuing with the self-indulgent spending habits.

The Economic Collapse Blog’s Michael Snyder notes how Ms. Yellen was totally clueless in 2007, really believing that those artificial housing and other stimulus would be “still likely to achieve a relatively smooth adjustment path.” And then in 2010 she testified that she did not see the meltdown and collapse coming, as the current Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, also did not see it coming.

However, those of the Austrian school way of thinking, such as Ron Paul, did see it coming, as I have noted before.

And in response to The Bernank’s recent “no taper” announcement, Ron Paul asked, morally what right does Bernanke have “to take away 2% of our purchasing power deliberately? What right does he have to punish the elderly who save money?”

Dr. Paul warned against further destruction of the dollar and malinvestment caused by artificial interest rates.

Actually, as long as any kind of economic activity is artificial, or artificially “stimulated” by monopolistic and unaccountable governmental intrusions, there’s a good chance that that will cause malinvestment.

And the other part of that is the intrusions are coming from some central planner, such as the Fed and its high-and-mighty Chairman or from an act of Congress, for that matter. What you will then have is “planned chaos,” as Ludwig von Mises pointed out.

In contrast, with freedom and free markets consumers and producers are left free to plan their own economic matters. In a system of more freedom and randomness, you have less chaos because such a system is freed from the destructive intrusions of those bureaucratic buffoons and parasites and their “fatal conceit” that guides them.

But sadly, the majority of people in America do not appreciate that freedom, independence and responsibility, in our modern age of decadence and covetousness.

America has become a society in which irresponsibility and immediate gratification are institutionalized, praised and rewarded. And that is exactly what the Keynesian economics of Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke, Paul Krugman and millions of others promotes.

The truth is, those folks of the Keynesian way of thinking don’t even practice economics — their love is for politics and in strengthening the political class.

You see, at some point private economic matters in America became politicized. And it was the politicians who exploited crises, panics and economic downturns and they then sold a bunch of snake oil to the desperate masses as a means of the politicians grabbing more and more political and police power over the people.

And, coinciding with the decline of critical thinking in America, the politicians’ minions in academia and the Press supported the ideas of deficit spending and promoting debts as a way to get out of recessions and depressions.

Reflecting the mental laziness reinforced by government schooling, it makes the unthinking academics and pundits feel good when they are relieved of having to make any effort in solving the problems that caused those recessions and depressions in the first place, and instead they can just get their monetary meds right away. (Hmmm. Can we get Big Pharma in on this?)

But these kinds of irresponsible, immediate gratification habits are like drug addictions, and like drug addicts the spending addicts put their entire family into the poor house. And this is what the power-grabbing politicians want, encouraging the people to then beg them for  more “easy money” and other wealth-redistribution schemes to bail them out.

As long as they are further enriched and empowered over others, the politicians and bureaucrats get what they crave with each new power-grabbing vote in Congress, just as the Fed’s manipulations empower the banksters to get new money to fund their bonuses while the politicians’ Fed-stimulated inflation steals even more from the people.

However, America’s immediate gratification society can be seen in other areas now. For example, the cops and prosecutors, and “national security” bureaucrats who get away with warrantless searches and stopping and frisking innocent people. Why wait for a judge to sign a warrant? That takes too long. They crave to do their searches immediately. And even when there’s no suspicion of specific individuals they want to search anyway. And why go through the trouble of coming across some actual individual who is suspicious to then do searches of his emails or phone records? Instead let’s search through and collect and keep a database of all Americans’ emails and phone records, and that way we can then find our needle in the haystack.

So that is a current example of the kind of immediate gratification mindset that Americans have developed in many areas of life — not just economic — over the past century, especially since the implementation of the income tax and the Federal Reserve System.

But such behaviors are those of irresponsibility, and only promote the satisfying of one’s immediate desires with total disregard for ethics and for the future (or for the rights of innocent people in the case of the “security” fanatics).

People want “easy money,” and they want it now. (Especially the banksters.) Don’t wait until you have enough money saved or have enough of an income to afford to buy a house — get a loan NOW and get a mortgage now anyway, and get that house. And spend as much as you can on your credit card, and put yourself in debt. Who cares about your family’s future, as long as you get that stuff you want now.

And the banksters want easy money and bailouts, because they know that regardless how irresponsible their lending practices and their investments are (with their customers‘ money, just as Congress is with taxpayers’ money), they are guaranteed by the government to be free from bankruptcy. And they will keep their jobs (while you lose yours).

You see, such a Keynesian mindset is especially thriving in those who want to have some central authority, the Fed or Congress, to act as “stimulator” of the population’s prosperity, and to dish out food stamps and other goodies, as well as artificially-stimulated interest rates and “easy money” (for the banksters).

Sadly, the masses are being fed the false belief that they are benefiting from these government bureaucrats and those monetary central planners like Helicopters Ben and Janet who hand out the easy money like candy.

