Skip to content

Tag: envy

“Green New Deal”: Rule by Crazed, Brainwashed Fanatics

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey have presented their hysterically irrational plan of nearly-total government takeovers of the energy sector or of the entire economy, in the name of “saving the planet.”

But it is really in the name of giving more elitists in Washington more control over the lives of others, in the name of slowing down and reversing society’s growth and progress it has experienced over the past 100 years, and reversing the rise in our standard of living.

It is in the name of punishing those who are successful and wealthy and taking away from them the justly acquired fruits of their successes in order to “equalize the wealth.” In other words, rather than strive to make more people wealthy and prosperous, let’s strive to make the masses poor and impoverished. And we’ll implement our fanatical mythological beliefs as part of the process.

Ed Marxey has a history of this kind of insanity as part of the Massachusetts moonbat tradition. And no, Alexandria Ocasio-Loonytunes, the world is not going to “end in 12 years” if we don’t do the progress-reversing, mass poverty-causing things you think are necessary.

“Climate change” fanatics: the climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years. There have been ice ages, and there have been warming periods. Nothing you can do about it. The effects of human industrial activity and fossil fuels could only be so infinitesimal as to not have any real effect whatsoever. Climate change is a natural occurrence of the Earth, regardless of human behavior.

The climate change hysteria is mainly based on computer models that don’t pan out, and fraudulent, junk science. But people believe what they want to believe. The hysterical fanatics refer to skeptics of the global warming/climate change fanaticism as “deniers,” explicitly referring to Holocaust deniers to insult and denigrate those who are not a part of the hysterical, irrational chicken littlers. The fanatical climate change crusaders have also called for jailing skeptics. These fanatics are literally crazy, brainwashed people.

I heard Glenn Beck this morning lambasting Boston University, where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got her degree in economics. But ALL the colleges are like that. The colleges are turning out brainwashed robots who think thoroughly irrational things. And those young people already begin by being products of the government schools, who make the kids dumber and dumber as they go from K through 12. Sad.

The State of the Union

Apparently Donald Trump has been permitted by the high queen of botox to give his State of the Union this week. I hope that Rex Reed and Jaye P. Morgan don’t come along and gong him. But here is my take on the “state of the union.”

As I’ve written before, the territory of America is just too big a territory and too big a population to be all one single country or culture, all ruled over by one bureaucracy in Washington. It needs to be decentralized.

On the one side, we have the mystical nationalists who want that single nation and culture, from coast to coast, border to border. And their tribalist mentality, endorsing the police state and government wall to lock out foreigners. Many of these same people who say they are against the killing of unborn babies, couldn’t give a damn about babies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and so forth.

And on the other side, we have the leftists who want to kill babies, steal money and property away from people and who want the government to be in control of taking in foreigners, mainly to have new voters to help further empower Democrats.

Many on both sides are lacking in moral principles, and are in contempt of freedom, individualism and private property, the very principles upon which America was founded. I’m really getting tired of all this.

The latest controversy is Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam who admits to being in a yearbook photo in which 2 people are shown, one wearing “black face” and the other in a KKK shmata. The news articles aren’t saying which one is Northam. But this is coming up at this time because of further scrutiny of Northam now that he has expressed the sentiments of abortion-promoting Democrats and Planned Parenthood.

In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was Democrat strategists who found the yearbook and brought that to people’s attention, just to take attention away from Northam’s quote in an interview on abortion.

The recent abortion controversy has been revived by New York state whose anti-freedom governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a much loosened abortion policy, in which non-doctors may perform abortions, and if the baby is “not viable.” (A lot of born babies and young kids are “not viable,” because they are dependent on their mommies for feeding. Should it be legal to kill them, too?)

And then in Virginia this House delegate Kathy Tran introduces a “partial-birth abortion” bill, to allow the killing of a baby just as it’s being born. Now, some talk radio people have been saying that Tran’s bill would allow the killing of the baby after the baby is born, which would be murder. However, there is not much difference between killing a baby just as it’s being born and killing a baby after it is born.

But Gov. Ralph Northam was asked about the bill in an interview and it is really this quote that Democrats are trying to sweep under the rug. Northam misunderstood what the actual bill would allow, but obviously he gets what the pro-death activists and the abortion industry really intend. Here is the quote, according to the Daily Caller:

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Like the narcissism of the social activists who want to compel others to have to use certain pronouns that are incorrect or accept as truth that someone is a male even though he is a female just because he says he is a male, narcissism is what abortion activism is all about. “The baby is inconvenient for me, so kill the baby. I can’t be bothered to go through 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth. I can’t be bothered with using birth control, etc., etc.”

Related to all this, Democrats want “Medicare for All” or “single payer,” but most important is that the government has complete control over our medical matters, has complete access into our private medical and personal information. The anti-freedom socialists don’t believe that people have a right to privacy (except when it comes to abortion!). They don’t want a society of private property, so your home is not yours, and your private medical matters are not for just you to know, or just between you and a doctor. The socialists will want to know everything about the people among the population. They especially will want to know who might be a Christian or a conservative, or who homeschools their kids, or who owns firearms.

So with the abortion issue we have had a good idea of how some people really think, such as when we heard that Planned Parenthood was selling body parts of aborted babies. That is how some people think of their fellow humans.

And there is the narcissism and economic covetousness of many of the same people.

Elizabeth Warren says that billionaires should “stop being freeloaders,” even though probably in most cases billionaires became billionaires by way of consumers voluntarily paying their money for products or services those billionaires are offering.

