Skip to content

Category: Free market

The Latest in USSA

Mollie Hemingway: New FBI Notes Re-Debunk Major NYT Story, Highlight Media Collusion To Produce Russia Hoax

Jonathan Turley: More Willful Blindness by the Media on Spying by Obama Administration.

Richard Ebeling: The Conquest of the United States by China.

Robert Wenzel: What Would COVID-19 Sacrifice and Victory Really Look Like?

Karen De Coster: If the State Can Define “Essential,” It Can Define Anything.

Jon Miltimore: John Ioannidis Warned COVID-19 Could Be a “Once-In-A-Century” Data Fiasco. He Was Right.

Jacob Hornberger: “Small Government” is an Empty Republican Mantra.

James Bovard: How Intellectuals Cured ‘Tyrannophobia’.

And Laurence Vance: Review of Thomas DiLorenzo’s book, The Problem with Lincoln.

End Government-Imposed Restrictions and Central Planning in Immigration

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked Donald Trump from dismantling the “DACA” program, or “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals”, which exempts immigrant children from some immigration restrictions. It is not a legislative act, but an unconstitutional executive “memorandum” imposed by Premier Obama. So, it can’t be repealed via legislation, although the legal restrictions being waived could be, I supposed. Premier Trump wants to have another try at dismantling the program.

My view on all this, if you don’t already know, is to repeal every immigration restriction legislatively or by executive order, or just not enforce them, and dismantle ICE and the IRS (and DHS, TSA, FBI, ATF, and all the rest of those fascist agencies that are unbecoming of a free and civilized society).

One of my main points on the immigration issue is regarding this false belief or assumption that many people seem to have that there is some kind of common ownership of the territory as a whole. That is just a myth, an “old wives’ tale,” and not backed by any legal or constitutional basis. It is based on emotion and collectivist ideology, not morality or rationality.

So, there is no such common ownership of the territory because in our society we have something called private property.

In April of 2019 I posted a compilation of excerpts from my past posts dealing with the immigration issue, and I will repost most of that post now because the immigration problem will never be resolved in the U.S. as long as the control over such matters continues to be seized by the idiot moron central planners in Washington.

Here is that earlier post:

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.

Current Civil War-Era Hysteria Reminds Me of Interview of Tom Woods by a Zombie

With all the hysteria now over historic artifacts such as from the Confederacy or statues or military bases named after “Confederate generals,” I was reminded of Tom Woods’s “Interview with a Zombie,” in which the “Zombie” represents the typical brainwashed “Social Justice Warrior” who has been told without any evidence that “America is a racist country,” that keeping historic artifacts or statues in place is “racist,” and especially that advocating “Nullification” (The title of Tom Woods’s book that was published at that time) is “racist.” This Interview with a Zombie was 10 years ago this month, apparently, and as we see today nothing has changed. The Zombie could very well be anyone from CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. So, I thought I would repost this video now.

The “Libertarian” Party Continues to Stray in 2020

I was going to write another scathing critique of the “Libertarian” Party in its nominating someone to be its 2020 Presidential nominee other than the one who actually got the most votes during the primaries. But I have moderated my scathing critique to being a little less scathing.

In a virtual convention in May (virtual because of the scamdemic panic and hysteria and irrational cancellations), the delegates to the LP convention nominated 63-year-old psychology professor Jo Jorgensen for President, and 38-year-old retired web designer Spike Cohen to be their VP nominee.

Meanwhile, actual Libertarian Party voters in primaries gave Jacob Hornberger 9,035 votes with 7 state wins, while they gave Jo Jorgensen 5,034 votes with 2 state wins. At the virtual convention in May, there were 4 rounds of votes by delegates, who despite the difference in popular vote nevertheless gave Jorgensen the nomination. (Info from Wikipedia on the primaries and the LP national convention.)

I had been annoyed at the Libertarians giving Jorgensen the nomination and not Jacob Hornberger, given his apparent better understanding of and communicating the principles of libertarianism, and the need for dismantling the welfare/warfare state and especially its enabler the IRS, and also given that he had received many more votes from actual grassroots libertarian voters than Jorgensen had received.

However, I can see one possible reason why Jorgensen received more endorsements by former candidates and delegates to the convention, that being that Hornberger may have been a bit too aggressive in his style of campaigning and/or writing on his campaign blog. One example was a.) his criticism of candidate Adam Kokesh’s answer to a debate question on Medicare, and b.) the accusation that Hornberger lied about Kokesh’s position.

Now, it seems to me that Hornberger didn’t lie about Kokesh but had not stated clearly what Kokesh’s view on Medicare was. But I think the damage was done, and this episode may have influenced some convention delegates in the negative direction. So much for the “will of the voters” in the primaries.