But, as Lew Rockwell recently noted, it is the State and its agents who are enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else, while the advocates of freedom and independence, such as Ron Paul, are the ones who want the people liberated from the State’s tentacles and from its exploitation of the people’s labor and livelihoods.

It would be easier to get more people to see that, if only they could overcome their long-ingrained habits of short-sightedness, and their blind faith in the State as a savior.

On Harassing Government Parasites Who Destroy Liberty

It appears that elections in Florida from Tuesday are still undecided and there will be more counting, more recounting, and more making up new votes out of thin air in the name of cheating. And I thought that this new phenomenon of “early voting,” a.k.a. “early cheating,” was bad enough.

Florida’s incumbent U.S. Senator Bill Nelson is winning/losing razor-thin against current Gov. Rick Scott. Now, I hope this undecidedness continues for months and months, I want to see lawsuits, “hanging chads,” “butterfly chads,” etc., and I want to see it be so stressful a situation for both Nelson and Scott that they have medical issues because of it. They both deserve it, in my view. Their actions, both of them, have been resulting in either voting for new bad “laws” or signing bills into law in which terrible orders, mandates, tax-thefts, or otherwise intrusions are imposed onto innocent people.

You see, through their actions as government “authorities,” they are literally siccing government enforcers on innocent people, people who hadn’t harmed anyone but may have disobeyed an unjust government order or prohibition.

And this thing with protesters harassing government workers such as Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell, I think that’s just fine in public places like along a sidewalk or at the Capitol parking lot or outside the White House. It is also just fine at private property location such as restaurants or malls as long as the owners allow it. These government officials such as Ted Scruz and Mitch McConjob vote on legislation that mainly results in the violation of the lives and liberty of innocent people. And Ms. Sanders is the chief White House propagandist who promotes the evil actions of these bureaucrats. If they don’t like being harassed, get out of doing evil government “work” and try the private sector for a change. Most of the people in Washington are life-long parasites, and/or apologists for the State’s evil, including Ms. Sanders!

This is in total contrast to the communist thugs harassing and terrorizing Tucker Carlson’s family at his home, as I referred to yesterday. In some ways Carlson is a propagandist for the State, but he is merely a TV news host, and working in the private sector. He is not on the government payroll. So, there is still a big difference between the two.

Yes, government is evil. The State is evil. Robert Wenzel had a good post on what the State is really doing in the immigration issue, for example. It’s a matter of the free market versus central planners, The Donald being the evil and ignorant central planner. Anti-immigration screamers don’t seem to understand that.

Wenzel also posts about the isolation torture being inflicted on Ross Ulbricht, who had not violated the persons or property of anyone, but was sentenced to life by an evil judge and is now in solitary confinement because he refused to get involved in a fight. These are the things the State and its agents do to innocent people. Those who want to risk the State’s punishments by harassing and protesting the bureaucrats and enforcers should do so, at their own risk.

And conservatives, of all people, who shout the loudest about “moral values,” who support things like the drug war, and all those other bureaucratic schemes they support, shame on conservatives for supporting evil. And please shut up about “moral values,” given their own moral relativism. Jacob Hornberger writes about those conservatives, listing the evil government programs and schemes they support. (I’m not saying that conservatives in general should be harassed, only the government-employed ones, who should know better, as well as the liberal-communist ones.)

In this old video, protesters follow and harass former CIA director and Gen. David Petraeus calling him a war criminal, which is true, given his participation in all the criminal wars the U.S. government started against various places and peoples overseas, for no good reason, as well as his role as CIA director and the war crimes the CIA commits daily. I think there are other videos like this online with protesters harassing other criminal government bureaucrats (sorry for the redundancy). But I think this is acceptable, in a society in which the sheeple allow themselves to be ruled by a monopoly apparatus in Washington that shouldn’t exist. Remember, the First Amendment protects the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Libertarian Murray Sabrin Running for U.S. Senate in New Jersey

If you live in New Jersey, believe in freedom, hate the State and its institutionalized criminality against innocent people, and you don’t like incumbent Sen. Bob Menendez or the Republican candidate Bob Hugin a Big Pharma exec, then consider voting for the Libertarian Party candidate Murray Sabrin. As I wrote in this post on the New Jersey election, Murray has the right libertarian positions on many issues. Here is Murray on the 2nd Amendment. And here is Ron Paul’s endorsement of Murray Sabrin.

However, I am not particularly in agreement with Murray’s views on immigration. As I wrote in the post on the New Jersey election, “Dr. Sabrin does say he’s for immigration reform. I am not sure I totally agree with the specifics. I would repeal all laws pertaining to immigration, because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to get involved in immigration. Just leave people alone, as long as you don’t suspect someone of committing acts of aggression, theft or fraud. It doesn’t matter whether the individual is within the “borders” or on the outside and traveling in.”

And I also included in that post a quote from Tom Knapp, who happens to be on the national Libertarian Party’s platform committee. Here’s Tom Knapp:

When I sought appointment to the Libertarian Party’s 2018 platform committee, I made a few commitments (including):

To seek a committee recommendation that the Libertarian Party delete the final sentence of Plank 3.4, “Free Trade and Migration,” as follows: “We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.” Thanks to the committee for considering, and passing, this proposal!