Why does Elizabeth Warren want to steal even more income or wealth from people than the government already steals from them? And yes, when the government orders someone to hand over one’s earnings involuntarily at gunpoint and with the threat of being thrown in a cage, that’s stealing.

Warren stated:

“All I’m asking for is a little slice from the tippy, tippy top. A slice that would raise — and this is the shocking part, Jim — about $2.75 trillion over the next 10 years … That’s money we need so that every kid in this country has a decent child care opportunity, has an opportunity for pre-K, has an opportunity for a decent school.”

Barf. Me. Out.

But the federal, state and local governments have been throwing more and more money into government-run education, and the schools are producing dumber and dumber, and more and more ignorant graduates. What about that, Pocahantas?

And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to tax, i.e. steal, a much higher percentage of people’s earnings as well. Some people have been referring to her as “AOC,” but that reminds me too much of “AOL,” which I had from 2001-2005 and that ruined my then-computer with a terrible virus. So AOL sucks, and I will not refer to “AOC,” and just type out her name.

Steal 70% of someone’s earnings? Will it ever be enough? And for what? What exactly does the government in Washington do that is worth ANY of the money it steals from us? NOTHING!

And now the new congressperson from Detroit Rashida Tlaib wants to seize GM’s closed plants using eminent domain, and use such places for the “Green New Deal.” She’s the degenerate who spewed a most profane and disrespectful tirade at a bar recently.

Nothing about paying GM for the use of the closed plant, or offering to buy the closed plant from GM with funds from the philanthropists who generally seem to agree with these crazy clucks and their environmental fanaticism, such as Bill Gates or George Soros.

Nope. their mentality is “let’s steal property and confiscate wealth,” robbing and thieving, make use of other people’s hard work and labor to serve our own narcissistic agendas, etc. “All these producers and creators of wealth in our society are too ‘rich,’ so because of our own selfish envy and covetousness we must take it all away form them and steal their property.”

And kill babies just before they’re born (or after they’re born), because they are inconvenient.

But the people on the other side, such as conservatives, talk radio ditto-heads, nationalists, are just as bad. They don’t believe in private property and free markets, and they also believe in stealing private wealth, imposing fines on those who trade with non-government-authorized producers or sellers, jailing employers and laborers who do not comply with orders to get government authorization to exist, in their trade idiocy and their anti-foreigner immigration collectivism and tribalism.

I’ve heard plenty of the egalitarian “everybody has to pay their fair share” crapola from the talk radio ditto-heads and so forth. They do not get what America is all about: private property, free markets and voluntary trade, individualism and freedom.

Each person is an individual. If you don’t suspect an individual of violating the person or property of others, then you leave him alone. An employer wants to hire a worker the employer thinks is most qualified, so he hires him, and you leave them alone. No going to Mommy and Daddy government for permission or authorization to work somewhere or employ someone. But the dittio-heads don’t get that. For them, freedom stops at the border, and outsiders may not come into “our home” without a bureaucrat’s authorization.

So, both the leftists and the other side are for the police state, government intruding into people’s private lives, and, most of all, government central planning.

It’s enough already.

Enough of the Control Freaks and the Covetous (the Ocasio-Cortezes, Tucker Carlsons, et al.)

Sometimes all this is so frustrating. That is, advocating for freedom. The free America that the Revolutionaries founded has slowly and gradually become a place in which criminals and parasites can rob their neighbors and get away with it.

The biggest mistake committed by the early Americans was to create an apparatus with compulsory control to rule over the people.

And now we have generations of brainwashed serfs who comply obediently, and really believe that the racket in Washington is something that shouldn’t be completely dismantled.

On the Hill there is a poll showing that majorities of Americans support raising the top income tax rate to 70%, including people identifying as Republicans.

Meanwhile, appearing on 60 Minutes was Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who, regardless of her denials, promotes the socialism of Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela and not the “socialism” of Sweden, Norway and the U.K. The latter group are capitalist countries (private ownership of the means of production) with a welfare state, not socialist countries.

Now, a lot of people, for example this Fox News commentator, think that Ocasio-Cortez is the voice of an ignorant generation. But the above poll suggests that much of the entire population is ignorant of economics and history.

Regarding her proposal to tax high incomes at 70%, Ocasio-Cortez said, “That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder you should be contributing more.”

Oh, yeah? “Contributing” to what? Most of what the federal government is unconstitutional, that is, unauthorized by the U.S. Constitution.

And “contribute” usually means to pay into something voluntarily. But who would voluntarily pay to keep U.S. armed forces overseas? Such invasions and occupations mainly have resulted in provoking foreigners into retaliatory actions against us, and trillions wasted.

And who would voluntarily pay into a scheme of molesters, gropers and thieves, also known as the TSA?

The list goes on and on, totaling more than 4 trillion dollars, much of it needless, useless crap.

But Ocasio-Cortez says that “there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”

Morally right? Now, there’s a knee-slapper. On the social spending side, Ocasio-Cortez wants to spend other people’s money, stolen from their paychecks and other income, on “free health care, free education,” free stuff, free this or that.

I think she’s one of those True Believers who really believes that everyone has a “right to health care,” or a “right to education,” even though there are people who do not take care of themselves, eat terrible foods, drink like fish or smoke like chimneys. Those people, quite frankly, should not be considered to have a “right” to force a doctor to have to treat them.

Redistribution of wealth schemes, especially when made involuntary on the people, encourage people to not take care of themselves. Why bother being conscientious with eating habits or avoiding poisonous drugs and booze when someone will be right there to involuntarily treat you, and it’s all paid for?