Another issue is that Hornberger isn’t afraid to say exactly what needs to be done. Some people just don’t like that. They are “afraid of losing votes” in the general election. Gary Johnson was a principles-compromiser in the extreme, although probably more because he just doesn’t understand the actual principles of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle, self-ownership and non-interventionism most of all.

For instance, abolish the CIA, the IRS, as well as the other totalitarian agencies. Kokesh also has made it clear that those things must not exist in a free society.

In his criticism of the aforementioned debate among several LP candidates that Hornberger attended but did not participate in, Hornberger noted that Jorgensen’s response to the question on Medicare was “Jo Jorgenson answered that healthcare costs be cut so that expenses go down.” So it appears to me that she is yet another “libertarian” candidate who is afraid to say that Medicare must be abolished (along with HHS and IRS, etc.) so that medical patients and doctors can establish their own payment contracts and it would be much easier for doctors to treat those in financial need for free, like it used to be.

Another possible reason the “Libertarian” Party conventioneers voted for Jo Jorgensen and not Jacob Hornberger is that the Party hacks maybe wanted to have a female nominee in the name of this more recent “social justice virtue signalling” phenomenon. The “social justice” mentality seems to have pervaded every aspect of daily life now, unfortunately.

One example of that “social justice virtue signalling” with the 2020 Libertarian Party convention was the LP’s selection of a keynote speaker. According to Wikipedia, “Black Guns Matter founder…Maj Toure was initially chosen to be…keynote speaker. This changed in November 2019, when Convention Oversight Committee Chairman Daniel Hayes rescinded Toure’s invitation…(citing) tweets posted by Toure that were perceived as being transphobic and anti-immigrant.” I’m trying to find any reference to Toure’s “transphobic” tweets online, but can’t find any. What exactly IS “transphobic”?

The LP then replaced Maj Toure with Larry Sharpe, the statist “libertarian” who, in his campaign for governor of New York in 2018, wrote in his policy page:

While Larry believes in freedom of association, he recognizes the need for measures that ensure marginalized groups, like transgender people, are protected. He supports band-aid measures, including GENDA, which is a law with specific components intended to protect people from discrimination due to their gender identification.” Excuse me, Larry, but the concepts of self-ownership and freedom of thought and conscience require that people be allowed to “discriminate” in their associations, their contracts and trades, and every other way, and for ANY reason!

Sharpe continues: “To truly advance rights for transgender people, as well as all those within the LGBTQ+ populace, it is ultimately Larry’s goal to encourage a culture that no longer requires these types of laws. We must work towards acceptance.” Excuse me, Larry, but many people don’t and won’t accept the LGBT agenda, homosexuality, or transgenderism, and they have a right to NOT accept those lifestyles if they don’t want to!

And he concludes: “It is imperative to acknowledge that if an individual’s actions have no impact on ourselves or others, nobody else has the right to assert dominion over that person’s identity or lifestyle.” Sorry, Larry, but people who don’t accept those lifestyles are not “trying to assert dominion” over those people’s identity or lifestyle, it’s quite the opposite! When a lesbian couple goes to court to force a baker to have to make a cake for them or else pay a fine, who is “asserting dominion”?

The intolerance of the “social justice” crowd now is that if someone doesn’t accept and bow down to “alternative lifestyles” they are shunned, shamed, banned from Twitter, fired from their jobs, sued, etc. Who is “asserting dominion” over whom, Larry (and all the other “social justice warriors” out there)?

Incidentally, Jo Jorgensen had proposed a slogan “I’m With Her,” referring to the Hillary Clinton “I’m With Her” slogan, and it seemed to get the thumbs down on that Twitter thread. (Although further down that thread she says it’s “just a joke.” Well, that’s good.)

So, the irrational “social justice” crap seems to have been infiltrated into the “Libertarian” Party just like most other areas of society, and the LP no longer seems to be concerned with being the Party of the non-aggression principle.

However, Jorgensen’s Issues page on Neutrality and Peace seems to say some right things. But she doesn’t get into the national security state in general, she doesn’t say we must abolish the CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, TSA, ICE, etc., etc., which Jacob Hornberger has been saying for decades, along with Ron Paul.

But on Health Care she writes: “We can reduce the cost of health care 75% by allowing real price competition, and by substantially reducing government and insurance company paperwork. This will make health care affordable for most Americans, while also reducing the cost of legacy programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA.” Where’s “abolish”?

