Skip to content

Category: Voluntaryism

Informative Articles

Jim Davies: Monumental Folly.

Caitlin Johnstone: A Headline That Perfectly Encapsulates Mainstream Liberalism.

Lew Rockwell: Are Universities Finished?

Gateway Pundit: Ignored by the Media and Dr. Fauci: Nearly Twice as Many Children and Young Adults Died from Flu than from China Coronavirus in Past Year.

Thomas DiLorenzo: Princeton’s Racism Problem

Brett Wilkins: Massacre at No Gun Ri.

Charles Burris: Did Bankers Foment the “Civil War”?

Jacob Hornberger: The Immigration Police State Comes to Portland.

Marcel Gautreau: Foreign Aid Is Protectionism.

And Sheldon Richman: Prophetic Anti-Zionists.

More News and Commentary

Jim Davies: Bigotry and prejudice.

Jacob Hornberger: The nonsense of “national security.”

James Bovard: The Korean War atrocities no one wants to talk about.

Chuck Baldwin: Pastors and Physicians: from protectors to predators.

Becky Akers has more on masks, unfortunately.

Laurence Vance on the masks and the fascist mayor of Orange County, Florida, and mask fascism at McDonald’s.

Doug Casey on anarchy and voluntaryism.

Karen De Coster: Fauci: 23 million people could die.

The Daily Sheeple: ‘The squad’ opposed to law barring sexual predators and terrorists from being hired at TSA.

Richard Ebeling: Fifty years of statist policies and economic fallacies.

Fox News: Strzok notes show Obama, Biden weighed in on Flynn case even as Comey downplayed it: lawyers, and Nunes says Strzok notes link Obama, Biden to Flynn prosecution: ‘They kept this investigation going’

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Why social distancing should not be the new normal.

And Joel Pollack: NYC Mayor De Blasio offers South Africa-style “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” for NYC.

COVID Fascists Aiding and Abetting Marxist Lives Matter Against Civilized Culture

Now that I’m seeing more info on the classical music venues continuing to be canceled and for no good reason, it is becoming more clear to me how the “Black Lives Matter”/antifa vs. civilized life is closely linked to the COVID situation and associated fascism.

The fascists ordering businesses closed down and ruining the economy and causing unemployment and unproductivity are no different and no better than the communists and Marxists burning down businesses or looting from the ones still in existence.

The official organization “Black Lives Matter” itself and its little robot followers do not care about all black lives. Why don’t they scream about the black lives being murdered by other black people especially in the cities, such as Chicago? (Brainwashed loony-tunes call it “racist” to point that out, because they are not rational. But don’t tell them I said that.)

And then if someone says, “All lives matter,” they are also called “racists,” and in some cases fired from a job. That is how irrational and hypocritical these social movements are.

They do not believe in “inclusion,” that’s for sure.

If it’s about “police brutality,” then they should look into de-monopolizing community policing away from government control. Not the kind of criminal racket that thugs have set up in Seattle, but an unorganized system of freedom in which whoever wants to patrol neighborhoods can do so. Nobody is above the law. But when government has a monopoly on community policing and security, those government “officials” are above the law, because they ARE the law. Only obedient sheeple would promote that government monopoly system in an otherwise free society.

But this would mean that because everyone has a right to defend oneself from the wanton aggression and violence of others like rioters and looters and arsonists, the free society would not infringe on the right of the good people to keep and bear arms.

And it’s not even about “racism,” this hypocritical, irrational movement. It is not about “black lives.” It’s about power and control. The Marxist youngins are being brainwashed to believe that they are entitled to other people’s wealth and earnings, and that they have a “right” to take stuff from others. For whatever reason, whatever made-up reason.

Just listen to the brainwashed True Believers.

The brainwashed youngins believe that they are justified in committing acts of violence, looting, and burning down businesses. They believe they have a “right” to steal away the livelihoods of entrepreneurs who spent a lifetime building such livelihoods.

I guess you would have to be brainwashed to really believe that you have a “right” to steal from (i.e. enslave) some guy or gal who never harmed anyone, and in fact someone who employs young black people.

The rioters, marauders, looters, thugs, arsonists and barbarians in Minneapolis and other cities remind me of the criminal psychopaths of the U.S. military invading and bombing and destroying Iraq in the early 1990s, a good 10 years prior to 9/11. They are brainwashed, too, but with a slightly different ideology. The militarist sheeple psychos of the U.S. military are brainwashed to believe that the U.S. government rules the rest of the world and has a “right” to criminally invade and bomb other countries with impunity, steal their wealth and natural resources and murder millions of foreigners.