Unfortunately, as those polls suggest, conservatives have been bitten by the tax-theft bug as much as “liberals,” for decades now. The envy and covetousness is equally spread on the left and right, and all points between, especially since so-called conservatives caved on FDR’s New Deal and more so LBJ’s “Great Society,” with Social Security, Medicare, etc.

Tucker Carlson of Fox News is himself quite ignorant of economics and history, and has been showing an anti-capitalistic covetousness in his talks recently. Shame, shame, shame on anti-free market “conservatives.”

Carlson feels the Bern, last August (and more recently last week).

Regarding Carlson’s slipping into anti-capitalist socialist rants, Tom Mullen points out,

It’s hard to believe Carlson could get so many things wrong in under five minutes, starting with his general premise. He and Bernie argue the problem is the corporations not paying enough, resulting in taxpayers having to pick up the slack. But business enterprises in a free market are supposed to seek the lowest prices they can find for labor and other inputs. That’s how market economies drive down the costs of consumer goods and make all members of society richer.

Carlson does not seem to understand that about the free market.

More recently, in a not-particularly-coherent rant, after noting the decline of American society and the importance of marriage, Carlson states:

Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate as someone who’s living off inherited money and doesn’t work at all. We tax capital at half of what we tax labor. It’s a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.

Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You’d have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.

But he never really seems to get what might be the root cause of so much societal decay. In my view, it is the institutionalization of theft, a.k.a. “taxation,” and the population allowing bureaucrats to impose intrusive policies into the private lives of the people.

Involuntary redistribution of wealth schemes empower parasites in central bureaucracies to wield control over others, a control which should not exist in a free society.

If there weren’t an income tax which is imposed coercively and with threats, then many of the power-wielding tyrants would otherwise be sweeping floors in the local Wal-Mart. That is because if there were a genuine free market and no government monopolies over a population compelled to support them, such skill-less bureaucrats would never be able to find actual work, in my view.

But, like Carlson, many people don’t seem willing or able to look at the income tax itself, or understand that it is a scheme of involuntary wealth confiscation via coercion and threats (otherwise known as “theft”).

The income tax-theft has been the underlying basis that has enabled and empowered criminals and gangsters to commit their crimes against their neighbors and get away with it. (For example, would the FBI, CIA, and DOJ have been able to do their dirty deeds had they not been involuntarily financed with the coercive tax-thefts? Nope.)

On the tax-thefts, Murray Rothbard wrote in his Ethics of Liberty,

For there is one crucially important power inherent in the nature of the State apparatus. All other persons and groups in society (except for acknowledged and sporadic criminals such as thieves and bank robbers) obtain their income voluntarily: either by selling goods and services to the consuming public, or by voluntary gift (e.g., membership in a club or association, bequest, or inheritance). Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion, by threatening dire penalties should the income not be forthcoming. That coercion is known as “taxation,” although in less regularized epochs it was often known as “tribute.” Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State’s inhabitants, or subjects.

It would be an instructive exercise for the skeptical reader to try to frame a definition of taxation which does not also include theft. Like the robber, the State demands money at the equivalent of gunpoint; if the taxpayer refuses to pay his assets are seized by force, and if he should resist such depredation, he will be arrested or shot if he should continue to resist…

And on the State, Rothbard wrote in his Anatomy of the State (.pdf),

The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the “organization of the political means”; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory. For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. 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. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute.

What has been lacking in America for over a century is freedom, economic freedom including the freedom to keep everything you earn (or otherwise honestly acquire) and do with it whatever you want. Americans used to have the freedom to save, invest, spend, contribute to charity, start businesses without government permission or government stealing from the people.

If there is to be an “America,” people need to know that it was founded to be a place of freedom, in which people are protected from others taking their earnings or property by force.

And an America in which people can come and go as they wish. No government permission, no visas, no passports, no being questioned by goons at the government border.

And early on the Revolutionaries who founded America recognized that it was the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the government to keep and bear arms. A free society is one in which people have whatever means of defense they wish to have. No government permission, no license, no registration, etc. That is actually a safer society.

I think the masses now for generations have been so brainwashed with propaganda, they really believe that it is right that they be subjugated by government authorities, that they must seek bureaucrats’ permission to do this or that, that they must submit to government rulers and enforcement goons stealing their money away, and accept all the other totalitarian, police state crimes that government criminals commit against the people.

We need to change that.

Freedom goes with free-market capitalism, while socialism and government theft of private wealth and property are anti-freedom, a police state, and a life of serfdom.

Further reading:

Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt

Taking Money Back, Making Economic Sense (.pdf), Free Market, For a New Liberty, and The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard

And Soak the PoorTaxation is Robbery, and The Income Tax: Root of All Evil by Frank Chodorov

Why Do People Still Embrace Socialism, Despite Its Failure Throughout History?

Jeff Deist of the Mises Institute has a concise overview of the “last war against socialism,” asking, “Why does support for socialism persist?” Despite all its historical failures, the immorality and criminality of it. The self-proclaimed socialists want a planned society, and they don’t care about the lives of those who get in the way of their plans. It is a utopia of extreme narcissism, in my view.

Elizabeth Warren the Mad Power-Grabber

Elizabeth Warren is the U.S. senator from Massachusetts running for a second term that she supposedly will easily win on Tuesday. But she is campaigning in other states, most recently Ohio and Wisconsin (two very big electoral college states for a Presidential election), supposedly for candidates in close races in those states. I am sure that this trend of Warren staying outside of Massachusetts will continue and escalate after she is reelected to the U.S. Senate, given her statement that she would “take a hard look” at running for President in 2020.