And on Taxes, she writes: “As President, I will work tirelessly to slash federal spending, make government much, much smaller, and let you keep what you earn.” Why isn’t she saying, “Government taxation of private wealth and income is theft. It must ALL be abolished forthwith!“? And, I think she really needs to say, “I will abolish the IRS and all taxes. And if Congress doesn’t go along, I will actively not enforce the income tax and other federal taxes by not only pardoning any ‘violator’ of any federal tax law but I will have arrested any agent attempting to enforce such ‘laws.’ If I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, then that includes the Bill of Rights.”

I think that for the Libertarian Party to be consistent in its principles, it really has to acknowledge on its platform that the ultimate goal is to abolish the government completely, or at least the U.S. government a.k.a. criminal racket in Washington. But they don’t do that. Therefore, the Party is a statist party, just like the Republicrats and the Demopublicans.

But the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential nominee, Spike Cohen, has the right idea, at least on his website:

Because you own yourself, you own your life and labor.

Because you own your labor, you own the product of your labor. That product is your property.

Because you own yourself, your life, your labor and your property (including money), it is inherently wrong for anyone to take any of these from you.

If someone calls themselves “the government”, that doesn’t suddenly make it right for them to take from you.  Therefore, all government is inherently wrong and should end.

I am running for VP on a message of radical libertarianism; that is, that all interactions between people should be peaceful and voluntary, and that therefore there is no good reason for government to exist.

For Equal Justice Under the Law, De-Monopolize Government Police

I wanted to write my response to the recent “Libertarian” Party shenanigans, but it’s going to have to wait now. After 2 months of “COVID” imprisonment and fascist business closures, mask orders and socialist distancing, and my having to write about those things, now the narrative managers have abruptly changed the subject to the RACE crap, out of no where!

The RACE crap and “racism” here, there and everywhere coming out of the woodwork after a long time that we haven’t had to hear that, and the recent police brutality incident in Minneapolis which has little to do with race or racism.

America is NOT a “racist country”! The U.S. over 50 years ago installed the “Civil Rights” Act and nationwide abolished Jim Crow laws and made it a crime to “discriminate” against people based on race, especially in businesses, schools and “public accommodations.” Many businesses and educational institutions have “affirmative action” programs for people of color.

And prior to the past 3 months scamdemic Wall Street panic-selling and governors-forced business closures, by the end of last year the unemployment rates for black and Hispanic Americans and women were at their lowest ever in history. Thanks to Trump signing those tax cuts and the deregulation he imposed.

But the scamdemic political scammers and Trump haters took all that away now. And the rioters are helping the self-destructive cause even further.

And this certainly isn’t a defense of Donald Trump, who continues to prosecute the racist drug war in which black Americans are incarcerated at much higher rates than whites, and Trump who continues the drone strikes which mainly murder innocent civilians in the Middle East and Asia.

Nevertheless there was Plan A to get rid of Donald Trump, “Russia collusions” that didn’t work. And then Plan B, the made-up Impeachment fiasco (that also didn’t work). And then Plan C, as soon as the Impeachment failed in February, the obsessed Trump haters then exploited a “virus” and imposed their fascist orders on the people to cause economic devastation, which they did.

And now it’s Plan D, exploit a nazi cop in Minneapolis murdering a black suspect, and use that one incident to engage in more economic destruction, theft, and falsely claim there’s an epidemic of racism in America.

So the rioting and looting, burning down buildings and cars and hurting people has nothing to do with racism. (Unless you want to refer to black-instigated anti-white racism…)

If the “Black Lives Matter” or antifa “protesters” cared in the least about the plight of black people, they wouldn’t have destroyed the minority-owned businesses in Minneapolis and other cities. And further, many of those small businesses are local grocers and gas stations, the destruction of which leaves lower-income residents at a further disadvantage in their providing for themselves. Thanks, “protesters.”

And those governors, mayors, or police chiefs who told local police or National Guard to “stand down”? Useless tax eaters, all of them.

Much of this is not to do with race, but is mainly to do with the people on the left carrying out their anti-capitalism political agenda.

In 2009-2010 were the Tea Party protests and rallies, especially after ObamaCare and other further centralization and tax-theft policies, because those protesters don’t like more of their income and earnings and freedom taken away from them. They cleaned up after themselves after their rallies and they didn’t destroy property. And then in 2011-2012 there were the Occupy Wall Street protests, in which property was destroyed and protesters left disgusting messes. There was a stark difference between the two groups. The Occupy Wall Street crowd wanted the government apparatus to be used to “take from others,” and get their “fair share,” if you know what I mean.

More recently, there have been crowds of people protesting peacefully against the fascist government-ordered shutdown of the businesses and fascist stay-at-home orders. Those protesters have gone to state capitols with their signs and chanting and giving public speeches, but by and large they were not violent.

