Jacob Hornberger: Abolish, Don’t Reform, the Income Tax
Jacob Hornberger: Abolish, Don’t Reform, the Income Tax
Here are some posts I did during the Ebola scare of 2014 (that I also posted on the LewRockwell.com blog at the time), that I thought might be of interest and relevance while the Covid scam hoax continues into its 20th month. I replaced some links with links that work and/or Wayback Machine links.
From September 23, 2014:
I am very surprised that the usually suspicious-of-government-assertions Alex Jones is being taken in by this Ebola panic hysteria going on now as pushed by the CDC and its corporate vaccine merchants. On Infowars today is this article by Dave Hodges, who begins the article with a call for not just the U.S. government to do something, but the military of all things! The article cries, “the government should be deploying the military at all border entry points and in airports for the purpose of establishing quarantine zones for passengers suspected of exposure to the Ebola virus.” Are you serious? So, some old lady sneezes and we should get military soldiers after her? And these Infowars people are usually the ones who criticize government overkill, militarization and overreaction.
In fact, Jon Rappoport has another post on this Ebola panic, and he brings up the “swine flu” panic of 2009. Remember that? Rappoport recounts that then-CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson exposed the CDC’s hysterically fraudulent claims of an H1N1 flu epidemic, in which actual test results of those suspected of having the H1N1 virus showed that most of the results were negative for the virus. But at that time, the CDC still pushed the then-untested “swine flu” vaccine!
In a previous post on the current Ebola outbreak, Rappoport notes that the conditions in Africa are those which cause vulnerability in many people’s immune systems, and it should be no surprise that they can get sick more easily than others living in better conditions.
Remember this: when people are drinking contaminated water (sometimes pumped directly from sewage into the drinking supply), when they are profoundly deficient in all vitamins and minerals, when they are starving, when they are subjected to very toxic chemicals spewed from industrial factories, when they are living far, far below the poverty line, when they are driven from their homes and even their countries during war, the “symptoms” these people present are going to be quite horrific and shocking and strange and unpredictable.
Of course many people will have more illness in those parts of Africa than those in more developed countries. And Rappoprt makes a comparison:
Take 100 people from Scarsdale or Beverly Hills, who are living very comfortable lives, and fly them to some distant location, put them all in a six-room apartment with rats and lice, feed them a tiny portion of rice and melon every day, give them water to drink that’s polluted with industrial waste and human waste . . .
Test them all for the presence of germs, and you’ll find as many viruses and bacteria as you want to.
And in another earlier post Rappoport explains why some health care workers have become ill with Ebola. They had been “boiling hot” in these hazmat suits, losing a lot of sweat and dehydrating themselves, and on top of that having to go through decontamination treatments including the use of chlorine, and he quotes one doctor who stated that the smell of the chlorine while he was wearing the hazmat suit was “intense.”
“But of course,” Jon Rappoport writes, “this has absolutely nothing to do with why you might fall ill. No. If you fall ill, or collapse, or suddenly die, it’s Ebola.”
I’m sure that some nice U.S. Big Pharma vaccine maker will get rich from the latest panic.
But it’s a surprise to see some of the panic and calls for more militarization and “quarantining” people “suspected” of having the Ebola virus coming from Infowars, of all places.
From October 6, 2014:
I am actually very surprised by some libertarians supporting the idea of forced quarantining of people with Ebola, or perhaps even people merely “suspected” of having the disease. Some people have suggested that someone with a contagious disease is a “threat” to others. However, with Ebola specifically there needs to be direct physical contact involving bodily fluids such as saliva, etc., to possibly infect others and therefore it can be controlled. In a libertarian, free-market, voluntary society, an example of actual threatening behavior would be: “I have Ebola and I’m going to spit on you or intentionally bleed on you, etc.” That’s a “threat.” But someone’s merely having Ebola is not a “threat” to others. Other issues to consider include: what about someone who is merely suspected of having Ebola? Should he be included on the list of people to forcibly quarantine or involuntarily vaccinate (if there were an Ebola vaccine)?