I don’t think the LP platform says anything about “citizenship.” If it does, it shouldn’t.

But I was very disappointed by Murray’s recent Facebook entry on immigration. He wrote:

“I oppose birthright citizenship because it is not consistent with the fundamental concept of citizenship–a strong cultural and political tie to a nation’s legal and economic systems. Citizenship requires embracing a nation’s founding ideals. For America, that means embracing our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, especially all the rights guaranteed to a nation’s citizens. Coming to America legally is the best way to demonstrate that an immigrant will make our country his homeland to become a productive citizen.” – Murray Sabrin on the 14th Amendment

“I oppose birthright citizenship because it is not consistent with the fundamental concept of citizenship.”

But the “fundamental concept of citizenship”  is not consistent with the fundamental concept of liberty, freedom of association, and private property, very important libertarian principles.

“Citizenship requires embracing a nation’s founding ideals. For America, that means embracing our founding documents…”

No, America has in its Constitution the First Amendment that protects the right of freedom of thought and conscience of every individual. In America, you can have the freedom to think and believe whatever the hell you want, even crackpot communist kookery.

If someone doesn’t “embrace the founding documents,” then he is not allowed “citizenship”? Not allowed in? Should we kick out Bernie Sanders, Evita Ocasio-Cortez, and Donald Trump? (And most of Trump’s cabinet, most of the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court, and on and on…)

One commenter on Murray’s Facebook post stated that “The entire concept of citizenship is statist and un-libertarian.” And I totally agree with that.

I think a lot of people out there are America worshipers, and see this country as more of a private club than a territory in which the freedom of the individual is protected. Including the freedom of thought and conscience. The nationalists and conservatives and talk radio ditto-heads are obsessed with “citizenship” as well as their collectivism and America group identity mysticism. Many people of this variety do not see the forest for the trees, when it comes to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and especially private property and free-market capitalism. They want socialism in immigration controls in their endorsing of Washington’s central-planning bureaucrats’ attempted but futile controls over the movements of millions of people. And I must say, what a shame that there are very prominent libertarians who have been eating up the “immigrant invasion” fear-mongering. I’m reminded of the killer bees coming up from the south … and it never happened.

But if you are in New Jersey, please vote for Murray Sabrin. Make a statement to the Republicrats and Demopublicans in Washington.

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.

That Darn Pope

Michael Moore visited the Pope recently, and the two discussed how bad capitalism is. They both agree on that. And I got this quote from EPJ on Moore’s telling Seth Meyers of his conversation with the Pope:

And I said, “Do you believe that an economic system that benefits the few, the wealthy at the expense of the many is a sin?” And he said to me, “Si” in Italian. And I said, “So you believe capitalism, the kinda — the capitalism we have now is a sin?” He goes, “Yes, it is.” He said, “The poor must always come first.”

And then he grabbed my hand and he said, “Please, pray for me.” And I said, “I will, and please pray for me. And he said, “No, you have to make more movies.” And I’m like, “I just wanted a prayer.” He’s like, “No, you go back to — you go back work.” He has a sense of humor.

So the anti-capitalism Pope wants Michael Moore to go be a capitalist making more movies. They hate capitalism, except for when they benefit from it.

But when Moore says, “an economic system that benefits the few, the wealthy at the expense of the many … the capitalism we have now …” well, no, the “capitalism” we have now that “benefits the few, the wealthy at the expense of the many” is the socialism we have now in which government bureaucrats, and all their little minions and their crony-capitalist cronies, live high off the hog from the tax-thefts that the government steals from the honest workers and producers of society and redistributes over to said government bureaucrats, their little minions and their crony-capitalist cronies.

Actual capitalism, free markets, consists of entrepreneurs making use of their abilities, knowledge and talents and serving the consumers with what the consumers want. Economic freedom and free market capitalism are what enabled the biggest increase in the standard of living in society, that benefits everyone, rich and poor. Freedom is what has lifted the poor out of poverty. In contrast, socialism turned all that backwards. Socialism destroys society, and destroys wealth, and impoverishes the masses.

And Thomas DiLorenzo comments:

The Commie Pope tells commie “film maker” Michael Moore that capitalism is a sin. I assume this means that the Catholic Church will no longer be accepting financial donations whose source is sinful capitalism.  That would make the church complicit in this grievous sin.

The Catholic Church has billions and billions in assets. Does that come from socialized government taxation-theft of the earnings of the workers and producers, or does it come from voluntary donations? (Actual free-market capitalism consists of voluntary trade, voluntary contracts, voluntary transactions, and voluntary gifts and donations, unlike socialism, which exists solely on the coercive or involuntary confiscation of the wealth of the people and the fruits of their labor. Who in his right mind would voluntarily pay his earnings to a government treasury?)

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.