Jacob Hornberger: Immigration Pipe Dream at the Los Angeles Times.
Wendy McElroy: “Victim-Centered” Justice Is a Threat to Due Process.
And Veronique De Rugy: Joe Biden’s Plan for Big Government.
One prominent member of the libertarian movement was Carl Watner, who died of cancer last week. He was born in 1948.
Murray Rothbard may have been “Mr. Libertarian,” but Carl Watner was “Mr. Voluntaryist,” in my opinion. All things voluntary, and views guided by the non-aggression principle.
Wendy McElroy writes:
It is with deep sorrow that I announce the death of Carl Watner, who was the primary hand in founding the modern Voluntaryist movement in the early 1980s. He worked tirelessly and without complaint, day in and day out for decades, expressing his principles through his prolific writing, his character, and his actions. I will never meet his like again. I was lucky to have known him at all.
Carl died at home on Tuesday after a long and brave fight against cancer. He was surrounded by a loving family, including his remarkable wife Julie, and he was in no pain. I asked. Carl will be cremated and laid to rest in a Baltimore cemetery that his family owned for many years and where he will be joining three generations of the Watner family.
I cannot imagine the world or the movement without Carl. He was an irreplaceable friend and colleague. Good journey, Carl.
Carl Watner’s ideas and writing had an influence on me in my own libertarian thinking, such as in my views on the immigration issue.
Carl Watner started the Voluntaryist Newsletter with Wendy McElroy and George H. Smith in 1982. Here is the Voluntaryist website, and here is the Table of Contents for the Voluntaryist Newsletter. He wrote an essay in 2014 on what Voluntaryism means to him.
And here are some of my favorite articles by Carl that I have posted links to here on this blog. I’m sure you will find them as enlightening and interesting as I did.
Besides his articles at the Voluntaryist Newsletter, here are some of his other articles and papers at the Mises Institute, and Reason magazine. And voluntaryist books are available at the Voluntaryist website, including his own book on Homeschooling (also available at Amazon).
It looks like we will have a turn to the left with more socialism if Joe Biden gets in power, which means President Kamala Harris, and probably AOC as the Speech and Thought Commissar who will distribute a long list of those the administration has determined to be “racists,” etc, i.e. anyone who disagrees with the Regime.
So this will be a time in which those who believe in the freedom and principles of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights will have to seriously consider, if not full secession and genuine independence then nullification of the further federal edicts that Biden or Harris will attempt to shove down our throats. (And this isn’t just because of the illegitimacy of their presidency given that they imposed a coup via a massive organized racketeering operation of fraud and vote tampering and fabricating.)
To get a good idea on the right and importance of nullification, I recommend Tom Woods’s book from 2010, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Here it is at the Mises Institute store, and Amazon.
I have quoted before from this blog post by Tom Woods and will again, in his explanation of the relationship between the states and the federal government:
If you and I give a third person (call him Person C) a limited power of attorney to help govern our affairs, and that person oversteps the boundaries outlined in the contract we signed, who gets to decide if Person C is in violation of the contract? Is it Person C himself? Or is it you and I, the people who wrote and signed the limited power of attorney in the first place? Likewise, the states, as the principals to the constitutional compact, have a far better logical claim to be the judges of constitutionality than their agent, the federal government.
In Woods’s Liberty Classroom page on nullification, he writes:
1) The states preceded the Union. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “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.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of individual states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.
2) In the American system no government is sovereign. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.
3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power. No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power. In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created. James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800.
There is further information on that Nullification resource page. And Woods answers some of the objections to Nullification, such as the claims that it violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, that it doesn’t appear in the Constitution, that the Supreme Court ruled against the idea, that it was used by the southern states to defend slavery, and other objections.
So of course people have the right to live their lives however they want, as long as they are peaceful. Given that the Declaration of Independence recognizes the unalienable right of each individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then of course the people of the states have a right to nullify federal diktats.
For example, healthcare. As I wrote in my June of 2011 article on disobeying dictators,
Now, by “disobeying dictators,” I am not advocating violence, but only that people live their lives as they see fit, as long as they do not intrude on anyone else’s equal right to do the same with their lives. So there comes a time when civil disobedience is in order. By civil disobedience, I mean acting in defiance of government-imposed rules and dictates that have nothing to do with protecting life, liberty and property. This includes individual- or state-nullification of federal orders. I believe in the Non-Aggression Principle and oppose the use of aggression as an initiated means toward an end.
Like in the old Soviet Union, Obama’s government-controlled medical scheme will not only be harmful medically, but the increasing police state we are experiencing will be used to enforce the controls, and also will be used against individuals who show dissent from the government’s authoritarian dictates.
We The People don’t need all that, and we don’t want it. We want freedom and peace. (At least I do.)
Now, what would happen if doctor’s offices, hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, drug and supplement makers, and insurers just decided to do their business with their consumers – honestly and peacefully, and without aggression or fraud – and totally ignore federal regulations, mandates, fees, licensure laws and other intrusions? Frankly, those intrusions’ only real purpose is to protect established physicians and businesses’ profits from prospective competitors and start-ups. (The medical establishment was already corrupt well before ObamaCare.)
The contracts involved in the relationships between doctors or other medical providers and patients, or between insurers and patients, are private contracts, and third parties such as government bureaucrats sticking their big noses into those private contracts are committing acts of criminality, of trespassing, in my opinion.
Acts of nullification are necessary for Americans to be better served in their medical needs. With freedom, the consumers would determine what is needed, not the government, and the producers would serve the consumers – quality of medical care would then rise and the prices would fall.
So I definitely recommend Tom Woods’s book on nullification, which people should send to their state legislators and even their U.S. congressmen and senators.
On the Amazon page it quotes “from the inside flap”:
Unconstitutional laws are pouring out of Washington…but we can stop them.
Just ask Thomas Jefferson. There is a “rightful remedy” to federal power grabs–it’s called Nullification.
In Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, historian and New York Times bestselling author Thomas E. Woods, Jr. explains not only why nullification is the constitutional tool the Founders envisioned, but how it works–and has already been employed in cases ranging from upholding the First Amendment to knocking down slave laws before the Civil War. In Nullification, Woods shows:
* How the states were meant to be checks against federal tyranny–and how a growing roster of governors and state attorneys general are recognizing they need to become that again
* Why the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reinforces the rights of states to nullify unconstitutional laws
* Why it was left to the states to uphold the simple principle that an unconstitutional law is no law at all
* Why, without nullification, ordinary Americans will continue to suffer the oppression of unjust, unconstitutional laws
* PLUS thorough documentation of how the Founding Fathers believed nullification could be applied
Nullification is not just a book–it could become a movement to restore the proper constitutional limits of the federal government. Powerful, provocative, and timely, Nullification is sure to stir debate and become a constitutional handbook for all liberty-loving Americans.
We already have a lot of federal bureaucracies and agencies which shouldn’t exist and should be abolished along with all of their regulations and fees and fines. None of them is authorized by the U.S. Constitution, and if they exist, then the people have a right to nullify them. Of course, it is helpful if such nullification is made official in state laws by the state legislatures.
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.