Skip to content

Category: Libertarianism

News and Commentary

Joseph Mercola: Why Are Moderna Executives Dumping Their Stock?

Caitlin Johnstone: Exposing War Crimes Should Always Be Legal. Committing And Hiding Them Should Not.

Ron Paul: The War on Assange is a War on Truth

Jacob Hornberger: Why Don’t Libertarians Call for Restoring a Republic?

Laurence Vance: I Have Never Served in the Military

Ryan McMaken: Military Generals Are Just Another Group of Self-Interested Technocrats.

Zachary Yost: What’s with the Rich Kid Revolutionaries?

Matt Agorist: 6 Officers Admit to Sexually Abusing Multiple Women—NO Charges, Retired with Benefits.

And Gregory Morin: Unmasked.

More News and Commentary

Jon Miltimore and Dan Sanchez: The New York Times Reported ‘the Mainstreaming of Marxism in US Colleges’ 30 Years Ago. Today, We See the Results.

Jon Rappoport: COVID: Major Case Filed Against Ohio Governor and the State of Ohio for Restricting Freedom Without Legitimate Justification

Brian Shilhavy: September DOJ Report Lists 200 Vaccine Injuries and 1 Vaccine Death Compensated During 6 Month Period – And that’s Without a Fast-Tracked COVID Vaccine.

University of Chicago Study: Vitamin D Deficiency Raises Risk of COVID Infection.

Jeff Tucker: In a War on Restaurants, Media Tout the Lockdown Narrative.

Belen Fernandez: Israel-UAE Deal: The Two-(Police)-State Solution.

Joseph Mercola: An Interview with Dr. Peter Breggin on Toxic Psychiatry.

Sohrab Ahmari: That Atlantic Trump-‘Exposer’ Also Helped Misreport America’s Way into Iraq War.

Ryan McMaken: It’s Far Too Late to Think Lockdowns Can Make Covid-19 Go Away.

Laurence Vance: Libertarian Positions

Kofi Yeboah: African Union Turns to Biosurveillance Tech to Curb COVID-19.

And Robert Murphy: Hayek’s Plan for Private Money.

A Debate Between Two of NH Gov. Sununu’s Republican Primary Opponents

The Republican governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, is considered by freedom lovers to be a tyrant who has abused his office especially when ordering businesses closed and causing economic chaos and job losses, much like the fascists in many other states, based on the scamdemic that we are still suffering. Sununu’s latest act of fascism was ordering the people of New Hampshire to have to wear masks on their faces if in gatherings of over 100 people, despite the studies which show that the face masks do not prevent the transmission of viruses and in fact could cause harm to the individual.

As I have mentioned previously, Sununu has two opponents in the Republican primary this September 8th, Nobody and Karen Testerman. I had written about Nobody, who had his name legally changed to Nobody, in this post.

There was a debate between Nobody and Testerman and, while Chris Sununu was invited to participate, he decided to snub his opponents. The debate between the two opponents was moderated by Mark Edge of Free Talk Live.

The two primary opponents discussed government schools, the drug war, COVID and Sununu’s fascist business closures, recent riots and violence in the cities in Amerika, and the possibility of New Hampshire state secession.

It certainly was a good debate and discussion. Very good points made by both candidates.

Besides Sunono’s fascism with COVID, he is also an anti-freedom-of-speech, anti-private-property, anti-freedom-of-association SJW in his signing the bills banning “discrimination” based on gender identity, and banning so-called “conversion therapy.” So the governor believes there are thought crimes which must be punished. He signed the bills only weeks before his previous reelection as governor in 2018. Conservatives who don’t know about that might want to consider ousting Sunono for those reasons as well as COVID fascism.

More News and Commentary

Jacob Hornberger: Drug War Disappearances and Murders.

Ron Paul: Fedcoin: A New Scheme for Tyranny and Poverty

Chris Calton: When It Comes to Masks, There Is No “Settled Science”.

