Skip to content

Month: May 2018

James Comey, Mueller, FBI Not All That Different from J. Edgar Hoover Days

WND has an article on the fired FBI director James Comey supposedly coordinating with FBI on anti-Trump testimony. And Zero Hedge has an article suggesting that the FBI hid a mole in the Trump campaign. WSJ’s Kimberly Strassel believes that she knows who the informant is, but hasn’t gotten intelligence sources to confirm it. In other words, the FBI probably did spy on the Trump campaign, just as it and the rest of the national security state spy on many campaigns, and infiltrate activist groups such as Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party movement. Nothing new here.

Article from 2010 on Israel’s Conflicts

Besides the easing of relations between North and South Korea, Iran is also in the news, with new hostilities between Israel and Iran via Syria. I hope things settle down over there. But it reminded me of an article I had on in 2010 and I wanted to repost that at this time. I had to update or remove several links whose pages were not good or no longer available. Here is the article:

Note to Israel (and the U.S.) From an Anguished Jewish American: Decentralize

April 21, 2010

The issues that cause me anguish have been the continuing conflicts between Israeli Jews and Arabs, the threats of Israel or the U.S. initiating a preemptive strike on Iran or Iran attacking Israel, and the Israeli government’s controversial building of new Jewish housing in East Jerusalem. It is difficult to find objective sources of information on the Arab-Israeli conflicts and the territories, which have been homelands to Jews and Arabs for centuries. Further, accusations of anti-Semitism or of being a “threat to security” have been thrown at anyone who criticizes Israel or exposes corrupt Israeli officials, but I, an anguished Jewish American, attempt to analyze these issues objectively from afar.

In addition to the U.S. government’s expansionist policies abroad, the Israeli State’s ownership of lands and its compulsory and monopolistic control over peoples’ lives has been contributing to the Middle-East’s woes for many years. People become corrupt when they are given the power of State, the power of compulsion over others and a monopoly over territorial protection. The current conflicts occur because territories are governed by the compulsory State apparatus of the Israeli government, although the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are also compulsory territorial monopolists. The idea of an entire nation to be known as a “Jewish State” has been a drawback as well, along with dependence on the State’s central planners as “protectors” of the Jewish people. Centralized governments do nothing but intrude into the lives of populations and provoke hostility. The way to peace for Israel is through decentralization.

Some people fear that the East Jerusalem construction projects will harm the neighborhood’s Arab population and further harm relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But who is the government, or the State, to be building homes for people, or decide which people can live in which neighborhoods? If the property in East Jerusalem were privatized, it would then be the owner(s) of the property who would decide what gets built and who lives there.

Private ownership of local property in each specific area gives the people who live there control over their neighborhoods, and control over their own lives, and thus would make them more likely to take responsibility for their lives and less likely to act aggressively against neighboring territories. For example, if the Israeli government didn’t interfere with the Gazans’ and others’ right to use their own natural resources, the Gazans could use the resources to support their daily living, or for exporting as a means of income.

A question that is perhaps taboo is whether there should even be a “Jewish State.” Or an “Islamic State,” or a “Christian State” or any territory devoted to people based on a religion. Some have argued that the Jewish people needed a homeland to protect them from persecution. During the mid-20thCentury, because of U.S. state-imposed immigration quotas (and other reasons), many Jews were prevented from entering the United States, and many fled to Israel as a “Jewish homeland.” American “immigration quotas” were state-imposed policies which violated the rights of Americans to freedom of association and contract, the right of families and property owners to accept Jewish immigrants without the State’s intrusions. Instead, a state-imposed “forced integration” brought many European Jews to Israel in the 1930s and ‘40s, eventually turning what had been an Arab majority into a Jewish majority in Israel.

What many people don’t realize is that persecutions have mainly been committed by States, or by people acting as agents of State. Throughout the later 19thCentury and 20thCentury, Jews had been fleeing Poland, Russia and Germany because of the “Pogroms” of the Russian Empire and from the German- and Nazi-initiated Holocaust.

More recently, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s forcing Israelis out of Gaza and parts of the West Bank in 2005, the “Disengagement Plan,” disrupted the lives of everyone in that territory, Jews and Arabs. It was no different from an “Apartheid Plan.” The state has no such moral authority, and has no moral claim on any land, just as it has no moral authority over any one individual’s life, and the State has no more right or moral authority to engage in “occupation” of certain territories than do private individuals have to trespass on others’ lands. But we should not blame the actions of the Israeli government on the Israeli people, who are not responsible for the actions of their government just as the Palestinian people are not responsible for the violent actions of Hamas.