So, someone’s merely having Ebola might spread it to others. We can’t violate the rights of the individual because of something that might happen. We shouldn’t use aggression against someone including involuntarily detaining or imprisoning someone because of a higher risk of something that might happen. Another example (and a lot of people including some libertarians don’t like this, I know) is drunk driving. Just because someone has had some alcohol, and that there might be an increased risk that he might cause an accident, that is no reason to stop him and arrest and imprison him. The act of driving while impaired is in and of itself not harmful to others, but it may raise the risk of such harm. In a libertarian society it is a violation of the non-aggression principle and liberty to detain or imprison someone who has not harmed anyone, merely based on risk. As Lew Rockwell wrote: “Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.”
Am I way off on this? I don’t think so.
My conclusion here is that I am much more afraid of being the victim of being forcibly medicated (and thus my immune system compromised) or involuntarily detained or hauled off to some “quarantine facility” especially based on the mere suspicion of
ignorant sheeple neighbors others, than I am afraid of getting Ebola (in which case, my good immune system would get rid of it quickly, in my view).
From October 7, 2014:
Several emailers responded to my post on the Ebola panic, some people agreeing with my points and some others disagreeing. One accused me of being insensitive to the situation of a possible epidemic or pandemic, and I understand that so I apologize if I have seemed insensitive. I just happen to be against involuntary quarantine, confinements, imprisonment of any people who have not harmed anyone. Most people who know they have Ebola would probably self-quarantine, in my view. The situation is different now than it was in decades past, as far as advances made in medical treatments and in prevention. The Ebola outbreak in Africa is escalating continuously now because the conditions over there are extremely unfavorable to the health of the general population. Such conditions involve sanitation, water and sewage infrastructure, and malnutrition. Such general conditions are much more favorable in the U.S. than the conditions in Africa. So far, anyway, I am still more concerned about the hysteria and panic than I am about Ebola.
Another aspect that is different now than decades ago is the power and strength of governments here, federal, state and local, in which the bureaucrats and their enforcers now have phenomenally much more power than they did in years past, and such multiplying government jobs have attracted the lowest of the low, the power-grabbers, oath-breakers, usurpers and psychopaths. The attitude now for many of them is “Never let a crisis go to waste,” to fulfill their lust for control over the lives of others. You can say, “What a right-wing, paranoid conspiracy nut” if you want to, but to some of the emailers who wrote about their fear of losing their children to Ebola because of irresponsible infected people going out in public, I would point out the many, many “Melissa Harris-Perry” types who are out there to whom you really could lose your kids. We know that from all the CPS and DCF horror stories now, what’s going on in the public schools, and if there might be an Ebola crisis in the U.S. those family-hating fascists are ready to take advantage of it. I could be way off, of course, and that might not be the case. But we saw the zeal of the child-snatchers in the Justina Pelletier case and there have now been quite a few other similar cases, in addition to all the police- and “first-responder”–related horror stories.
And my other issue is, aside from those who may actually be diagnosed with Ebola after having tested positive for it, there may be many people who might be “suspected” of having it. Should we forcibly quarantine them, too? Should we demand their blood to have it tested? What if someone is suspected but doesn’t want to give his blood to the “officials”? Should we forcibly take his blood? We know now that the vampires of the police state are taking innocent people’s blood and putting it into government databases. It is something to be concerned about.
From October 9, 2014:
Well, some libertarians such as Walter Block seem to be in disagreement with me on the Ebola situation regarding voluntary vs. involuntary quarantine of people with or suspected of having Ebola. Becky Akers shares my concerns, and she points out her past article on what U.S. gov did with Andrew Speaker in 2007, the persecuted TB carrier. And John Keller makes some great points regarding private property rights to resolve those issues. Ryan McMaken also points out the private property solution as well as points out how the U.S. gov has bumbled several other contagious disease situations. And he also linked to an article by Robert Murphy on how the free market would handle quarantines. And Butler Shaffer discusses why the U.S. gov would want to actually patent the Ebola virus. Also, Robert Wenzel had posted this post on how you can and can’t get Ebola. By the way the gubmint now wants to screen airline passengers by taking their temperatures, but Washington’s blog points out how that will be useless.