Thomas Knapp: “Anarchist” Is Not an Insult.

Sheldon Richman: How to Care about the Disadvantaged

Becky Akers: News From the Front in the Mask Wars

Brandon Smith: Martial Law Is Unacceptable Regardless Of The Circumstances.

Zero Hedge: Twitter Locks Trump Jr Account For Posting Press Conference By Pro-Hydroxychloroquine Doctors.

Robert Wenzel: How To Manipulate People Into Wearing Masks

Karen De Coster: Impairing Yourself to “Protect” Others.

Theodore Dalrymple: A Tyranny of Health?

Derek Dobalian: Why They Despise and Smear Thomas Jefferson

Bradley Thomas: Why Marxist Organizations Like BLM Seek to Dismantle the “Western Nuclear Family”

Arjun Walia: Trump Gives 1.16 Billion To Bill Gates’ Vaccine Alliance & Inks Deal With Pfizer For A COVID Vaccine.

Doug Bandow: Engagement With China Was a Success: Trade Helped Transform a Totalitarian State.

Barbara Boland: Our Foreign Policy Nightmare: Vice President Susan Rice.

Benjamin Friedman: Pentagon Cuts Can Provoke Restraint.

Edward Hasbrouck: Senate Bill Would Exempt REAL-ID From Due Process And Oversight.

Thomas DiLorenzo: The Problem With Lincoln.

Donald Jeffries: Culturally Appropriating the Word “Liberal”

And Infowars: Bill Gates Confronted on Widespread Vaccine Side Effects.

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.

More Fallout from “Libertarian” Party Elites Snubbing the Grassroots Voters

As I mentioned before, the elites of the “Libertarian” Party held a virtual convention in which they decided to nominate Jo Jorgensen for President, even though in state primaries Jacob Hornberger won many more votes from the actual LP voters. “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,” I wrote.

And then I wrote about Jorgensen attending a Black Lives Matter candlelight vigil, and she tweeted, “It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist.” Of course, I’ll bet she doesn’t include being actively anti- anti-white racist. If anyone does that, oppose anti-white racism, then one will be labeled “white supremacist,” etc. So much for equality.

But now, Robert Wenzel has posted or reposted a tweet with a photo showing Jorgensen elbow-bumping her VP nominee, Spike Cohen. The horrible and horrifying thing about that is they are wearing those face masks whose only purpose is to show obedience, compliance, and submission to government authority. That is soooo un-libertarian.

Libertarianism is about the Non-Aggression Principle. We oppose the initiation of aggression. It is also about self-ownership, private property rights and freedom of association, in my view.

What is government? Government is by its very nature, aggression. The government has assumed for itself the authority over the lives and property of the people. The government owns the people, frankly, and the government — that is, its bureaucrats and their enforcers — can order you to do this or that, can arrest you, drag you out of your home, terrorize you, steal from you, etc. with impunity. They own you.

So, when we have political candidates who supposedly represent the “Libertarian” message, i.e., the anti-aggression anti-interventionism message, when they show themselves wearing the very symbols of submission to government control and authority, and the very symbols of the suppression of speech and dissent, they show themselves to be not particularly libertarians, or perhaps just clueless.

Yes, they should have the freedom to wear the mask if they want to. But they shouldn’t for the aforementioned reasons, but also because the masks are unhealthy, and shown to not prevent transmission of viruses. The sole purpose of the masks is control.

The LP conventioneers should have gone with the voters’ decision to nominate Jacob Hornberger.

On Voting Libertarian in 2020

I had written previously about the Libertarian Party’s virtual convention, in which the conventioneers decided on Jo Jorgensen to be their LP nominee for President for 2020. And I was thinking of writing more about Jo Jorgensen, even though Jacob Hornberger received many more votes than she did in the state LP primaries, and Hornberger should have gotten the nomination. But the latest with Jorgensen is a reminder that I will not be doing that.