In 1991 the crazed criminals of the U.S. military intentionally bombed Iraqi civilian water and sewage treatment centers and caused the Iraqi people to have to use untreated water which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. Psychopath President George H.W. Bush started that war of aggression and imposed those sanctions and no-fly zones for no good reason.

The entitled American political class and all its obedient underlings and followers having the power to enslave the rest of the world, and enslave the workers and producers of their own society, is an ideology shared by both the U.S. militarists and America Firsters, and the communist-Marxist thug psychopaths who are burning down whole cities.

And regarding those communist-Marxist thug psychopaths, the cultural stuff goes with all this. Tearing down statues and burning down historic buildings is just as ISIS would do.

Centuries ago, much of the world was barbaric. The “Enlightenment” period developed.

The concepts of individual freedom, individual rights and individual dignity were becoming prominent. Those concepts included freedom of voluntary association, voluntary contracts and voluntary trade, the recognition of property rights, including the property right of the individual in one’s person and labor. The freedom of self-ownership.

While chattel slavery was ending peacefully all over the world, many people still really believe that the “Civil War” “ended slavery.” Well, “slavery” actually did continue 50 years later with the imposition of the income tax in Amerika. The government is the slave master, in which the obedient sheeple must do a certain amount of labor, involuntarily, to serve the master in Washington, state capitols and City Halls. And that’s basically what we have now.

The Marxist movement we have now, “Steal from the honest working folk, steal from the productive, i.e. enslave the productive,” is not that different from the political class all across Amerika. The Heritage Foundation, National Review, The New York Times, The DNC and the RNC are no different. Do those influential organizations ever call for the elimination of the income tax-theft and the IRS? Do they ever call for the most evil organized crime racket ever, the U.S. government, to be decentralized? Of course not. They thrive on tax-redistributionism just as the Soviet rulers thrived on living off the labor of the workers and producers.

In the ongoing scamdemic, the brain-dead government bureaucrat rulers such as governors and mayors have ordered businesses shut down to try to put a stop to whatever economic progress was happening (that Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation contributed to). Unemployment was way down including and especially among black people and other minorities and women. The Marxists and communists (a.k.a. “socialists”) would have none of that.

First, seeing that many more black people being employed and more able to provide for themselves went against the “Whitey is keeping black people locked out of the economy” narrative.

And second, the economy showing just how most of the population benefits from a more freed market was refuting the Marxists’ brainwashed beliefs in the “centrally-planned Almighty Government being the caretaker of the people” crapola. (Even though they can just look at Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, and worse, the U.K., to see that communism “socialism” doesn’t actually work in practice, but brainwashed morons choose not to do that.)

I think the Marxism ideology that the modern “revolutionaries” seem to want to implement is not to do with State worship, because we already have State worship in Amerika. It’s to do with people wanting to have a system in place that allows them to get away with wanton aggression and violence against others. A criminal, violent society, in other words.

And the cultural artifacts being torn down now. With the COVID scamdemic we have music cancellations, especially classical music, which unfortunately is very “historical” and represents the human progress that was made especially since the “Enlightenment,” as well as being great music. Maybe that’s why the government schools have been dropping classical music references from their music programs, and might be another explanation why the symphony orchestras don’t seem to have that many black musicians. It’s not because the musical organizations are “exclusionary,” or racist. The schools prefer to encourage cRAP music along with rock music which isn’t nearly as inventive, intellectual, or emotionally wide-ranging as classical music.

Yes, “cRAP” music. It is crap, quite frankly. Nothing racist about that. The “Rap culture” (if I may call it that) includes a lot of utterances of the “N word,” which is encouraged by this nasty, thuggish, culture that promotes violence against innocents (like the Bushes and Clintons and their fellow psychopaths Obama and Trump, and all points between and their wars overseas and war on drugs, etc.). Yet, when a college professor reads Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail out loud in class, that includes the “N word” (that King wrote in the letter himself, HE is saying it, not the professor), that professor gets investigated by the university! This kind of irrational, hypocritical crap is going on ALL the time now!

But with the “Black Lives Matter”/antifa criminality, hypocrisy, Marxism and brainwashed loony-tunes taking down historical artifacts, the COVID fascists are causing various classical artistic organizations to be cancelling whole seasons. And whatever the venues can attempt to save, they are trying to implement “social distancing” measures, which in some venues is impossible. So, some of them or many of them will go bankrupt. And this might very well be on purpose. Without the New York Philharmonic and the Met, how will New York residents expose their children to great music that goes back centuries? And in every other city?