The current return of protests, in which many of the “protesters” are not protesters but are criminal marauders and monsters, are not acting out any legitimate form of protest. They are burning down businesses and stealing from them, setting cars on fire, and hurting people.

They are merely acting out the same anti-capitalist mentality (.pdf) of the same people of the white-collar variety who had been panic-selling on Wall Street and ordering businesses shut down.

But the main issue with the police murder of a black man in Minneapolis is not to do with the race of victim or perpetrator, but was yet another criminal act of government violence against a civilian.

The answer to THAT problem is to de-monopolize community policing and security. Abolish government police. No one should have legal authority over anyone else, in which if the “civilian” does something criminal he goes to jail but if the “authority” does something criminal he does not go to jail. That is not a free society or a civilized society. That’s a criminal society, in my view.

As I wrote back in 2013, “No more police socialism.” Here is an excerpt:

So the way I see it, theoretically, police or “law enforcement” socialism is when government bureaucrats possess the ownership of the means of production and provision of community policing and security while outlawing (at least implicitly) any competing agencies to do the same.

But a more honest assessment of police socialism is this: The people of a community already possess or could possess the means of providing their own security themselves. Those interested in doing so already have the natural right to establish private policing firms or voluntary groups and have a right to possess whatever armaments they wish to carry out such endeavors.

But in the current situation of police socialism, government bureaucrats have stolen from the people their ability to provide their own security, by making such attempts artificially unlawful and through disarmament schemes weakening the people’s abilities to physically defend and protect themselves when their lives and property are threatened.

The government bureaucrats have usurped and forcibly monopolized the means of production in security provision at the people’s expense. That, in a nutshell, is what police socialism is.

So what do these bureaucrats and monopolists do with their monopoly power, enforce the law?

Well, they enforce the thousands and thousands of made-up laws on the books which make artificial criminals of totally innocent human beings, that’s for sure.

Okay, but is such a government-monopolized system efficient? I’ll bet Murray Rothbard would answer in the negative.

Do the government police protect people from the aggressions of others? (Hmmm. I hear snickering out there.)

As CopBlock’s Peter Eyre noted recently, the government police have no legal obligation to protect anyone.

So why the hell do they exist?

As the late William Norman Grigg correctly pointed out, government monopolized community policing and security is a “protection” racket.

And more recently, Ryan McMaken at the Mises Institute addresses the uselessness of the government police racket in Minneapolis.

Government police are useless. That is why the business owners in Minneapolis and elsewhere need to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, and to use them if necessary, to protect their businesses, to protect their lives and their livelihoods, like the Korean business owners did in the “wild west” of L.A. during the 1992 Rodney King riots.

And I am not suggesting that citizens just go and shoot people, obviously. But people have a right to self-defense. If someone is breaking into your home you have a right to exercise self-defense to protect yourself and your family. The same right applies to your place of business, which is your livelihood, your means of providing sustenance. Anyone directly invading and physically wrecking such means of sustenance is literally threatening your life.

But such rights of self-defense also apply to when the government is threatening you.

And no, I am not suggesting that people go and shoot police either! BUT, theoretically, people have the right to defend themselves against anyone who directly threatens their lives. Larken Rose controversially addressed that issue in this article.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote a few years ago,

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Speaking of Jews, see this article on Jews and “gun control,” on the website of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

And by the way, while Ronald Reagan, the NRA and the KKK all tried to legally prevent black Americans from owning and possessing firearms, it was the Black Panthers of the 1960s and ’70s who were gun rights biggest advocates, wrote UCLA law professor Adam Winkler.

I know, a lot of this is “10 foot pole” stuff, but there is a lot of ignorance and simple-mindedness out there. Certain ideas must be discussed.

If you are interested in all these ideas, and I hope you are, for further info see these important and enlightening articles:

From Murray Rothbard’s book, For a New Liberty, Ch. 12, “Police, Law and the Courts.” (Here is an excerpt by Murray Rothbard reprinted in Reason magazine, 1973.)

Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the idea of a private law society in these videos and the text version, from May of 2011.

Robert Murphy: But wouldn’t warlords take over? and The possibility of private law.

Per Bylund on competition in private justice.

And William Anderson on the State courts where the Duke lacrosse case is concerned.

More on the COVID Scamdemic

Robert Wenzel posts on the “nut job power freak governors” who ordered nursing homes to have to admit coronavirus patients, knowing that the elderly are the group most vulnerable to succumbing to the coronavirus COVID-19. New York and the criminal Cuomo aren’t the only states murdering elderly people in nursing homes. Wenzel shows a tweet by Jack Posobiec who states that his team has found that New York, New Joisey, Michigan, California, and Pennsylvania all ordered nursing homes to have to admit coronavirus patients.