The upcoming U.S. Presidential election will not be legitimate anyway, no matter the outcome, no matter who “wins.” We will now have “mail-in voting” (a.k.a. mail-in cheating) throughout the USSA as well as “early voting” (a.k.a. early cheating) in many states. I think that any chance of these elections having any bit of legitimacy is finished. Add to that the tech companies censoring, de-platforming, and silencing anyone who opposes “social justice” warriorism and race-based and gender-based identity politics.

That is what daily life in Amerika is all about now. The President (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump) continues to authorize drone strikes that kill and murder mainly innocent civilians overseas, that means nothing to millions and millions of schmucks in Amerika. The President continues with the unwinnable “war on drugs” slaughtering and falsely imprisoning and/or otherwise causing the deaths of many young black males. The morons all across the country don’t care about those things. And the idiots on the other side are obsessed with the National Anthem (a horrible song!) and the American Flag, that Bozo in the White House wants a law to protect, like it’s a human being.

So the Libertarian Party giving the nomination to Jo Jorgensen when it was Jacob Hornberger who, rightly, received the most votes in the state primaries, what a joke, that Libertarian Party. They are just as much elitist hacks as the Democrat and Republican party racket.

The latest from Jo Jorgensen? She attended a “Black Lives Matter” candlelight vigil. Okay, so she’s misguided and ignorant. So? However, she tweeted: “It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist.

Robert Wenzel writes:

Why can’t someone be passively not racist? For that matter, why is it a concern of libertarians if someone is a racist but does not violate the non-aggression principle?

Why must libertarians be actively anti-racist? Why should it be demanded of us, under the libertarian banner, to be an active participant in a black public relations effort?

Really, lady, I have enough of my own problems.

I have explained before that I think racists are clowns but if these clowns are not violating the non-aggression principle why is it a concern of libertarians qua libertarians?

Further, Jorgensen, may or may not realize it, but she is jumping on the bandwagon that is being run by very shrewd Marxist revolutionaries who want to destroy capitalism.

Even if I thought there was some merit to the BLM movement, which I don’t, I would stay far away from this effort. The top operators know how to take advantage of alliances. As one of the founders of the Black Lives Matter organization put it, “We are trained Marxists.”

If you are not part of the inner circle, you are a useful idiot to them.  Jorgensen is not part of the inner circle. She is falling into a trap fighting to eliminate “systemic racism” that doesn’t exist (Not to be confused with a few random racists who do exist). BLM  is a front group, a tool, of some very strategically-skilled power-hungry communists.

What the hell is Jorgensen thinking?

Answer: She’s not.

Now, I’m not the biggest fan of Pat Buchanan, but he recently wrote about the “Black Lives Matter” phenomenon, in his article, The New “Systemic Racism” That Is Coming. Basically there are activists in the USSA who want to erase the idea of “not discriminating against someone based on race,” as well as erase that from various state constitutions and probably the Civil Rights Act, so they can institutionalize discrimination against whites and Asians.

But the “Black Lives Matter” organization is led by self-admitted Marxists who don’t believe in freedom, equal justice, due process, and a “color-blind society.” They also don’t believe in private property and freedom of association, freedom of thought and conscience and free exchange, and the libertarian non-aggression principle. They are Marxists.

People who are “libertarians” should not stand with such an organization that is opposed to all the important libertarian principles. And that’s my view on that.

So Jo Jorgensen is now insisting and demanding that we be “actively anti-racist.” Right, Jo. When these race-obsessed activists include anti-white racism as a part of being “anti-racist,” then maybe I’ll support them. When we have millions of white people who haven’t harmed anyone, who haven’t “discriminated against black people” in all their lives, then I would say that they, too, have a right to not be the target of anti-white racism just as much as innocent black people have a right to not be the target of anti-black racism. Right?