You see, power hungry politicians love power so much that they are constantly seeking higher offices and more power.

Warren, a.k.a. Pocahontas, isn’t the only political hack from Massachusetts to begin a run for President while supposedly “serving” her constituents in a current office. During the 1980s, Gov. Michael Dukakis was reelected in 1986 to a third term, and already “testing the waters” for a 1988 Presidential bid.

In 1987 and ’88 Dukakis was absent from Massachusetts so many times, he should have resigned as governor and let Lt. Gov. Evelyn Murphy take over officially as the acting governor. But noooo, Dukakis was not able to let go of his current power in his drive for even more power. Just as Elizabeth Warren is doing now.

And then when Evelyn Murphy ran for governor of Massachusetts in 1990, Dukakis wouldn’t help her and didn’t campaign for her, as Barack Obama and Donald Trump are doing now on behalf of their respective party candidates in elections this Tuesday. So, Dukakis (who turns 85 today, by the way — must be all those turkey carcasses), was kind of walking all over his Lt. Gov. Evelyn Murphy while he ran for President, in which she performed all the duties as governor in his absence, but he wouldn’t resign and make it “official,” or help her in her 1990 election bid, which she lost even in the primary.

And then we had Gov. Mitt Romney, a.k.a. “Willard” Romney, who walked all over his Lt. Governor Kerry Healey, a.k.a. “Muffy Healey,” while Romney was absent from the state for over 200 days in 2006, his last year as governor while Healey performed all the duties of governor. And then Romney wouldn’t help her in her election bid for governor in 2006, just like Dukakis in 1990 (because Romney was so power hungry, like Dukakis and Pocahontas in their lust for higher political office). Healey lost, of course.

In 2006, when Willard Romney was already running for President and abandoning his duties as governor, he shoved the mandatory health insurance law down the throats of the people of Massachusetts. So, right there he’s telling people not only is he not a free-market kind of guy, but he’s ramming mandatory health insurance regardless of how destructive it would turn out to be, just so he can campaign with some new government scheme to brag about from his time as governor.

Brag? About “RomneyCare”? By 2012 RomneyCare didn’t control costs, but he did cause the state’s largest provider for the poor to have to make cuts because of the impact of RomneyCare.

I think politicians with power love to order the masses to do this or that, whether you like it or not. “You must — MUST — have health insurance,” Romney commanded. Just like Michael Dukakis ordering the people of Massachusetts you vill wear a seat belt, and you vill enjoy it.

And Elizabeth Warren, who wants to order private businesses to organize themselves via sex, national origin or race on their boards and their management teams, whether they like it or not, consumers be damned. Since when does Elizabeth Warren, creator of the Democrats’ money-laundering racket “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” care about consumers? What Pocahontas cares about is power, and more power for bureaucrats. In her bizarre world of irrationality, businesspeople must be accountable to bureaucrats, not to the consumers as it would work in an honest world.

Anyway, back to Romney. Here is Willard at the signing ceremony for his mandatory health care atrocity, introducing his unindicted co-conspirator Ted Kennedy:

As I wrote about Romney regarding his upcoming easy win for U.S. Senate from Utah (one of his many home states):

During his 2012 Presidential campaign, Romney said that, regarding taxes, “everything is on the table,” including raising taxes on the wealthy to reduce the deficit. No surprise there.

During his time as governor of Massachusetts, Romney raised taxes on corporations. The tax hikes, according to columnist Deroy Murdock, “totaled $128 million in 2003, $95.5 in 2004, and $85 million in 2005.” And, according to Murdock, Romney “created or increased fees by $432 million…Romney charged more for marriage licenses (from $6 to $12), gun registrations (from $25 to $75), a used-car sales tax ($10 million), gasoline deliveries ($60 million), real-estate transfers ($175 million), and more. Particularly obnoxious was Romney’s $10 fee per Certificate of Blindness.”

My, what a great guy, this Willard.

You see, he is typical of the elitist political class, taking from the poor and middle class and redistributing the wealth to the rich fat-cats, as we saw in his support of the Wall Street Bailout in 2008. To show how clueless he was about the Federal Reserve and the financial crisis of 2007-2009, Romney endorsed the reappointment of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in 2010. During his 2012 campaign, Romney received the most among the GOP candidates (and more than Obama as well) from the Big Banks in campaign contributions between just January and September of 2011, according to Michael Snyder: $352,200 from Goldman Sachs, $184,800 from Morgan Stanley, and $112,500 from Bank of America.

As a crony capitalist with Bain Capital, Romney used government subsidies with some of the companies Bain bought out to restructure and sell and profit from.

Speaking of crony capitalism, when it comes to “climate change” interventionism, Romney is all in. No free market solutions in sight with this Willard. For instance, in 2012 he cited a study in support of carbon taxes, and, according to Forbes (or you can view that article here), Romney’s advisors were all for cap-and-trade legislation/regulations, subsidizing renewable energy, with one advisor who was involved in the “Department of Energy loan guarantee program that funded Solyndra,” and another who was responsible for getting the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments passed.

If you live in Utah and would rather not vote for Romney for U.S. Senate, then you might want to consider the Libertarian Party candidate, Craig Bowden.

So this Willard Romney person is the one who called Donald Trump a “phony,” a “fraud,” a “fake,” and a “con man”! (Watch Willard begin his next run for President immediately after getting elected to the U.S. Senate, just like Elizabeth Warren. They are drooling for POWER!)

