Jacob Hornberger: Abolish, Don’t Reform, the Income Tax
Jacob Hornberger: Abolish, Don’t Reform, the Income Tax
A New Hampshire state legislator has filed for a constitutional amendment to put a question on the 2022 state ballot for New Hampshire to leave the United States of America, a NHExit.
According to WND, the Amendment would read, “New Hampshire peaceably declares independence from the United States and immediately proceeds as a sovereign nation. All other references to the United States in this constitution, state statutes, and regulations are nullified.”
I looked through the New Hampshire Libertarian Party twitter to see if there has been any reaction:
“Secession is a deeply American principle. This country was born through secession.”
~ Ron Paul
— Libertarian Party NH (@LPNH) September 17, 2021
Poll included. https://t.co/ph7phnpkdz
— Libertarian Party NH (@LPNH) September 15, 2021
(This poll was run by the largest newspaper in New Hampshire) pic.twitter.com/7rysobswxu
— The Free State 🦔 (@FreeStateNH) September 16, 2021
Just a reminder, the American Declaration of Independence reads:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Any of that sound familiar?
I don’t really know that much about the New York City mayoral election going on now. Apparently there have been some screw-ups and this “ranked-choice” voting supposedly is involved in some way.
In ranked choice voting, allegedly, if the top vote getter doesn’t get over 50% of the votes, then voters have stated who their second choice would be, and it goes on from there to intentionally confuse the voters, as that is one tactic of the cheaters out there in order to get their candidate who did not win, to win.
But the truth is, when you have the candidate who received the most number of votes but not over 50%, the rest of the candidates together are not the equivalent of a single candidate opposing that top vote-getter. The rest of the candidates are all individual candidates. They are not a collective group that equals one opponent to the top vote-getter. That just is not the case and it shouldn’t be the case. Yet, that is really what the “ranked choice” proponents seem to be implying. There is no legitimate reason to have to get over 50% of the votes!
Now, here is a legitimate election: the one who receives the most number of votes wins. And that’s it. You don’t have to get 50% or more. Just get the most number of votes. Duh. You can have many candidates, and the top vote-getter gets something less than 50% like 39% for sake of discussion, but the other candidates all received less than that candidate’s 39% and did not get as many votes as that candidate. Whoever gets the most number of votes is the winner. And that’s the legitimate way to do elections. Anything else is a bunch of made-up crap to confuse people, like a Common Core version of voting, in order for cheaters to get around the requirement of receiving the most number of votes, to steal an election.
And that’s what I have to say about that. Now, as far as New York City is concerned, if I lived in New York any candidate who wants to decentralize the city, i.e. to break it into separate independent cities, for example to have a City of Manhattan, a City of Queens, a City of Brooklyn, and so on, would probably get my vote. (And each new city can further decentralize into separate independent neighborhoods, etc., etc.) And further, any candidate who wants to repeal or just not enforce all drug laws, gun laws, selling individual cigarettes laws, sugary drinks laws, taxi medallion laws, all zoning laws, and most other laws and regulations that violate property rights and individual liberty, would probably get my vote.
Tom Woods interviews the secretary of the national Libertarian Party regarding the New Hampshire LP chair’s having enacted a “coup” or “hostile takeover” as some people are calling it.
From the Tom Woods blog podcast page:
To make a long story short: with the apparent blessing of the chair of the national party, the chair of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire purged her executive committee, replaced it largely with people who had been defeated at the previous convention, and absconded with the social media accounts and donor data. Even if you don’t agree with people, you don’t/can’t do this, and of course it only shows that opposition to the status quo in the party has grown so strong that only by cheating can they cope with it. Caryn Ann Harlos, secretary of the Libertarian National Committee, joins me to discuss what’s going on.
I just saw this tweet retweeted by the Libertarian Party in New Hampshire: The LP apparatchiks I was recently criticizing want to remove Caryn Ann Harlos (interviewed in above video) for exposing these statist power-seekers’ corruption. (I am not shocked.)