And with the COVID scamdemic as the excuse, those of us who are not bamboozled by the mainstream media, know that all this COVID fascism CRAP is for no good reason. The masks which are harmful to your health, the “social distancing” lunacy, hand sanitizer to ruin your skin,  the restaurants having to seat people 18 yards apart. It’s for NO GOOD REASON! And the “stay-in” orders by fascist governors and mayors have been causing more harm than good.

The best thing for our society is decentraliztion, getting rid of Washington, D.C. completely, at the very least. (And restoring the right of the people to keep and bear arms, of course.)

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.

“Mark Cuban Not Welcome Here!”

I like it. Becky Akers has a post responding to Mark Cuban’s little stasi experiment in which his minions went to stores and restaurants in Dallas to see who was observing the Twilight Zone guidelines dictated by Gov. Abbott, and who wasn’t. Only 4% of the business patrons observed all the Soviet, central-planning madness, and good for the remaining 96%, as far as I’m concerned. One of Becky Akers’s correspondents wrote that if he had a business there he would hang a banner stating, “Mark Cuban not welcome here!” And in this post Becky notes that such civil disobedience is happening all over the country. Hooray!

And Allen Stevo with an article on how to sue your governor, including his linking to an article by Robert E. Wright asking why Americans aren’t suing their way out of the lockdown.

News and Commentary

Jim Davies: Why abolish the FedGov?

Bradley Thomas: Coronavirus lockdown: the political versus the voluntary.

Larken Rose: Shutdowns are pointless, counter-productive, stupid, and evil. (video)

Jon Rappoport: Covid: the numbers game, the fraud, and the final answer

Tyler O’Neil: What’s the real story behind continuing lockdowns?

David Hathaway: Arrest the governor.

MassPrivateI: Clinton Foundation wants to use AmeriCorps to create a “National Contact Tracing Corps.”

Jeff Tucker: Woodstock occurred in the middle of a pandemic

Michael Maharrey: Federal judge cites “national security” as reason to throw out lawsuit over NSA spying.

Robert Higgs and Donald Boudreaux: Past crises have ratcheted up Leviathan. So will the COVID-19 Panic.

Bill Sardi: CDC keeps nation in lockdown using incomplete and probable death numbers.

The Blaze: Professor Michael Levitt: “The damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor.”

Ryan McMaken: Unemployment kills: the longer lockdowns last, the worse it will get.

And Robert Wenzel: Mercatus economist calls for government to “go big, really, really big,” to create a COVID-19 vaccine.

Trump, Mnuchin, et al: $1,000 for Everyone!

Apparently Donald Trump, Treasury Sec. Mnuchin and others want to send all adult Americans $1,000 to make things easier during this government/media-incited COVID-19 panic and financial crisis. They also want to put together a $1trillion+ “stimulus” package, with “shovel-ready jobs,” I’m sure, and other hand-outs to crony businesses, etc. Like Andrew Yang during the campaign, they are trying to bribe the voters to vote for them, quite frankly.

I have an even better idea. And I heard that someone else has suggested something like this. Given that Michael Bloomberg squandered $500 million of his own money on his presidential campaign, and that he has supposedly $50 or 60 billion, why doesn’t Mike Bloomberg send each American a $1 million check? That’s a little over $300 million, just a little part of his $50 or 60 billion. I know that would help me out quite a bit, as it will everyone, obviously. And it would be coming from someone in the private sector, voluntarily, not from “government,” i.e. taxpayers, involuntarily.

But as far as Trump, Mnuchin et al. are concerned, and their sending people $1,000, a better idea and more economically and morally sound idea is that they STOP STEALING from the people! Ya think?! Repeal the income tax and close down the IRS, end the capital gains tax, because that’s also stealing. And then maybe state governments can follow, including their sales taxes that are also examples of stealing. Ending government theft of private wealth and income would enable Americans to afford many things in life that they can’t now afford because government steals from them and makes them have less income and less in the bank to spend, save or invest.

And yes, taxation is theft, as Murray Rothbard pointed out, because it is based on involuntary transactions, just like a robber pointing a gun at you and ordering you to give him your money.

Democrats Rigging Debates and Primaries Again; Libertarians a Better Alternative

Another slow news week in Amerika, USSA. Coronavirus COVID-19 panic and hysteria that’s more dangerous than the actual virus itself, Undemocratic primaries and caucuses, tornadoes in Tennessee.

Is there any good news? Well, yes, the good news is that coronavirus COVID-19 probably isn’t as serious for most of the people as it could have been. It isn’t H1N1, or Anthrax. But the political situation, this 2020 election that began on November 8, 2016, is soooo unendingly annoying.

However, as the Presidential primaries and caucuses continue, there are other winners besides the major party candidates the media are obsessed with.