But when it comes to Elizabeth Warren and honesty and integrity in politics, I think that Liawatha comes very close to Willard in being a “phony,” a “fraud,” a “fake,” and a “con man” (or con-woman) in her claiming to be a minority to get her position on the Harvard Law School faculty. Because Warren knows nothing about law, and virtually anything else that matters, she had to take the sleazy way to “success.”

Incidentally, not that you would want to be reminded, but here is what Elizabeth Warren thinks of entrepreneurs, the producers of wealth that she as a bureaucrat wants to take away by force:

She’s trying to take down those who actually create the wealth in society by claiming that she and others share in the accomplishments based on “paying” for roads, schools, and police.

But, as Robert P. Murphy wrote,

For one thing, a factory owner already does pay a lot for use of the government roads and labor services of his employees. In contrast to other “public goods,” roads often have a much more dedicated payment stream, in the form of tolls and gasoline taxes. So the factory owner, who pays trucking companies to ship products around, is already paying a lot more to maintain the interstate highway system than is a lower-income person living in Manhattan with no car.

Politicians don’t really think things through, do they?

So, in that video Warren roars, “You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory…”

You mean, like power-grabbing socialists, Elizabeth? Like the Venezuelan regime? Like Cuba? The Soviet Union? Like you greedy bureaucrats in Washington? The ones for whom nothing is ever enough, no amount of taxation is enough for you crooks!

As with most politicians, has Elizabeth Warren ever produced anything of value in her nearly 70 years? Should we compare her or any politician or bureaucrat to Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Andrew Carnegie, or Martha Stewart, or Oprah?

Nope. That bunch of entrepreneurs created wealth with their talents and many, many people have benefited from their accomplishments. They were or are creators. Wealth creators.

But the power grabbers and power seekers of politics and government continue their push for more and more power over others. They are not the wealth creators of society, it’s just the opposite. They are the takers, the confiscators, the thieves, the obstructionists, the true “oppressors” of our time.

A “#MeToo” Movement for Political Consent

James Bovard writes that we need a #MeToo movement for political consent, comparing to non-consensual sex the fact that even though you vote for your elected officials chances are that you don’t really consent to their votes or policies that result in violating your rights and your life, liberty or property. Yet, that is mostly what public officials and their enforcers do.

But that is the system that we have in place. The masses elect people to “represent” them and to “serve” their needs, but because the system is a compulsory monopoly and the masses must obey the authorities’ laws, policies, mandates or prohibitions, those in power can really do whatever they want and get away with it, no matter how dishonest, corrupt or criminal.

And it is worse the more centralized the system is. That is why if this society is going to survive as a civilized society, it must get rid of the centralized apparatus in Washington. It shouldn’t have been created to begin with. The more decentralized the better.

A lot of people just can’t or won’t grasp that. The conservatives who say they love “limited government” don’t want to admit the truth, because they are so mystical in their “love of America” and just a little too indoctrinated to love the government in Washington whose bureaucrats have more or less ruined America. The talk radio crowd are authoritarians who love and worship government police and government military and thus they love the Washington apparatus. The thought of dismantling the empire overseas, closing down all those U.S. military bases and bringing all the troops back to the U.S. (and putting them in the private sector!) frightens the conservatives and nationalists who “love America.” They believe in American Exceptionalism, not the Golden Rule.

And the people on the left want “democratic socialism,” or socialism, or communism, whichever word you like. They mean the same thing, quite frankly. They want to “destroy capitalism,” even though they have cars, iPhones, TVs, and all the crappy junk food they can eat as a result of capitalism, not socialism. What’s going on in Venezuela is what they will get if they really want socialism in America, the empty store shelves, the long lines, the mass starvation, the government killings of dissidents, military takeovers of industries, and their beloved Maduro and his minions living high off the hog at the people’s expense. That is what happens when the government takes over industry and has the power to steal wealth and earnings from the people. The rulers live off their slaves’ labor, which is pretty much what we have now in Amerika.

And as we have seen from the anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant morons like Trump and his ditto-head followers is that they actually love socialism, too, and not capitalism. Capitalism being “free markets,” that is, which necessarily includes a free market in labor and employment. If the anti-immigrant crowd wants to deport foreigners or block people from coming to America, arrest businessmen for hiring unauthorized workers regardless of their being peaceful and not harming anyone, then those anti-immigrant collectivists are really against free markets, and for government-controlled or government-owned markets, i.e. socialism.

So now we have elections next week. And for what? So Democrats can be empowered to impeach Trump or have special investigations of him, and attempt to repeal the Trump tax cuts that have enabled people to keep more of what rightfully belongs to them? Like the conservatives, the people on the left don’t seem to like freedom very much, as their policies have been mainly to confiscate the wealth or earnings of others, based on envy and covetousness. But then, the anti-immigrant crowd are also acting on covetousness when they approve of government police-state interfering in the honest, peaceful labor of foreigners. “They’re taking jobs away from Americans,” and all that crap. American “citizens” are entitled to a job by an employer in America. So, it isn’t just the people on the left who have a covetous entitlement mentality.

And let’s elect more Republicans to Congress to further expand the police state, further empower the military as they’re doing now, further expand the surveillance state, and all the bureaucracies that Republicans love as much as the Democrats. The Rethugs are True Believers, that’s for sure. (Read Laurence Vance’s articles exposing the Republicans.)

So I’m not sure if we can have a #MeToo movement for political consent as long as the system of institutionalized non-consent is in place. Let’s have a free society instead. Okay.