And finally, From October 28, 2014:
I’m really tired of writing about ebola. But for those including alleged libertarians who want to forcibly, involuntarily apprehend and incarcerate someone who is accused of having ebola, you really had better have actual scientific proof, such as blood tests which reveal the actual ebola virus, such tests of which should only be performed if symptoms such as vomiting and bleeding are occurring. A “fever” is not sufficient in my view. The nurse who had a slight fever but was exhibiting no other symptoms then had a more accurate temperature reading and was shown to not have a fever. Traveling by air has various effects on people. The stress of traveling and dealing with changes in climate etc. could have effects on someone including one’s body temperature.
While the subject is not ebola but fishing expeditions to find drunks, this Infowars article discusses unconstitutional mandatory roadside blood draws. Now, do those who support mandatory-quarantine/testing for ebola want to have checkpoints in which everybody’s blood must be drawn, without reason to suspect that specific individuals have ebola? (I think that panic and fear have been winning over reason and common sense. It is common sense to understand that government bureaucrats and their enforcers cannot be trusted with the power to seize property, money or bodily fluids from peaceful and presumably innocent people without suspicion and probable cause.)
Meanwhile, Patrice Lewis says that perceptions of ebola can be just as damaging as the virus itself.
And Brandon Smith explains why he will not submit to medical martial law.
Walter Williams says it would be better if Western nations didn’t send aid to Africa.
Robert Wenzel writes about the U.S. gunvernment testing ebola as a bio weapon. (Hey, U.S. bureaucrats: why the hell do you need to use “germs” to attack foreigners? Why don’t you just shoot them and bomb them? I guess being sadists, the bureaucrats like to cause people extra suffering and misery, so they will give “the enemy” ebola.)
And the New York Times writes an editorial on the dangers of forced quarantines. But because they are so entrenched and enmeshed with government, the
Slimes Times doesn’t mention that the real danger is the harm such policies will do to innocent and non-ebola-carrying people. By the way, if politicians and police forcibly throw someone into an “ebola quarantine facility,” regardless of whether they actually have ebola, and they don’t have ebola but then get it from someone else at the facility and then they die, do the families of these innocent victims of government bureaucrat-Nazis have the right to file murder charges against those who forced people’s loved ones to their deaths?
A New Hampshire state legislator has filed for a constitutional amendment to put a question on the 2022 state ballot for New Hampshire to leave the United States of America, a NHExit.
According to WND, the Amendment would read, “New Hampshire peaceably declares independence from the United States and immediately proceeds as a sovereign nation. All other references to the United States in this constitution, state statutes, and regulations are nullified.”
I looked through the New Hampshire Libertarian Party twitter to see if there has been any reaction:
“Secession is a deeply American principle. This country was born through secession.”
~ Ron Paul
— Libertarian Party NH (@LPNH) September 17, 2021
Poll included. https://t.co/ph7phnpkdz
— Libertarian Party NH (@LPNH) September 15, 2021
(This poll was run by the largest newspaper in New Hampshire) pic.twitter.com/7rysobswxu
— The Free State 🦔 (@FreeStateNH) September 16, 2021
Just a reminder, the American Declaration of Independence reads:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Any of that sound familiar?
A terrific article by Jacob Hornberger: The LA Times Gets It Wrong on Gun Rights.
On the LRC blog, Thomas DiLorenzo linked to one of his past articles, Happy Secession Day, and I thought it was appropriate now, for this day at this time.