But anyway, the Libertarian Party reinforced its more recent moniker as “a joke” when they selected Jo Jorgensen as their 2020 Presidential nominee, even though Jacob Hornberger got many more votes in the primaries.

More Articles on the Banana Republic of USSA

Ryan McMaken: The Constitution failed.

Raul Diego: Israel Defense Ministry Launches COVID-19 Voice Test for Americans.

Wesley Smith: Doctors Killed Quadriplegic Man With Coronavirus Because They Said He Had No “Quality of Life”. (A sign of things to come under “single payer,” “universal health care,” etc.?)

Bill Sardi: 29-Times More People Will Die Of Lockdown Measures Than From The Covid-19 Coronavirus Itself

Zero Hedge: Chill Out: Study Finds Easily-Triggered People Make Terrible Employees.

Jacob Hornberger: Weak Libertarian Solutions to America’s Healthcare Crisis

And Thomas DiLorenzo: Why another book on Lincoln?

The Latest Eye-Opening Articles

Jesús Huerta de Soto: The State: the deadliest virus.

Daisy Luther: We live in a time when our “opinions qualify as crimes.”

Becky Akers: AP: All Propaganda, even to the orthography.

Zero Hedge: NPR busted for making up “right-wing extremists.”

Just the News: Video appears to expose Facebook bias: ‘If someone is wearing a MAGA Hat, I am going to delete them’

Jon Rappoport: Let’s fact-check Reuters: they say DNA vaccines don’t change your genetic makeup—true or false?

Jacob Hornberger: The “Greatest” Generation’s refusal to fight the “good war.”

Scott Sumner: Fewer laws, less police brutality.

James Bovard: Repealing useless and abusive laws better than defunding the police.

Wendy McElroy: Women: reject victimhood, embrace your individualism.

Laurence Vance: Government standards.

Greg Mitchell: New film explores U.S. suppression of key footage from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Walter Block: Try libertarians’ souls.

Matt Agorist: Cops Ordered to Turn Off Body Cams, Illegally Raid Journalist Who Embarrassed Them, And They Obeyed.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Warp speed COVID-19 vaccine makes Big Pharma crooks rich.

And F. William Engdahl: America’s own color revolution.

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.

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.

Nobody Is Running for Governor of New Hampshire

There is a candidate for governor of New Hampshire that I thought you might find of interest, especially if you live in New Hampshire and want to oust the current fascist governor, Chris Sununu, who ordered businesses closed for no good reason, just like all the other fascist governors throughout the country.

The candidate who is running against Sununu in the Republican primary is someone named Nobody. Apparently, Nobody legally changed his name from Richard Paul to “Nobody” last year for the purposes of “performance art and protest,” according to his statement in the court.

And while Nobody is running in the Republican primary, there is a Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot, Darryl Perry, who I had praised in my scathing critique of the Libertarian Party in 2016. At that time Perry was running for President, but now running for governor of New Hampshire. Unfortunately, his platform seems kind of wishy-washy. That’s just my view on that.

So, if I were living in New Hampshire, I would vote for Nobody, though I am uncomfortable with the marijuana stuff. But, whatever.

Nobody’s main issue is ending the War on Drugs, which he had personally been a victim of. And the corrupt criminal injustice system, false arrests, and so on.

In the video below is Nobody filing for his Declaration of Candidacy for governor against fascist Chris Sununu in the New Hampshire Republican primary at the Secretary of State’s office which is set up outside (being outside presumably because of the ongoing scamdemic-caused hysteria and panic).

Nobody eloquently quotes the Declaration of Independence because obviously he has a very good understanding of it. (Quite the opposite from Chris Sununu, the son of a previous fascist governor of New Hampshire.) Nobody says that instead of government being the chief protector of our rights, government has become the chief violator of our rights. “Government does things that nobody should do, and I want to get into office and refuse to do them.”

Amen.

On his list of things to do as governor: “Release list of crooked cops.”

Yep.