Skip to content

Tag: Capitalism

Anti-Capitalist Corporate Amerika

Robert Wenzel with a post on corporations aiming to boycott Fakebook, but not for the right reasons, no, for very wrong reasons. It’s because Fakebook is not censoring “hate speech” enough. Of course, one person’s “hate speech” is another person’s “normal speech.” The anti-“hate speechers” tend to be those who think that “hate speech” means speech that criticizes the gubmint, or that criticizes or makes fun of stupid, silly people, like Hillary Rotten Clinton, or Ronald McDonald Trump, or entities such as Fakebook.

In my view, there is no need for censorship of so-called “hate speech.” This is why those platforms have something called “comments” sections, so that if you do disagree with the post, you can write something on there yourself and explain your disagreement. But the censorship/book-burning Nazis don’t agree with me there. They just want to ban speech that isn’t what they have been trained by their elders or teachers to be acceptable and tolerable.

Wenzel writes: “More than 150 companies have decided to stop advertising spending on Facebook for the month, including Verizon, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Honda, Lending Club, Ben and Jerry’s and The North Face.” Humph. I have a great jacket by North Face that I got at TJ Maxx. Oh, well.

Wenzel also mentions that the anti-capitalist movement is also going after Target for calling cops on black shoplifters. Does this mean they don’t call the cops on white shoplifters? I find that very hard to believe. If I had a store, I’d call the cops on anyone who is stealing from me. Couldn’t care less what your skin color is. What matters is what you do. Shame on shoplifters.

Corporate Amerika should take its nose out of social activism, and stick with attempting to provide the best products and services so that our standard of living can go back up following the current decline that was caused by brainwashed social activists.

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 So, it can’t be repealed via legislation, although the legal restrictions being waived could be, I supposed.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.

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.

Socialism vs. Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

No “equality” there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The differences between socialism and freedom?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Activist Post – ALTERNATIVE INDEPENDENT NEWS – Creative Commons 2020

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

Especially in the immigration issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Piketty Will Capitalize on Documentary Film of His “Capital in the 21st Century”

Robert Wenzel says a new capitalist-hate movie is out, a documentary based on Thomas Piketty’s book, Capital in the 21st Century, which promoted not lifting up the poor but taking down the wealthy. The truth is that with socialists and leftists such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, it’s all about envy and covetousness, it’s not about liberating the people so they have the freedom to do what they want with their lives, their abilities, labor and capital.

I’m sure that the capitalist-haters of this new film will appreciate their own capitalist benefits when they receive earnings from the film!

Related to all this, I had written a short blog on this about 10 years ago. A response to Michael Moore’s mistaken label of the 2008 Wall Street Bailout as a “capitalist” act by government. (Of course, if I wrote that now I think I would word some of it a little differently).

In that post, I wrote,

Capitalism is an economic system which recognizes those individual rights and private property rights and the right of freedom of trade and commerce. By its very nature, a socialist system violates those rights of private property and voluntary free trade, and, since the means of production includes the people, it therefore is a system of collective ownership of individual people and thus erases any idea of “individual” rights.

In socialism, the individual is owned by the collective and thus does not have any right to one’s own life and liberty. In socialism, the individual is a slave of the collective and of the state; only in capitalism does freedom of the individual exist.

Michael Moore does not realize that it is because of capitalist freedom that he earns a big profit from his films, from the people who voluntarily pay money to see them. That is an example of voluntary free trade among individuals that the force of socialism destroys.

However, because our country is a “mixed economy,” with some capitalist free trade allowed by the government, and some socialist-forced government confiscation of private wealth and earnings, half of Mr. Moore’s earnings are forcibly confiscated by the armed force of government and then redistributed to Wall St. executives and Big Banks and Big Finance and Big Mortgage, etc. That’s Socialism, NOT “capitalism”!

Mr. Moore and others would benefit by reading Mises’s Human Action and Socialism, Rand’s Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, and Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.

That Darn Pope

Michael Moore visited the Pope recently, and the two discussed how bad capitalism is. They both agree on that. And I got this quote from EPJ on Moore’s telling Seth Meyers of his conversation with the Pope:

And I said, “Do you believe that an economic system that benefits the few, the wealthy at the expense of the many is a sin?” And he said to me, “Si” in Italian. And I said, “So you believe capitalism, the kinda — the capitalism we have now is a sin?” He goes, “Yes, it is.” He said, “The poor must always come first.”

And then he grabbed my hand and he said, “Please, pray for me.” And I said, “I will, and please pray for me. And he said, “No, you have to make more movies.” And I’m like, “I just wanted a prayer.” He’s like, “No, you go back to — you go back work.” He has a sense of humor.

So the anti-capitalism Pope wants Michael Moore to go be a capitalist making more movies. They hate capitalism, except for when they benefit from it.

But when Moore says, “an economic system that benefits the few, the wealthy at the expense of the many … the capitalism we have now …” well, no, the “capitalism” we have now that “benefits the few, the wealthy at the expense of the many” is the socialism we have now in which government bureaucrats, and all their little minions and their crony-capitalist cronies, live high off the hog from the tax-thefts that the government steals from the honest workers and producers of society and redistributes over to said government bureaucrats, their little minions and their crony-capitalist cronies.

Actual capitalism, free markets, consists of entrepreneurs making use of their abilities, knowledge and talents and serving the consumers with what the consumers want. Economic freedom and free market capitalism are what enabled the biggest increase in the standard of living in society, that benefits everyone, rich and poor. Freedom is what has lifted the poor out of poverty. In contrast, socialism turned all that backwards. Socialism destroys society, and destroys wealth, and impoverishes the masses.

And Thomas DiLorenzo comments:

The Commie Pope tells commie “film maker” Michael Moore that capitalism is a sin. I assume this means that the Catholic Church will no longer be accepting financial donations whose source is sinful capitalism.  That would make the church complicit in this grievous sin.

The Catholic Church has billions and billions in assets. Does that come from socialized government taxation-theft of the earnings of the workers and producers, or does it come from voluntary donations? (Actual free-market capitalism consists of voluntary trade, voluntary contracts, voluntary transactions, and voluntary gifts and donations, unlike socialism, which exists solely on the coercive or involuntary confiscation of the wealth of the people and the fruits of their labor. Who in his right mind would voluntarily pay his earnings to a government treasury?)