My Grandma Sylvia was lucky enough to leave Warsaw, Poland in 1912 at age 6 with her family, settling in a very welcoming and much freer New York City. Unfortunately, New York City is no longer that welcoming nor free, as the politicians’ taxaholism and regulatory nightmares have driven many people and businesses out of the city. Mayor Bloomberg reflects the mentality of politicians here and abroad for whom short-term fixes of confiscatory taxation and centralized bureaucratic and police control of the population is the way to solve problems. Centralized government is the real problem in New York, which needs to decentralize into separate, independent cities of Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, etc. Likewise, Israel’s centralized government has defeated the purpose of allowing Jews to have a “safe haven,” as the government’s oppressive policies not only restrict Israelis’ freedom of commerce, freedom of the press, freedom of movement and the right not to be forced to serve the state, but have also provoked Arab discontent and violence against the Israelis.

Rather than having a “Jewish State,” how about having a “free state,” or better, a “free country” of Israel (and the United States)? Follow Switzerland’s example, where much of the “public’s business” is handled at the local (as opposed to federal) level. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has written about the idea of decentralization of nation-states into many independent free cities, particularly in his book Democracy: The God That Failed, and his many articles at and The Mises Institute. In The Rise and Fall of the City, Hoppe goes even further than promoting the independence of individual cities, but individual households as well:

Households must be declared extraterritorial territory, like foreign embassies. Free association and spatial exclusion must be recognized as not bad but good things that facilitate peaceful cooperation between different ethnic and racial groups.

Such a change of decentralization, in addition to privatization and capitalization, is exactly what Israel needs, setting an example for the people of Iran, Iraq, and other countries (and the U.S.) to follow.

Decentralization also reduces the possibility that Israel could initiate a war with Iran. I am also anguished by the Big Government neoconservatives, whose suggestions of bombing Iran have been based on false propaganda. Short-term, present-oriented thinking is a common trait of the American neoconservatives, who have been supporting the U.S. government’s expansion into foreign lands to force transitions from theocracy to democracy among the Islamic states as though that will in some way protect Israel, despite many years of history to the contrary.

Unfortunately, the neoconservatives have a blind religious faith in the power and effectiveness of the State. In clinging to military industrial complex socialism and bureaucracy, the neocons support the U.S. government’s interventions and foreign entanglements with other governments, vicariously playing the role of “do-gooders” in a cops-and-robbers fantasy world in the name of protecting the U.S. and Israel. It is just as immoral to seize private wealth from American Muslims, Christians and Atheists for redistribution to Israel as it is immoral to seize private wealth from American Jews for redistribution to Muslim states such as Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan.

Like the left, the neocons have redefined “patriotism” as meaning not love of one’s country but love of the State, and that is also the prevailing attitude in mainstream Israel. It just seems that the neocons have an inability to engage in actual long-range planning that takes into account possible future consequences of the policies they support, and prefer to identify with that power of armed officialdom, force and monopoly. If one recognizes the neocons’ love of State for what it is, then one can see that they certainly seem to have more support for the Israeli government than for the Israeli people.

Just as the American Anti-Federalists have been the winners of the ideological and practical debate for over 200 years, if there ever were Anti-Federalists in Israel, they’d be right, too. Given that the main causes of civil strife have been centralized States, the real path to peace in Israel and the Middle-East (and the U.S.) is through privatization and decentralization.

Let’s Celebrate Marx’s 200th Birthday. Hooray!

No, not Groucho. But here are some recent articles on the history of Karl Marx and his flawed and failed way of thinking.

Ryan McMaken says that “real socialism” has been tried, and it’s been a disaster. Compares socialist economies with capitalist economies.

Jacob Hornberger on Marx, inequality and the American welfare state. Over time, socialism equalizes inequality by bringing most of the population into impoverishment and starvation, whereas a free-market economy raises everyone’s standard of living, in which “everyone’s boat is rising.” It’s just that the people on the left need to overcome their envy and covetousness to accept that some people are more successful or produce more wealth than others.

James Bovard says that Karl Marx’s communism has a death count in the millions.

Richard Ebeling on Karl Marx and Marxism at 200.

You want a good book about Marx and Marxism? Read Requiem for Marx, edited by Yuri Maltsev.

And finally, Eugen-Maria Schulak discusses the Austrian School’s critique of Marxism.

(Perhaps Groucho’s way of thinking would have been better?)