Why the “Civil Rights” Act Should Not Apply to Private Property

In my unusually long recent post on the “enslavements of socialism and social justice,” I included some comments on the LGBT “civil rights” issues, such as the bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the transgender bathroom intrusions. And even though that post was a follow-up on an earlier post, I now have this follow-up on the “enslavements of socialism and social justice” post.

Regarding the Christian bakers refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, I wrote that because the business is privately owned the owners have a right to serve or to not serve prospective customers. That’s a part of property rights. And I wrote that the couple being refused service taking the bakers to court and suing them can be considered an enslavement of the bakers, because the prospective customer is using force or coercion to make the businessperson provide something involuntarily. Some people react to my writing that in a negative way, but the actual truth about some things does bother some people.

People have a right that’s a part of property rights to associate with or do business with anyone they want to, as long as it’s voluntary. No coercion is allowed in a civilized society, because using force or coercion against someone is … uncivilized. Laurence Vance explains it all very well in this article and this article. All people, private citizens or businesspeople, have a right to discriminate for or against anyone else, for any reason they have, based on ignorance, prejudice, race, gender, political views, any reason whatsoever. It’s not just to do with freedom of association and property rights, but freedom of thought and conscience as well.

No one has a “civil right” to be served by someone else. No one has a “civil right” to access private property. There are no such “rights.”

Which brings me to the “Civil Rights” Act of 1964, which repealed and prohibited government laws segregating people by race (“Jim Crow” laws), and outlawed government-imposed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That anti-discrimination law applied to all government-run operations such as the schools, parks, city buses and subways, and so on.

In my view, as long as we have a “publicly-owned” government ruling over all of us, then of course that government (or those governments, in the case of city and state governments), its bureaucrats and enforcers may not discriminate against any citizen based on those kinds of subjective, arbitrary factors. A “publicly-owned” government belongs to the public, which consists of everyone in the public. It does not belong to the bureaucrats in charge or their goon enforcers. So of course this Act should have outlawed such discrimination.

But the Act also outlawed discrimination on privately-owned premises such as restaurants, hotels, cafeterias, movie theaters, concert halls, etc. that were referred to as “public accommodations,” but are nevertheless privately owned and exist mostly on private property. The “Civil Rights” Act of 1964 and subsequent Amendments should NOT have applied to ANY privately owned business, function, place of worship, and other facility that is not owned by the government.

The social activists have eviscerated private property and private property rights, which are the last vestige of a free society and civilization. The social activists began their crusade against private property with the whole progressive movement. In the 19th Century with their intrusions into education by getting local governments to usurp the function of educating children away from parents and neighborhoods, imposed mandates, compulsory attendance laws. They continued with getting local or state governments involved in marriage, in which prior to those times the idea of a government-mandated marriage license would have been seen as absurd.

The social activists then imposed the income tax. Your earnings are no longer “yours,” but from then onward your earnings first belong to the gubmint who will then allow you to have whatever the bureaucrats determine you are allowed to have. Slave.

FDR imposed further intrusions, usurpations, wealth tax-thefts with all the New Deal, “Social Security,” and then LBJ with Medicare and Medicaid, and the aforementioned “Civil Rights” Act.

I think a lot of it also has to do with the institutionalized envy which is what socialism is all about. Some people are making use of their talents and abilities and making a living independently, or are successful with a large company, and the envious don’t like that. There seems to have been this impulse to use the armed force of government to take away from people who are successful. And if that’s not enough, use the armed force of government to intrude into their businesses and property.

Anyway, now that sexual orientation and gender identity have been added to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin among the list of aspects we may not discriminate against, we now have gay and lesbian couples intentionally suing private businesspeople not for those plaintiffs to get their just service that they demand from the businesses (even though most of the plaintiffs were nevertheless able to find someone else to bake their cakes or photograph their weddings), but to exact revenge on their victims who didn’t want to associate with them or do business with them. And who do not accept their particular lifestyles. Narcissists, as I was writing in that earlier post.

Could the people concerned about being discriminated against based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, have foreseen that sexual orientation or gender identity would be added to the list? I think not, because why didn’t they include them at that time? And why stop at sexual orientation and gender identity? I’m sure that, given how the social activism movement on the left has become militant in their attempts to push their non-conforming, odd or deviant lifestyles down the throats of others, they will get legislators to add “lifestyle” or some similar word to “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity,” and so on.

Recent laws also affect private therapists or counselors who are forbidden by law to even discuss “conversion therapy” with gender confused clients who actually want to try to become accepting of their actual gender. So freedom of speech is now being affected by these “civil rights” laws. So is the idea of common decency.

Private properties and businesses who are forbidden to discriminate were initially hotels, restaurants, i.e. actual “public accommodations,” that now include small businesses such as bakeries, florists or photographers, and practitioners such as psychotherapists and other doctors are now affected. Even churches are included. “Houses of worship” are in the list of “public accommodations.” Did people in 1964 see ahead as to where that would all lead to?

But where is all this leading to? If small businesses, a professional’s private practice or “houses of worship” are considered “public accommodations,” then how far away from actual public accommodations such as hotels will the social activists use their new legal powers to impose onto others? Will it eventually include people’s homes?

Remember, there is a difference between “civil rights” and “civil liberties.” “Civil rights” laws should repeal any and all government laws or policies in which the government is discriminating against people. But not private citizens, whether their discrimination is in their personal lives or their economic lives.

But now with “civil rights,” the social activists have proclaimed a “civil right” to access someone else’s private property and a “civil right” to demand to be served by someone else, involuntarily. So with this bunch of stuff, actual civil liberties have been eviscerated as well as private property rights and common decency.