For instance, Jacob Hornberger won the Minnesota caucuses and California primary for the Libertarian Party. In North Carolina, Jacob was the top actual vote-getting candidate with 8.7% while “None of the Above” won with close to 30%.

Why don’t the media cover the Libertarian Party? I don’t think we can blame the government-run education system, because even during the 1980s the media would not cover the Libertarian Party, who are often mislabeled as “fringe,” even though it’s the goddamned Democrat and Republican parties who are “fringe” in their extreme statism and policies that the reasonable and rational “Founding Fathers” would NEVER have approved of! The Democrat and Republican policies are what the early Americans and Revolutionaries escaped from!

But with the Democrat party in this primary season, we can clearly see how “the fix is in.” The Democrat head honchos are rigging the primaries once again. This time they are favoring Joe Biden. One after another, the remaining “moderates” are dropping out of the race and endorsing the Alzheimer’s patient. Ans yes Biden clearly has Alzheimer’s.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bloomberg all endorsed Biden. Why would anyone in his right mind endorse someone who doesn’t know what state he’s in most of the time, and who is clearly in a major cognitive decline?

So, the Democrat higher-ups are telling the other candidates to drop out and endorse Biden. And it seems to me they are telling other “Important People” like Cher to endorse an Alzheimer’s patient. (Maybe Cher is in a mental decline?)

Caitlin Johnstone details the many occasions that Biden demonstrates why he needs to be in a nursing home, not the White House. Video after video after video. And people really voted for him in the primaries? However, some people in the comments are saying they had no idea he was that bad. Had they known…and all that. So, don’t people actually listen to the news? Are millions and millions of people that far gone, that far hypnotized by their stupid little devices like zombies?

By the way, elderly people aren’t the only ones with dementia, or early onset dementia. “Between 2013 and 2017, early-onset dementia and Alzheimer’s diagnoses increased by 83% among commercially insured Americans aged 30 to 44,” according Philly Voice as reported by Activist Post, with some references to cell phone use.

I can’t imagine Joe Biden as President. Who in his right mind wants this guy’s “finger on the button”? (I know I don’t.)

This tells me that they are letting Biden “win” all the delegates, which I am suspicious of, because on the news when reporters would informally poll people leaving the polling stations I heard several say they voted for Bloomberg. But Bloomberg apparently only got .000000001% of the vote, or something like that. I know I’m close. (You see what hundreds of millions of dollars will buy you in politics? Nuttin’! So much for “buying the election,” Liawatha.)

So, I think it’s ALL rigged. And so much for the “Democrat” party that doesn’t believe in “democracy.” It’s the “Undemocratic” Party. Another example is how they are now rigging the next debate to exclude Tulsi Gabbard even though she qualifies for it with her having received a delegate in a primary.

No, the voters who are members of the Democrat party do not get to hear another alternative to the two old drooling geezers, Biden and Bernie Sanders. And make sure there are plenty of restrictions in getting non-Establishment candidates on ballots in future primaries, Undemocrats. The voters do not have a say in these processes, only the “cigar-chomping” party leaders, hacks, hooligans and gangsters.

Anyway, if the Democrats “nominate” Biden, they will either replace him at the convention with Hillary or Michelle Obama, or tell him to pick one of those for VP. Then if elected he would step down and we would then have our “First Woman President,” which is debatable with those two.

And while I’ve been critical of the Libertarian Party in the past, at least they might have someone who understands the principles of freedom and non-aggression, private property rights and freedom of association. If they nominate Jacob Hornberger for President, he will not be another Gary Johnson, or another Bob Barr.

Unfortunately, Hornberger doesn’t want to get rid of the U.S. government’s centralized power apparatus altogether, which is what really needs to be done to restore our freedom, prosperity, and a peaceful society. But he’s certainly a lot closer to Ron Paul and Harry Browne, that’s for sure.

The next Libertarian Party primaries and caucuses will be in Missouri, Ohio, New York, Nebraska. And then after the LP’s national convention there are further primaries and caucuses in Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, North Dakota and D.C. (There’s a Libertarian Party in Washington, D.C.? Who knew?)

Are you a voter? I’m not.

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

Especially in the immigration issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Democrat and Republican Parties Are a Criminal Racket

Jacob Hornberger may or may not agree with me that the two major political parties are a criminal racket. And I’ll explain further down why I think they are.

But he sure writes terrific columns. In this one Jacob comments on Elizabeth Warren’s socialist soak-the-rich plan. He notes that the U.S. had no income tax for over 100 years, in which Americans were free to do whatever they wanted with their own wealth and earnings. It was not stolen from them by the government.