From the article:
… America’s most prominent secessionist, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, was very clear about what he was saying: Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and whenever that consent is withdrawn, it is the right of the people to “alter or abolish” that government and “to institute a new government.” The word “secession” was not a part of the American language at that time, so Jefferson used the word “separation” instead to describe the intentions of the American colonial secessionists.
The Declaration is also a states’ rights document (not surprisingly, since Jefferson was the intellectual inspiration for the American states’ rights political tradition). This, too, is foreign to most Americans. But read the final paragraph of the Declaration which states:
“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other things which independent states may of right do (emphasis in original).”
Each colony was considered to be a free and independent state, or nation, in and of itself. There was no such thing as “the United States of America” in the minds of the founders. The independent colonies were simply united for a particular cause: seceding from the British empire. Each individual state was assumed to possess all the rights that any state possesses, even to wage war and conclude peace. Indeed, when King George III finally signed a peace treaty he signed it with all the individual American states, named one by one, and not something called “The United States of America.” The “United States” as a consolidated, monopolistic government is a fiction invented by Lincoln and instituted as a matter of policy at gunpoint and at the expense of some 600,000 American lives during 1861—1865.
I don’t really know that much about the New York City mayoral election going on now. Apparently there have been some screw-ups and this “ranked-choice” voting supposedly is involved in some way.
In ranked choice voting, allegedly, if the top vote getter doesn’t get over 50% of the votes, then voters have stated who their second choice would be, and it goes on from there to intentionally confuse the voters, as that is one tactic of the cheaters out there in order to get their candidate who did not win, to win.
But the truth is, when you have the candidate who received the most number of votes but not over 50%, the rest of the candidates together are not the equivalent of a single candidate opposing that top vote-getter. The rest of the candidates are all individual candidates. They are not a collective group that equals one opponent to the top vote-getter. That just is not the case and it shouldn’t be the case. Yet, that is really what the “ranked choice” proponents seem to be implying. There is no legitimate reason to have to get over 50% of the votes!
Now, here is a legitimate election: the one who receives the most number of votes wins. And that’s it. You don’t have to get 50% or more. Just get the most number of votes. Duh. You can have many candidates, and the top vote-getter gets something less than 50% like 39% for sake of discussion, but the other candidates all received less than that candidate’s 39% and did not get as many votes as that candidate. Whoever gets the most number of votes is the winner. And that’s the legitimate way to do elections. Anything else is a bunch of made-up crap to confuse people, like a Common Core version of voting, in order for cheaters to get around the requirement of receiving the most number of votes, to steal an election.
And that’s what I have to say about that. Now, as far as New York City is concerned, if I lived in New York any candidate who wants to decentralize the city, i.e. to break it into separate independent cities, for example to have a City of Manhattan, a City of Queens, a City of Brooklyn, and so on, would probably get my vote. (And each new city can further decentralize into separate independent neighborhoods, etc., etc.) And further, any candidate who wants to repeal or just not enforce all drug laws, gun laws, selling individual cigarettes laws, sugary drinks laws, taxi medallion laws, all zoning laws, and most other laws and regulations that violate property rights and individual liberty, would probably get my vote.
Another controversy with the “Libertarian” Party to write about. How fun.
Now, I am not a member of the Libertarian (sic) Party, but I have had plenty to say about the Party and some of its political candidates in the past. And I have some comments to make now about the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH).
Apparently, the LPNH chair Jilletta Jarvis has allegedly staged a “hostile takeover” of the Party by dismissing several of the duly-elected Party leaders or officers and installing her own people in a way that is not allowed by their Party by-laws. She is reacting to what she has determined to be an alleged undermining of the Party mainly by the Mises Caucus. Here is Jarvis’s letter explaining her moves.
And even Justin Amash opposed the “coup” and endorsed the executive committee elected in March as the legitimate leaders, and Tom Knapp expresses his view that Jilletta Jarvis’s changes are illegitimate.