Libertarian Discussion on Health, the FDA and Pharmaceutical Drugs

Dr. Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams interview Dr. Mary Ruwart, a former Libertarian Party candidate and retired medical researcher with degrees in biochemistry and biophysics. They discussed her new book, Death by Regulation: How We Were Robbed of a Golden Age of Health and How We Can Reclaim It, as well as the FDA and the “right to try,” the opioid drug crisis and the non-aggression principle. Dr. Ruwart’s other book, which has been published in several editions already, is Healing Our World: The Compassion of Libertarianism.

Right to Try” laws allow medical patients to take experimental drugs without FDA approval. Most of the laws address terminally ill people, although the laws should apply to all people regardless of what kind of disease or condition. That’s my view on that. And most of the laws require that the drug has passed “Phase I” of testing, although it should be up to the patient and/or doctor to decide on a new drug’s effectiveness or safety, not bureaucrats, in my view. The people who oppose those laws don’t believe that the individual owns one’s own life and therefore one does not have the “authority” to take whatever drugs, supplements, foods, herbs or whatever that the individual oneself believes may be a cure, a preventative measure, or an alleviation of pain or suffering.

Important News and Commentary

Zero Hedge has this lengthy article on the latest FBI-related revelations in regards to the Mueller-Russia “investigation.” James Comey caught in more lies, the FBI had no case against Mike Flynn from the beginning, Comey directed the feds to “ambush” Flynn.

Dr. Peter Breggin concludes that more psychiatry means more shootings.

Eric Margolis on the anti-Iran, Israel-First neocons in the White House.

Michael Rozeff discusses his experiences with a non-fanatic Iranian nuclear scientist.

Alex Nowrasteh with the 14 most common arguments against immigration and why they’re wrong.

Jacob Hornberger writes about JFK and the inconceivable doctrine.

John Whitehead asks, Is the U.S. government evil?

Joe Jarvis on why a bar can boot Trump supporters but a bakery can’t deny gay customers.

Steve Sailer says that the SPLC is overflowing with White Privilege.

And Brian Doherty discusses CDC surveys, that the CDC didn’t bother to make public, with evidence that many Americans defend themselves with guns.

Freedom Matters

There has been another anti-immigration article on a favored libertarian website,, advocating a collectivist view of ownership of a territory, and showing a lack of understanding of private property and private property rights, all in the name of “culture.”

Sadly, like the anti-immigration conservatives and nationalists, some libertarians are hysterical about problems that have been exaggerated by government apparatchiks.

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 my view, being “anti-State” and “pro-market” would mean to oppose central planning intrusions into markets and people’s lives. But sadly, some libertarians have been promoting government controls and social engineering to forcibly prop up a certain “culture” by violating free markets, and the liberty, due process rights, property rights and contract rights of innocent, peaceful people.

“National Security”? What a Joke.

James Bovard has this article on former FBI honcho James Comey’s forgotten rescue of Bush era torture. Never mind the fact that most of the detainees at Guantanamo were innocent and uninvolved in any terrorism, and many were apprehended by Afghan villagers in return for CIA-paid bounties. But whatever. A lot of Christian conservative warvangelicals support torturing (and killing) innocent human beings, and then say they are “pro-life.”

And while the torture and indefinite detention regime is still in place, thanks to Barack Obama, feel that the gubmint “keeps us safe” with the new bipartisan bill to give any President the power to imprison and torture U.S. citizens in military detention forever, as this article at the Intercept discusses.

Gareth Porter asks, Did John Bolton leak intelligence to sabotage a Trump-Kim deal?

Ray McGovern and Bill Binney on Robert Mueller: gone fishing.

Daniel John Sobieski discusses former CIA commie John Brennan’s secret trip to Moscow.

Jacob Hornberger says, The JFK cover-up continues.

And Jack Burns writes about the police cadets exposing their department for training cops to view the public as “cockroaches” they’re at war with. (With the treasonous direction toward the people that Washington is taking, I am sure the national security apparatus is getting there, too.)

Explaining Socialism and “Social Justice”

There had been a problem with the blog here and it took a while to get worked on. I hope it’s back to normal, because I have a lot more writing to do.

In the meantime, Robert Wenzel has this article on the appropriateness of Marxism in the New York Times. He cites Mises’s great treatise, Socialism, a refutation of socialism, and provides extensive quotes from the book and Wenzel also includes comments by Hayek and Hazlitt. If you are on the left and consider yourself “open-minded,” please read that and you will find it enlightening.

Also, Karl-Friedrich Israel asks, Is “social entrepreneurship” the next “social justice”? Another enlightening article.