And Wenzel has another post regarding the mayor of Ocala, Florida who says he will not enforce the state’s “phase one” of lifting sanctions on businesspeople and so on. (The governors, including Massachusetts governor Charlie Half-Baker and New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sunununu, are lifting their sanctions by “phases,” in true Soviet, central planning style. Those two idiots, and Florida Gov. Ron Duh Santis, are all Rethuglicans, not Dumocrats. However, I’m not sure about Sunununu but I KNOW that Charlie Half-Baker HATES Donald Trump, and I think his Trump-hate is one of his main motivations of his lockdown crap, another one being Baker wants that stimulus money! But Ron Duh Santis is a Trump supporter, so the main reason I can see for his playing along with this fascist unconstitutional crapola is because he is just really DUMB, the more accurate phrase for him being “Useful Idiot,” in service to the ones with their society-destroying agenda.)

Speaking of that, Jon Rappoport has this terrific article on the “Chinese system coming to America.” It’s a plannedemic, for a new Soviet Amerika. (I know, “Chinese,” “Soviet,” not that much difference.)

And Dr. Mercola has an article on the well-known hazards of coronavirus vaccines. The greedy, Big Pharma agenda has been way out in the open now for all to see.

Libertarian-Based Talks on Coronavirus Panic

Jacob Hornberger and Richard Ebeling of the Future of Freedom Foundation discuss the coronavirus panic and the libertarian answer to the problem.

James Corbett and James Even Pilato discuss medical martial law with coronavirus panic:

And Larken Rose discusses coronavirus predictions:

News and Commentary

Jeff Tucker asks, Why the draconian response to COVID-19?

Alan Reynolds: COVID-19 deaths and incredible WHO estimates.

Robert Wenzel on whether or not we should panic.

Jon Rappoport: Vimeo censors my interview, in which Catherine Austin Fitts and I discuss coronavirus and vaccines

Larry Romanoff asks, Why is the U.S. apparently not testing for the COVID-19 coronavirus? and, Did the virus originate in the U.S.?

Dr. Mercola: Former CDC head cashes in on Merck stock.

Donald Boudreax: Price gouging in desperate situations.

Laurence Vance: In defense of price gouging.

Judge Andrew Napolitano says, Repeal the Patriot Act.

Chris Calton: Joe Biden, father of the drug war’s asset forfeiture program.

Becky Akers discusses bans on plastic bags: The useless ban the useful.

John Horgan: The cancer industry: hype vs. reality.

Joe Martino: CDC admits in federal court they have no evidence “vaccines don’t cause autism.”

James Delingpole: Wikipedia airbrushes list of climate skeptic scientists out of history.

Paul Craig Roberts: The consequences of identity politics.

Ron Paul: Central banking is socialism.

Jacob Hornberger: End the Fed.

Brian Balfour: Central planning, the true economic chaos.

Sheldon Richman: Democracy can’t fix socialism.

José Niño: The IRS’s history of attacking political dissenters and opponents.

Richard Ebeling: Liberalism should reject welfare statism.

James Bovard: U.S. foreign policy perpetual perfidy.

And Matt Agorist: Journalist’s home raided and he was kidnapped because he refused to name a source.

Socialism vs. Freedom

Here is my latest article on Activist Post, Socialism vs. Freedom:

Bernie Sanders seems to be getting a lot of support from people who think they want “socialism” in America, especially the young people, many of whom know nothing about what socialism really is.

There is a lot of misinformation out there, including the assertion that Sweden and other Nordic countries are “socialist,” which they aren’t because of their protection of private property and the private ownership of the means of production. So, those countries are capitalist countries but with a large welfare state, just like the U.S.

But the truth is, actual socialism has a history of economic stagnation and impoverishment, tyranny, and political oppression. The “equality” that Bernie supporters are looking for does not exist in socialist societies.

In such socialist societies the political class are the elites who climb the ladder of success based on political favoritism and corruption, not based on abilities, talent, merit and risk. The political class are the rulers and the rest of the people are their servants, quite frankly.

No “equality” there.

So Bernie is running on a platform to “tax the billionaires” to pay for all the socialist programs he wants to impose.

But Bernie has also said he wants to eliminate the billionaires (until there are no more billionaires to tax, and thus no more wealth to fund his schemes!).

The truth is, these politicians, demagogues, and propagandists such as Bernie are really for government power and control, and they oppose freedom, even though it was freedom that most contributed to the biggest expansion in growth and progress in human history and the biggest rise in the standard of living of all (and not just the “1%” or the “rich” or billionaires, but everyone).