The ballot to remove Caryn Ann Harlos (still ongoing)
— Joshua Smith from Break The Cycle (@JoshuaAtLarge) June 19, 2021
Update: Oops. I got that tweet that was retweeted from the Libertarian Party of NH Mises Caucus, not the LPNH. Sorry about that.
Another controversy with the “Libertarian” Party to write about. How fun.
Now, I am not a member of the Libertarian (sic) Party, but I have had plenty to say about the Party and some of its political candidates in the past. And I have some comments to make now about the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH).
Apparently, the LPNH chair Jilletta Jarvis has allegedly staged a “hostile takeover” of the Party by dismissing several of the duly-elected Party leaders or officers and installing her own people in a way that is not allowed by their Party by-laws. She is reacting to what she has determined to be an alleged undermining of the Party mainly by the Mises Caucus. Here is Jarvis’s letter explaining her moves.
And even Justin Amash opposed the “coup” and endorsed the executive committee elected in March as the legitimate leaders, and Tom Knapp expresses his view that Jilletta Jarvis’s changes are illegitimate.
For a discussion on this controversy, see the Wendy McElroy forum, and here is a lengthy post with many comments on Richard Winger’s Ballot Access News forum. Among the comments there are a formal letter of complaint to the National Libertarian Party regarding Jarvis’s actions. And LPNH executive committee member Sean Dempsey provides a timeline with links on the LP “takeover” or “coup” in New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die State.”
But first, I wanted to mention LPNH Chair Jilletta Jarvis’s 2018 LP campaign for governor of New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state. As I wrote here, while she’s good on some issues, on education she seems to support the continuation of government schools, when the libertarian answer is abolishing the government schools. The real answers are privatization and decentralization in education. And Jarvis wants to “reform” occupational licensing for “fair and equal opportunity for entrepreneurship to all people.” Huh? What are you, a Democrat? Actually, the libertarian answer to that is not “reforming” but abolishing licensure. Duh, Jilletta.
I just wanted to get that out of the way first. I hope you don’t mind that. Is she perhaps like Gary Johnson (a “sort-of” libertarian)?
So apparently, among other issues with the Mises Caucus, the Mises Caucus supposedly viewed the January 6th Capitol trespass and riot either favorably or without criticism. I think that was one of the issues.
LPNH Mises Caucus critics are suggesting that the Caucus supported the January 6th trespass and riot. The only thing I could find was a tweet in which the Mises Caucus merely expressed frustration at the LP for condemning “right-wing violence” (against the State, i.e. the Capitol) but not condemning left-wing violence (e.g. antifa/BLM destruction of businesses, etc.).
So right-wing violence aimed at the empire's seat of power gets a swift condemnation, but left-wing violence (riots and lockdowns) aimed at small businesses gets silence
I'm not saying @LPNational is run by controlled opposition, but if they were what would be different?
— Libertarian Party Mises Caucus (@LPMisesCaucus) January 6, 2021
I agree with the Mises Caucus in its frustration with the LP. Gary Johnson was the “lifestyle libertarian” nominee for President, but not the principled candidate. The late Wenzel grilled Johnson in 2012 and then we discovered that Johnson had no clue of the LP’s principles or the basic philosophy of libertarianism. But now the Party has gone way off the deep end for “social justice” and identity politics as indistinguishable from the Democrat party, and their “lifestyle libertarianism” beliefs, which is why the apparatchiks of the Party picked Jo Jorgensen over Jacob Hornberger for President in 2020 despite Hornberger’s getting many more votes in the primaries.
I think that most in the Mises Caucus understand the basic principles of libertarianism than perhaps many of those in the Libertarian Party in general. It’s not about drugs, bitcoin, LGBT rights and fighting racism. It’s about the non-aggression principle, self-ownership, private property rights, freedom of association and freedom of non-association, and freedom of contract, in my view.