For a discussion on this controversy, see the Wendy McElroy forum, and here is a lengthy post with many comments on Richard Winger’s Ballot Access News forum. Among the comments there are a formal letter of complaint to the National Libertarian Party regarding Jarvis’s actions. And LPNH executive committee member Sean Dempsey provides a timeline with links on the LP “takeover” or “coup” in New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die State.”
But first, I wanted to mention LPNH Chair Jilletta Jarvis’s 2018 LP campaign for governor of New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state. As I wrote here, while she’s good on some issues, on education she seems to support the continuation of government schools, when the libertarian answer is abolishing the government schools. The real answers are privatization and decentralization in education. And Jarvis wants to “reform” occupational licensing for “fair and equal opportunity for entrepreneurship to all people.” Huh? What are you, a Democrat? Actually, the libertarian answer to that is not “reforming” but abolishing licensure. Duh, Jilletta.
I just wanted to get that out of the way first. I hope you don’t mind that. Is she perhaps like Gary Johnson (a “sort-of” libertarian)?
So apparently, among other issues with the Mises Caucus, the Mises Caucus supposedly viewed the January 6th Capitol trespass and riot either favorably or without criticism. I think that was one of the issues.
LPNH Mises Caucus critics are suggesting that the Caucus supported the January 6th trespass and riot. The only thing I could find was a tweet in which the Mises Caucus merely expressed frustration at the LP for condemning “right-wing violence” (against the State, i.e. the Capitol) but not condemning left-wing violence (e.g. antifa/BLM destruction of businesses, etc.).
So right-wing violence aimed at the empire's seat of power gets a swift condemnation, but left-wing violence (riots and lockdowns) aimed at small businesses gets silence
I'm not saying @LPNational is run by controlled opposition, but if they were what would be different?
— Libertarian Party Mises Caucus (@LPMisesCaucus) January 6, 2021
I agree with the Mises Caucus in its frustration with the LP. Gary Johnson was the “lifestyle libertarian” nominee for President, but not the principled candidate. The late Wenzel grilled Johnson in 2012 and then we discovered that Johnson had no clue of the LP’s principles or the basic philosophy of libertarianism. But now the Party has gone way off the deep end for “social justice” and identity politics as indistinguishable from the Democrat party, and their “lifestyle libertarianism” beliefs, which is why the apparatchiks of the Party picked Jo Jorgensen over Jacob Hornberger for President in 2020 despite Hornberger’s getting many more votes in the primaries.
I think that most in the Mises Caucus understand the basic principles of libertarianism than perhaps many of those in the Libertarian Party in general. It’s not about drugs, bitcoin, LGBT rights and fighting racism. It’s about the non-aggression principle, self-ownership, private property rights, freedom of association and freedom of non-association, and freedom of contract, in my view.
Some LP candidates, for instance, have been afraid to say out loud that the income tax is institutionalized theft and the IRS is a just another criminal racket. If you can’t acknowledge that first and foremost the IRS must be dismantled and abolished and all income taxes (and any form of involuntary confiscation of private property) be ended then you really aren’t a libertarian.
The reason that taxes imposed by government agencies are acts of theft is that they are involuntary and are in the absence of a voluntary contract.
The only kinds of transactions and trades that are legitimate are voluntary transactions and trades. If it’s involuntary then it’s illegitimate. It’s an act of theft no different from a street mugger demanding money from someone at gunpoint.
And that includes sales taxes as well. I enter into a contract voluntarily with a store or retail outlet or a customer or client, but I did not voluntarily agree that third parties i.e. government bureaucrats take a percentage of that trade away from me or from the trader. Such a transaction is none of the business of any third party no matter who that is.
Additionally, government criminal scum ordering us to report such trades is also a criminal act of invasion of privacy. The same goes for having to report income. (And by the way, currently I do everything I’m supposed to do by law, because I don’t want to be harassed or imprisoned by the terrorists who rule over us. Duh.)