More than guided by motivations of charity, giving and compassion, the Bernie socialists seem guided by envy and covetousness in their expressed desire to take other people’s money and stuff away from them. Sadly, earlier misguided Americans began the process for them by imposing the income tax and empowering the IRS.

And the truth is, socialism is anything but “social.” It is in fact anti-social. Socialism is antithetical to peace, and has no place for the peacefulness of voluntary exchange. Socialists impose policies of coercion, compulsion, and government theft of private wealth, government exploitation of your labor.

Many people agree with the policies of aggression against peaceful people, from the antifa demonstrators who beat up MAGA hat-wearing Trump supporters to the police state enforcing immigration and drug laws.

And Project Veritas showed that some Bernie supporters are threatening to burn down Milwaukee and other cities if Bernie doesn’t get the Democrat nomination.

But these people merely reflect the actual government policies they support. Socialism requires a heavy dose of State power and aggression over the people and a powerful police state, goons with badges and guns, to enforce the bureaucrats’ iron fist.

The differences between socialism and freedom?

Unlike in the private sector in which all transactions, trades and associations must be voluntary, and the use of coercion with threats of force are considered criminal, under socialism the transactions between government and the workers are involuntary. You must obey the government’s demands for whatever it wants, or else.

And the U.S. quickly became this kind of society after the income tax was imposed in the early 20th Century. Which is what enabled the aforementioned enrichment of the ruling class in Washington. (Hence Bernie’s three homes and $2 million in wealth. But what has he actually produced and served consumers with in return? Nothing, quite frankly.)

And it is not just the “rich” who are robbed by the government, it is everyone. Either through direct taxation or indirectly via inflation and a central bank such as the Federal Reserve System.

So we have to decide whether we want to live in a free society, a society of peace and prosperity, or not.

The socialist society, or in the U.S. the “mixed economy” as it is sometimes called, requires the violation of the people’s freedom.

What exactly is freedom, as compared to the enslavement of the government-owned and controlled economy under socialism?

In freedom, you own your life and your body. Not the government. You own your labor and all the energy and effort you put into your productivity, until you voluntarily sell your labor to an employer, a client or customer. And you thus own the earnings or compensation that are paid to you voluntarily by such employers, clients or customers, which are based on mutually agreed-to voluntary contracts.

In the modern era, more freedom has led to the periods of the greatest growth and expansion, and raised the standard of living of all in society. Socialism and less freedom have a history of reducing the standard of living of the people.

For example, we still have generally a lot of freedom in the tech sector now, unlike the healthcare and some other sectors. The reason you have a very modern and convenient iPhone and other little gadgets is because of that freedom.

All the advances and inventions of modern tech, as well as inventions in other areas, came from that freedom and free markets. They did not come from socialism.

What inventions, exactly, came from the socialist Soviet Union? From Cuba, North Korea, or Iran?

And healthcare in the U.S., for example, right now is not nearly as free and affordable as it used to be.

What happened? The government came in during the 1960s and imposed Medicare and Medicaid. Those interventions, mandates and intrusions distorted the markets in healthcare and caused havoc, which led to the increase in costs in healthcare. Prior to those intrusions, if someone was unable to afford to go to a doctor or hospital, it was affordable for doctors to provide medical care for people for free, which many did.

There was much more freedom of healthcare in general in the old days, as well. Doctor-patient confidentiality was also more secure. Governmental intrusions have compromised that, too.

Another example of the destruction of socialism is Venezuela, which Bernie enthusiastically praises. In Venezuela the government seized the ownership of the means of production of food. Food production and distribution are under the ownership and control of the government. And what happened? The government distortions in those markets gave the Venezuelan people empty store shelves, long lines, mass starvation, violence, corruption, and death.

In contrast, look at all the store shelves in grocery stores in the U.S. Fully stocked, most of the time, with many, many choices, all as a result of private ownership of food production and distribution, and the freedom of the people running those industries to do what they think is right at whatever given time, not based on what a bureaucrat demands.

In socialism the government owns the means of production. And what is the most important means of production? The people, of course.

In socialist societies you do not own your own life and your labor’s earnings. The government is the initial, primary owner of your labor and the government gives to you whatever it thinks you deserve.

Meanwhile, when there’s more freedom, especially the freedom to keep more of what you earn, businesses expand more and the workers are getting better pay and benefits so they can afford that car, a new refrigerator, etc. A recent example: the tax cuts of December, 2017 in the U.S. that were followed by companies immediately announcing their workers’ raises and bonuses.

In a genuinely free society the companies are privately owned and the capital of the private manufacturers and investors is free from government theft. This leaves the people free to invest in and expand their businesses to produce better goods and services to better serve the consumers.