The Enslavements of Socialism and “Social Justice”

As a follow-up to my recent post on the ignorant socialists on both sides of the same statist coin, liberal and conservative, I wanted to bring up the libertarian view of the non-aggression principle and self-ownership. You own yourself and your life and morally if we want a peaceful, civilized society, then be peaceful, don’t initiate aggression against others. And a part of all that is private property rights. Don’t steal, don’t defraud, as well as don’t commit acts of aggression against others.

But socialism is when the government takes ownership of the means of production, industry and property, and actually consists of the violation of the individual and is when one’s life and labor do not exist for one’s own benefit (or for the benefit of those of one’s voluntary choosing) but for the benefit of others as determined by bureaucrats, by the rulers, against the will of the people. In contrast, actual free-markets (or free-market “capitalism”) consist of not just privately-owned property and industry but voluntary exchange, in which you own your own life and labor. As I wrote in a post that I recently linked to,

“Owning people” doesn’t fit into capitalism. “Owning people” is what the State does under socialism. If by “capitalism” you mean “free market capitalism,” then the “capitalists” do not “own” — nor can claim any kind of ownership of — their workers, their employees. In actual free-market capitalism, no one is forced to have any association with or to do any labor for any employer one doesn’t want to work for. In free-market capitalism, your contracts with other associates or your employers are voluntary, and you are free to go work elsewhere if you don’t like that employer. In a free system, you own yourself.

Claiming actual ownership of others is the enslavement of them. And that’s what socialism does, by the State’s (regardless of its using the rhetorical guise “the public”) seizing ownership of industries, wealth and “the means of production,” which includes the people. The people are the most important amongst the means of production.

And by the State’s “seizing ownership of industries,” I am referring also to control. If the State takes control over your supposedly privately owned business or property (with regulations, mandates, restrictions, etc.) then that is the indirect way of the State’s seizing ownership. If you don’t fully control your own property, and another entity has forcibly seized control over it, then you don’t really own it.

Besides the purpose of forced redistribution of wealth in the name of equalizing inequality, socialism is also used to forcibly advance a social agenda. So some people won’t like my examples here, but that’s because a lot of people have been indoctrinated with social “justice” propaganda, but here goes:

One example is the civil rights stuff that now has expanded to include LGBT “rights” against “discrimination” as well as by race or sex. In recent years we have heard about same-sex couples suing photographers, florists and bakers who didn’t want to do work for the couples’ weddings.

Now, why does the baker or florist have a right to not do business with someone he doesn’t want to do business with? Because his business is his own private property. He owns the business, not the government, and not the “public.” The “civil rights” laws say that the business is a “public accommodation,” but the public does not own the business. And therefore members of the public do not have a right to order the owner of the business to serve those he doesn’t want to do extra labor to serve. It has to do with private property rights and freedom of association.

And it has nothing to do with the religion of the Christian baker, for example, and his religious beliefs regarding homosexuality or gay marriage. It has to do with the self-centered couples using the armed powers of government courts to force the businesspeople to show an acceptance of the customers’ lifestyles. These have been cases of extreme narcissists who believe that they have a right to force others to do extra labor to serve them, period, in my view.

Unfortunately, many conservatives, who have been opposed to the LGBT agenda and have been supporting the private businesses who don’t want to serve same-sex couples, don’t understand the principles of private property rights and freedom of association, and freedom of thought and conscience behind all these cases. It seems to me that the conservatives have also been covetous when it comes to using the powers of government to advance their social agendas.

The conservatives believe that the businesspeople’s religious beliefs are what need to be protected here, and that is not the case. What if an atheist baker refused to serve a Christian couple? I don’t believe the conservatives would support the baker. They would probably support the Christian couple. So the conservatives also believe that in some cases people have a right to use government courts to force businesspeople to serve others they don’t want to serve. No, it has to do with private property rights and freedom of association. If you’re an atheist baker and don’t want to serve a Christian couple, then of course you have a right to refuse to serve them. It’s your business, not theirs.

Another example is the transgender bathroom/shower controversy. Some states now allow someone who is male but thinks he’s a female to go into the ladies room, and vice versa. In some states, if you complain about it (that is, if you are a lady who doesn’t want males in the ladies room while you’re in there, or if you’re a parent who doesn’t want an obvious male going into the ladies room while your little girl is in there, and so on), you could be fined a lot of money and even arrested and thrown in jail.

And that is just how narcissistic some people are. You see, someone who has this confusion with his gender, he’s a male and thinks he’s a female but rather than causing him to feel uncomfortable going into the men’s room he now has the power to make a bunch of women and girls feel uncomfortable while he goes into their ladies room. So by law they must accept his gender confusion that he has. They must accommodate him.

And all that stuff, as well as all those “civil rights” laws, applies to privately owned property as well as public property or government buildings. So yes, these policies are another aspect of socialism, in which the government is essentially stealing ownership of private property away from the owners-on-paper.

Incidentally, in Massachusetts there is a ballot question this November to repeal such a law that Republican Gov. Charlie Baker signed into law. In New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state, Republican Gov. Chris Sununu also signed a similar bill into law. Sununu is up for reelection as is Charlie Half-Baker.

The same kinds of enslavements occur in other areas of life, such as medical care. Do you have a right to force a medical doctor or private hospital to care for you? No, of course you don’t. No one has a “right” to health care. If you have a right to have something provided to you, then you have a right to demand that producers must do extra labor to serve you.