And I wish that conservatives could see the light. They never declare that the income tax or otherwise involuntary, contract-less government confiscations are criminal and should be abolished. Conservatives ultimately love the IRS and the idea of government ordering the people to report their private financial matters to bureaucrat parasites, and conservatives ultimately approve of redistribution of wealth schemes imposed on them which force them to have to involuntarily forfeit their own earnings and wealth to fund “forever wars,” sanctuary cities, other people’s birth control, the very many 6-figure-salaried “Diversity and Inclusion Officers” and “LGBT Community Liaisons” in the colleges and universities, and trillions of dollars more of crap every year.
Conservatives are hopelessly glued to the Republican Party, despite its own enmeshment with the State as much as the Democrats. (I want to say “Republitards,” but I will refrain from doing that here.) And sadly, the conservatives are still hopelessly glued to Donald Trump, the former Clown-in-Chief, whose understanding of liberty is nil.
But I way digress. I’m supposed to be criticizing libertarians here, specifically the Libertarian (sic) Party. The Mises Caucus actually does for the most part demonstrate what the Libertarian Party was founded on: an advocacy of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. The rest of the Party now are mainly concerned with racial and gender identity politics along with the wackos on the left, as well as this fetish with bitcoin and cryptocurrency and marijuana legalization. I suspect that the modern LP is widely infiltrated by the CIA as well. Jacob Hornberger was extremely critical of the CIA throughout his 2020 Presidential campaign, and that was another reason why the apparatchiks snubbed him at the convention.
So, the Libertarian Party sucks, as well as the two Soviet parties Demopublican and Republicrat. Those two “major” parties make up a criminal racket, crooks who make laws to intentionally obstruct third parties or independent candidates’ right to get their names on ballots. D and R are a racket, and they will not change.
Now, if it’s true that the LPNH Mises Caucus asserted that the 2020 Presidential election really was stolen, and that is another reason why they were kicked out, then that would be another example of people believing mainstream news media who repeat just about everything that bureaucrats tell them. No, not the Mises Caucus but the LPNH chair and others who should know better.
I have detailed all that stolen election stuff in this post. And more is coming out now that January 6th was a false flag op to further censor and criminalize the exposing and publicizing of 2020 election-steal claims and evidence.
So, with the “coup” in New Hampshire, it looks like LP apparatchiks are really apologists for the State and its crimes. One important thing that should be very much associated with being a libertarian, in my view, is “hating the State,” as Murray Rothbard would say, and recognizing that the State or the gubmint is a criminal racket, a regime that steals, defrauds, extorts, threatens, coerces, assaults, tortures and murders innocent people and gets away with the crimes. There are people who will do anything including organized vote fraud to get themselves into the powers of the armed State apparatus.
When the government wants to do something that erodes or limits the freedom of the people, the right thing to do is to assume that the government is lying to you. Whether it’s about Vietnam or Iraq, or… “election fraud? nothing to see here, move along…” or Covid. They are lying.
And speaking of Covid, I think that when the LP’s 2020 nominees for President and VP Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen photo-opped themselves wearing the self-censorship/self-suffocation gags, I found that quite disturbing. They seemed to be making light of the government’s totalitarian orders to display one’s slave status and submission to the supreme State, or they were endorsing it.
The Libertarian Party presidential ticket: https://t.co/0HyRwudxEU
— Adam Dick (@MrAdamDick) July 13, 2020
They can say, “Oh, we were just kidding around,” yeah sure. But I am NOT laughing! That whole bunch of CRAP is NOT funny!! The government orders people to have to wear those goddamn things for no good reason, which probably in many cases makes people sick, with their breathing in the bacteria buildup and re-breathing the exhaled CO2 while being deprived of oxygen!
Real libertarians have to recognize that the State, especially the more centralized the government, needs to be dismantled and its “workers” sent back into the private sector. (I know, “kicking and screaming,” but it’s the only way!) Centralized government cannot be “reformed” and made to “work for the people.” Even in recent times, the 1994 “Republican Revolution,” the 2000-2006 Republican majority with a Republican President, 2010 “Tea Party” successes and 2014, “reform” did not happen, and it will not.