Freedom is one big reason why people in the society can afford to have an iPhone, a TV, a car, and air conditioning.

In contrast, when the State owns and runs production and industry, which is what Bernie Sanders wants (like in modern Cuba and the old Soviet Union), government bureaucrats decide what you will do with your life and career (tracking kids from kindergarten to college, etc.). That is because in such societies you have no freedom and your right to self-ownership is usurped away by the rulers, i.e. a slave of the State.

And in such socialist societies there is no political freedom including the right to “question authority” and challenge the State’s abuses. Given that the U.S. is very socialist in the kinds of powers and controls the federal government already has, it’s no wonder the regime in Washington railroads anyone who rocks the establishment boat, from Donald Trump to political prisoners Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.

In socialist societies that Amerika had become long ago but many people aren’t willing or able to acknowledge, you can see how political power over others and the political process is an obsession. Look how members of the political class are climbing and grasping for power with the current 2020 elections.

The two major parties, Republican and Democrat, a.k.a. Republicrat and Demopublican, are really a racket. They are really a branch of the government, federal, state and local. Just look how those two parties have legally restricted the right of third parties or independent candidates to get their names on ballots. And the media, by the way, are another branch of the government, as their propaganda mainly repeats the government’s word without question.

Anti-establishment media people are “heretics,” “unpatriotic,” “Russia puppets,” and censored by mainstream media, or “de-platformed” by the government’s social media minions.

And, while Donald Trump in many ways is also an authoritarian socialist, just see how the apparatchiks and propagandists of the permanent extra-constitutional national security state and bureaucratic state went after him, just because he said, “Drain the Swamp.” Just look how the State’s criminals of government made things up, like “golden showers” and concocted a Steele Dossier to falsely accuse and frame-up a duly elected U.S. president. And when that didn’t work, they then made up more “crimes” from a mere phone call toward an impeachment, and that didn’t work either.

And with the pathological political class the Republicans are just as bad as the “strategizing” Democrats. Some of the conservative talk radio hosts and their ditto-head callers are saying they will vote in Democrat primaries for Bernie. But how did Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” work out? (It gave us Obama!)

You see, this is how things are when everything in life is politicized in a socialist society.

The conservatives, by the way, love socialism when it comes to the immigration issue. They love the idea of the central planners in Washington attempting to control the movements of millions of people, which is impossible.

The Rush Limbaugh crowd loves having the government restrict the rights and freedom of foreigners entering “our” country, entering the socialized and “publicly-owned” territory of Amerika and imposing a police state on everyone at or near the border.

In that kind of socialism that conservatives love, you have to get the government’s permission to get a job somewhere or to hire someone.

In contrast, in a free society people come and go as they please, they go to where a job is available and they buy or rent a home where they want to live, and employers just hire the best person for the job. No permission from a parasite bureaucrat in Washington needed.

In a free society, you do what you want to do with your own life, your labor and property, as long as you are peaceful and don’t violate the persons or property of others. Not complicated.

And in a free society, there is no government “war on drugs.” You own your own body and consume whatever you decide, and you’re responsible for your own decisions and actions. But when life is socialized, the government is empowered to own and control everything, including you.

Currently in Amerika, the government owns your body and bureaucrats decide what you may or may not put into “your” body.

In a free society, if you want to use, buy or sell a plastic bag, then you use, buy or sell a plastic bag. As long as you don’t litter. People littering is the real problem as far as environmental issues are concerned, not plastics per se.

In a free society no one may go to government bureaucrats to ban plastic, or ban anything for that matter. No banning drugs by law, no banning sugary drinks or salt, no banning guns, no bans on otherwise peaceful activities.

So a free society is a “leave people the hell alone” society. Whether the Bernie, Bloomberg or Trump socialists and fascists like it or not!

And in a free society, you educate your children however you want. And when there is freedom, there would be many more schools and choices, and the government doesn’t run the schools. No federal Department of Education, no local school committees. And it’s all voluntary. No compulsory education.

In a free society, if your child wants to have a lemonade stand, she has a lemonade stand. Nothing a local official or neighbor can do about it, as long as it’s on your own private property. If you want to drive a cab and offer people rides, you put “TAXI” on top and drive your cab and offer people rides. You don’t get a bureaucrat’s permission. You don’t pay the government a fee. You just do it.

And in a free society there is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of self-defense, and due process.

Sadly, there is no room for any of those things in a socialist society.

Activist Post – ALTERNATIVE INDEPENDENT NEWS – Creative Commons 2020

Doh! Conservatives Reject Free Market Capitalism and LOVE Government Central Planning!

Especially in the immigration issue.