But in 1913 the gubmint convinced i.e. bamboozled the American people to accept a compulsory income tax, sans any kind of voluntary contract. It was an involuntary contract, the same kind of involuntary contract that a robber has with his victim on the street. “Your money or your life,” and so on. Yep, that gubmint.

Hornberger writes:

So, what happened? Both Democrats and Republicans began spending government money like it was going out of style on both domestic welfare-state programs and foreign warfare-state escapades. The result was that the middle class ended up getting fleeced to pay for all that welfare-warfare junk.

Just consider all the middle-class people today who are having trouble making ends meet. Manyof them do not have a nest egg in the event of an emergency. They live paycheck to paycheck. That’s because the federal government has fleeced them of their money to fund its ever-burgeoning welfare-warfare state expenses.

There is something else to consider about Warren’s “soak the rich” philosophy. It ultimately hurts the middle class and the poor. The rich provide valuable services in society. One, many of them own businesses that employ middle class and poor people. Two, the rich accumulate capital, which is a key to rising standards of living for the middle class and the poor. Three, many of the rich become rich by providing goods and services that the middle class and the poor value. And four, the rich buy expensive products when they are first invented, which ultimately leads to mass production that enables the middle class and poor to buy such products.

Soaking the rich leads to impoverishment of the middle class and poor. Just look at Cuba, where Warren’s socialist counterparts seized everything from the rich, including money, businesses, and homes. At first, it was party time with all that money and property. But over time, the socialist system started caving in on itself, leaving everyone in Cuba impoverished.

Of course, Warren would undoubtedly argue that at least everyone in Cuba is equal in the sense that everyone is equally poor. But is that really a good thing? Wouldn’t it be better if everyone in society is prospering, even if some have more than others?

Nope. Liawatha would prefer that everyone be equally poor, and not that people are prospering. Except for herself, her fellow apparatchik commissars in the bureaucracy, and their crony industrialists, of course.

Just like in Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, and of course, today’s good ol’ USSA.

That is why the whole area surrounding Washington, DC is the wealthiest area of the country.

So “soaking the rich” really just means stealing from everyone as much as possible, and living high off the hog at the expense of the workers and producers of society.

Of course, these criminals are causing, or would cause, a continually diminishing population of workers and producers, that’s for sure. They will put everyone out of work in the current “capitalist” system, and the minimum wage laws are a micro view of all that. Instead, in their world the gubmint is the one “employer” i.e. master, and the rest of the population are the “workers” i.e. slaves.

So Liawatha, Bernie, and the rest of those criminal kooks are “SOAKED” with more envy and covetousness than the more honest and normal people who don’t want to steal from their neighbors.

Additionally, the socialist grabbers and takers want to grab the reins of power and control all the industries, all the property, and make a whole bunch of rules that the rest of the population must follow — Do this, do that … Do things this way and don’t do things that way, and so on. Jawohl, Dear Leader! And with all that crap is that they want to control your thoughts by making you have to openly accept crazy things like transgender nonsense and all the group identity politics that they espouse.

But the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats. Republicans believe in socialism just as much. They love the income tax, Social Security, Medicare, Prescription Drug Welfare, foreign aid, and all the other forms of compulsory redistributionism that are now in place.

In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the Republican and Democrat parties are a criminal racket, because throughout the years they have imposed laws, fees and restrictions on third parties or otherwise non-establishment candidates to get their names on the ballots in elections. Any and all of those in power who have imposed such unconstitutional restrictions should be charged with racketeering, extortion, fraud, and whatever other charges that apply.

Also, the people in the U.S. government who have sent fellow Americans off to their deaths for no good reason in Vietnam and Korea, and started wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan and initiated drone bombings and killings of innocent civilians in other countries, and imposed murderous sanctions, have been members of those two establishment parties, Republican and Democrat. They have not been Libertarians or Greens.

And it wasn’t Libertarians or Greens who imposed the aforementioned income tax-thefts, which have enabled those wars of aggression and redistributionism from the workers over to the military contractors the merchants of death. It was Republicans and Democrats. Certainly not Libertarians, Greens or members of the Constitution Party.

Involuntary taxes are acts of theft. Why? Because they are … involuntary. They are not based on a voluntary contract. For any transaction to be legitimate in a free society, it must be voluntary, not involuntary. If it’s involuntary, then it is nothing but stealing, robbery, theft, extortion, fraud, mugging, embezzling, pilfering, shoplifting, you name it. It is not an honest transaction. It is criminal.

So, in addition to the Democrats and Republicans’ restricting the rights of the people to participate in democracy and run for office (and oppose the power-abusers), those other reasons are further evidence that the two major parties are a criminal racket.