As I wrote in a 2012 article, “If someone chooses to be a medical doctor, devotes hours and hours every day and years of intensive study and labor toward training to become a medical doctor, then who is it that owns such efforts, labor, energy and the actual career itself? That doctor? One’s neighbors? The government?” I hope the question answers itself.

And why is medical care so expensive, anyway? When did it really start to become expensive? Well, after Medicare and Medicaid were imposed on the people by bureaucrats who wanted to solve a problem that didn’t exist, that’s when!

So here is a list of articles on why socialized medicine doesn’t work, and never will work, and is immoral as well. And they will help to explain why Bernie Sanders’s plans or Evita Ocasio-Cortez’s plans for “single payer”also will not work. Just study the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and, worst of all, the U.K.

And if the government doesn’t outright own all the means of production and industry as in socialist societies, a word for the public’s or government’s seizing control over privately owned property or businesses is “fascism.”

However, as I mentioned above, if you don’t have control over something you supposedly “own,” then you don’t really own it. So the above cases are really varieties of socialism, in which the government has a de facto ownership of all property. Check out Lew Rockwell’s book, Fascism versus Capitalism, as well as Socialism: an Economic and Sociological Analysis by Ludwig von Mises.

The conservatives and nationalists, by the way, also do not understand, or they have an outright contempt for, private property and free markets like the people on the left. With the immigration issue, the anti-immigration crowd says that businesspeople, professionals and laborers must get a government bureaucrat’s permission to move about to get work or establish voluntary contracts to make a living.

So, with such controls in the name of “protecting the nation,” the government has a de facto ownership over people’s lives, property, and contracts. And, like the so-called “progressives” and social activists, these nationalistic anti-property, anti-freedom policies are also out of envy and covetousness.

And that applies to the trade issue as well. Donald Trump and his sheeple are anti-free trade, and they want the U.S. government to determine who may buy what and for how much and from whom. So this government-controlled trade stuff is also fascist, and thus a part of socialism. You don’t really own your money or your contract that you would have with a seller, the seller doesn’t really own his goods or services that he’s selling. The government has the ultimate, de facto ownership.

Otherwise, in a free society without those governmental intrusions, you would buy something from Sweden, China or Iran and at whatever price the seller is selling it for, and no third party interferes with that contract. That’s the free market, baby. Crony protectionists like Donald Trump don’t like that kind of freedom.

And by the way, if American producers don’t like consumers buying stuff from other countries, then produce better stuff and lower your prices! And if the prices have to be higher to afford the costs of production because the government imposes taxes and regulations, then tell the government to remove those taxes and regulations!

The consumers are essentially enslaved by the bureaucrats in charge and their cronies whose profits are protected by the armed force of government.

The Nobel Prize in Economics for 2018: To Irrational Statists Once Again

On the selection of statist economists William Nordhaus and Paul Romer for the 2018 Nobel Prize in economics:

Thomas DiLorenzo quotes the Nobel-winning economists:

“The Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive.”

–Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus, Economics, 13th edition, p. 837.

Samuelson was the first American recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics (1970), awarded by the Swedish central bank and not the Nobel Foundation.  Nordhaus is this year’s recipient.  In the 1989 edition of their textbook they predicted that the Soviet economy would become larger than the U.S. economy somewhere around the year 2000.

And Robert Wenzel writes that “Both are technocrats for state tinkering with the economy,” and that “Nordhaus is an academic child of the current climate change craze.” And, “Paul Romer, a professor at NYU Stern School of Business, is off in the, far off, palm reading land of macro modeling, where government tinkering is always needed.”

And also Wenzel notes that Romer is against the idea of private police. (See Chapter 12 of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto [.pdf] by Murray Rothbard on the privatization of police. For skeptics of private police, Rothbard begins: “In the first place, there is a common fallacy, held even by most advocates of laissez-faire, that the government must supply ‘police protection,’ as if police protection were a single, absolute entity, a fixed quantity of something which the government supplies to all. But in actual fact there is no absolute commodity called ‘police protection’ any more than there is an absolute single commodity called ‘food’ or ‘shelter’.”)

Wenzel quotes Nordhaus on climate change: “The science and economics of global warming are clear. Unless forceful measures are taken the planet will continue to warm.” Wenzel says it’s “Y2K fears on steroids.”

And that’s exactly right. Why doesn’t Nobel Prize winner Nordhaus understand that the planet is warming and will continue to warm no matter what humans do? It is not preventable, because the sun is getting hotter and hotter, in general, and by 1 billion years from now it will have completely dried up everything on Earth, and by 7 billion years it’s all over. Oh, well.

So, the Nobel Prize is given to people mainly on the Left, to people who are ignorant and irrational, and based on the emotional rhetoric involved with these people’s writings and activities. Another example is Barack Obama, who was given the Nobel Peace Prize, despite his increasing troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000 his first month in office, increasing the CIA drone strikes that have been mostly murdering innocent civilians overseas, and more, throughout his time as President.

A Society at War

Apparently there is a war being waged by angry leftists against white males, religious or conservative people, civilized society, and against the free-market capitalist way of life in America. As Robert Wenzel writes in this post, it is not just a war between the sexes. Wenzel says the ones on the offensive want a centrally-planned society.

But we already have a centrally-planned society. Washington controls just about everything now. But one thing Wenzel wrote is that the warriors are going after anything that’s a part of what has raised the standard of living in our supposedly civilized society. i.e. freedom, free markets and voluntary exchange, private property, and a basic Golden Rule in society. So in my view, I think that what the warriors really want is not as much a centrally-planned society, which we already have, but to lower the standard of living for everyone. Sad.