I was listening to one of the conservative/ultra-nationalist talk radio ditto-heads this morning, and he was once again foaming at the mouth over the immigration issue. The talk host was in full support of Donald Trump’s stepping up the nazi-like immigration police state, in which ICE and “Border Patrol Tactical Unit” storm troopers will take their S.W.A.T. goons into “sanctuary cities” to harass, terrorize, arrest or assault innocent people who have exercised their unalienable rights to freedom of movement and their right to find a better life for themselves and their families.

Regarding government-operated or funded “sanctuary cities,” they shouldn’t exist, because their operation is funded by taxpayers, i.e. involuntarily.

Instead, there should be freedom, in which volunteer organizations, charities, churches, businesses and residents should have the freedom to take people in if they want to. And they would be expected to take responsibility for their refugees, new workers, guests, etc. As long as people are peaceful. As long as no one is violating the persons or property of others, and that’s it.

When there is freedom, such sponsors, employers or benefactors would not be required to ask the government for permission, and their workers or refugees are not required to get government authorization to go to where they want to go. That is what socialist societies (such as Amerika) do. Alas, that is what “conservatives” want.

The police-state supporting conservatives are concerned about immigrants getting on government welfare. But, a society of freedom and free markets would have no government-imposed redistribution-of-wealth schemes. So the newcomers would not get on welfare, because there would be no government welfare redistribution schemes or handouts!

But most conservatives seem to be socialists, and love income taxation and redistribution just as much as liberals and progressives.

And they seem to love government central planning when it comes to labor and employment. In the immigration issue, conservatives are opposed to free markets, and love the idea of the central planners in Washington attempting to control who works where, and who may not work in Amerika or where they may not work, and whom employers may employ and may not employ.

So conservatives, at least the ones I hear on ditto-head radio, love the idea of government central planners in Washington attempting to control the movements of millions of people. Which is impossible. As Perry Como might say, it’s just impossible.

For them, foreign people have to get government authorization to enter “our” country. But that’s socialism, not freedom.

Only in a socialist society are people required to get government authorization to live their lives, have a business and employ anyone they want to employ, or to move somewhere or to work somewhere.

Contrary to what the socialist conservatives want, in a free society you just do what you want and you live wherever you want, and you buy or sell property, rent a home or work at a place of employment, as long as you are peaceful. Just don’t trespass onto the private property of others.

But conservatives say that immigrants are “breaking into our country,” and compare the whole territory to a parcel of private property. Someone coming into “our” country without government authorization is “trespassing.”

But the territory as a whole is not a parcel of private property. No one owns the territory.

However, some people say that “we” the “citizens” are the owners. No, such an assertion is a myth and just not true. if someone owns the territory, then where is the deed with our names on it? Where in the Constitution or any law is it written that “citizens” are the owners of the territory as a whole?

And who would be the actual owners? Just taxpayers? Well, what about people who work but don’t make enough to be required to pay income taxes? What about foreign non-citizens who are here and who work but do pay income taxes? Do they share in such “ownership”?

The problem with such an assertion of this communistic territorial ownership by the “citizens” (or by the government on their behalf) is that, if it really were the case, then that would negate the principle of private property. You do not really own your private property if it exists on territory that is owned by a larger population. The parcels of property are no longer individual parcels of private property, and you the “owner” have to obey the orders of the larger community as far as what you may or may not do with or on “your” property.

Therefore, the anti-immigration conservatives are big on government central planning, some kind of communal ownership of property and the police state to enforce it, and not big at all on individualism, private property rights, free markets and voluntary exchange.

So what should conservatives really support in order to extract their irrationality from their hypocritical old noggins?

If the anti-foreigner nationalist conservatives are really concerned about “illegals” getting into “our” country, or criminal gangs such as MS-13, then first get rid of all foreign aid. No more federal tax-funded aid to any other countries or governments. That means no more U.S. funding of terrorist-sympathizing or drug lord-cahooting governments in Central or South America, from which many immigrants are fleeing.

And second, end the drug war. Drug prohibition causes the black market which incentivizes low-lifes to try to get people addicted to drugs and incentivizes such low-lifes to become drug pushers and drug traffickers, and the prohibition is what creates the drug lords, the cartels, the turf wars and gangs and violence that are driving innocent people and victims in those areas to flee to the U.S. Ending the war on drugs puts all that to a stop. No more drug pushers, drug traffickers, drug lords, cartels, turf wars and gangs.

And no more drug war police state, no more immigration police state, and no more Constitution-free borders.

I wish that conservatives would get with it as far as the freedom thing goes. Re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. And maybe some other points I made in this post might help them. But, their support of the police state and socialist government central planning and their opposition to and contempt for freedom is really something we can do without.