Here is a Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign ad (when he was a Republican, but he sure out-libertarianized the Libertarian Party candidate, that’s for sure).
But now, in the “Live Free or Die” state of New Hampshire, the LP is divided between the radical freedom wing and the faux freedom Big Cheesette who kicks out the ones who are not afraid to tell the truth.
Here is a video discussion on Rumble by Joseph Cotto, Walter Block, Michael Edelstein, Murray Sabrin, Chris Rossini, and others, with their remembrances of Robert Wenzel:
Libertarian economics writer Robert Wenzel has died. His two blogs, EconomicPolicyJournal.com and TargetLiberty.com have for years been among the go-to blogs for libertarian-based economic analysis and libertarian philosophy and commentary. The loss definitely will leave a void, for sure.
Wenzel just put it all out there, his criticisms of the Black Lives Matter movement and Marxism in general, the modern cultural Marxism movement, Keynesian “economics” and socialism, and the present-day Covid scamdemic, as well as his promotion of the libertarian non-aggression principle and the private property society. Such commentary will surely be missed.
And regarding his death, it was apparently unexpected. At least, it was a shock to me, given that he had not mentioned on his blogs any recent illnesses or serious conditions. Tom Woods noted that Wenzel had “died peacefully in his bed.” And then I saw on Murray Sabrin’s blog the same thing, that he had died in his sleep, according to Wenzel’s daughter-in-law. And supposedly he was only 63.
Wenzel didn’t really say much about his personal life. I had the impression that he was either a single bachelor, or divorced. He may have mentioned an ex-wife, but I am not certain about that. So now we know that he had a daughter-in-law, and obviously at least one son. There really is no information about him, no particular obituary (so far), etc. He apparently had died around May 25th, a week ago.
He had been living in San Francisco or the greater SF area, and had given frequent updates on various situations there, such as how Walgreens had to close multiple stores because of government-approved shoplifting, for example. Wenzel had described how security guards or police are only allowed to make shoplifters give back the stolen merchandise at the door, but with no arrests if the merchandise is less than $950.
And he had described over this Year of the Covid Scamdemic how most of the sheeple in SF were masked, even outdoors, on their bike, or walking alone with no one around, or in the car alone. And he described and had video of one confrontation he had with a young male mask-stasi in the elevator yelling at him for not wearing a mask. The elevator stasi guy was hysterical (and I don’t mean “funny” hysterical). I found the post.
Wenzel’s first blog Economic Policy Journal included a lot of informative posts and articles on economics with analysis and commentary. Here is his 2018 book Foundations of Private Property Society Theory. And here is his most recent video from his series “This Week in Economics,” An Introduction to Austrian School Business Cycle Theory.
Also, you might be interested in hearing Wenzel’s 2012 interview with Gary Johnson when Johnson was running for President the first time as a Libertarian (sic) Party candidate.
After years of EconomicPolicyJournal.com, Wenzel decided to put the more political, social and philosophical news and commentary on a new, separate blog, Target Liberty. It was there where his thought-provoking commentaries on issues like BLM, criminal justice and government police, the political class, and the insanity of Covid policies are located. He covered many issues.
On the right sidebar toward the top of Wenzel’s Target Liberty, he has a list of links to the “most popular posts in the last 30 days,” including MIT Researchers Infiltrated a Covid-19 Lockdown/Mask Skeptics Community: This is What They Found, and State Department Memo Authorizes and Encourages the Hanging of BLM Flag at All US Diplomatic and Consular Posts. A similar list is at the top right sidebar of his Economic Policy Journal.
Of course, I read Wenzel’s two blogs each day for years, and it’s hard to believe that such blogs will not continue. It is hard to believe that he actually died, without any advance notice. Perhaps someone can let us know what exactly the cause of death was. And if that’s too personal and invasive of me to ask, then never mind. But this really is a shock.