Some LP candidates, for instance, have been afraid to say out loud that the income tax is institutionalized theft and the IRS is a just another criminal racket. If you can’t acknowledge that first and foremost the IRS must be dismantled and abolished and all income taxes (and any form of involuntary confiscation of private property) be ended then you really aren’t a libertarian.
The reason that taxes imposed by government agencies are acts of theft is that they are involuntary and are in the absence of a voluntary contract.
The only kinds of transactions and trades that are legitimate are voluntary transactions and trades. If it’s involuntary then it’s illegitimate. It’s an act of theft no different from a street mugger demanding money from someone at gunpoint.
And that includes sales taxes as well. I enter into a contract voluntarily with a store or retail outlet or a customer or client, but I did not voluntarily agree that third parties i.e. government bureaucrats take a percentage of that trade away from me or from the trader. Such a transaction is none of the business of any third party no matter who that is.
Additionally, government criminal scum ordering us to report such trades is also a criminal act of invasion of privacy. The same goes for having to report income. (And by the way, currently I do everything I’m supposed to do by law, because I don’t want to be harassed or imprisoned by the terrorists who rule over us. Duh.)
And I wish that conservatives could see the light. They never declare that the income tax or otherwise involuntary, contract-less government confiscations are criminal and should be abolished. Conservatives ultimately love the IRS and the idea of government ordering the people to report their private financial matters to bureaucrat parasites, and conservatives ultimately approve of redistribution of wealth schemes imposed on them which force them to have to involuntarily forfeit their own earnings and wealth to fund “forever wars,” sanctuary cities, other people’s birth control, the very many 6-figure-salaried “Diversity and Inclusion Officers” and “LGBT Community Liaisons” in the colleges and universities, and trillions of dollars more of crap every year.
Conservatives are hopelessly glued to the Republican Party, despite its own enmeshment with the State as much as the Democrats. (I want to say “Republitards,” but I will refrain from doing that here.) And sadly, the conservatives are still hopelessly glued to Donald Trump, the former Clown-in-Chief, whose understanding of liberty is nil.
But I way digress. I’m supposed to be criticizing libertarians here, specifically the Libertarian (sic) Party. The Mises Caucus actually does for the most part demonstrate what the Libertarian Party was founded on: an advocacy of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. The rest of the Party now are mainly concerned with racial and gender identity politics along with the wackos on the left, as well as this fetish with bitcoin and cryptocurrency and marijuana legalization. I suspect that the modern LP is widely infiltrated by the CIA as well. Jacob Hornberger was extremely critical of the CIA throughout his 2020 Presidential campaign, and that was another reason why the apparatchiks snubbed him at the convention.
So, the Libertarian Party sucks, as well as the two Soviet parties Demopublican and Republicrat. Those two “major” parties make up a criminal racket, crooks who make laws to intentionally obstruct third parties or independent candidates’ right to get their names on ballots. D and R are a racket, and they will not change.
Now, if it’s true that the LPNH Mises Caucus asserted that the 2020 Presidential election really was stolen, and that is another reason why they were kicked out, then that would be another example of people believing mainstream news media who repeat just about everything that bureaucrats tell them. No, not the Mises Caucus but the LPNH chair and others who should know better.
I have detailed all that stolen election stuff in this post. And more is coming out now that January 6th was a false flag op to further censor and criminalize the exposing and publicizing of 2020 election-steal claims and evidence.
So, with the “coup” in New Hampshire, it looks like LP apparatchiks are really apologists for the State and its crimes. One important thing that should be very much associated with being a libertarian, in my view, is “hating the State,” as Murray Rothbard would say, and recognizing that the State or the gubmint is a criminal racket, a regime that steals, defrauds, extorts, threatens, coerces, assaults, tortures and murders innocent people and gets away with the crimes. There are people who will do anything including organized vote fraud to get themselves into the powers of the armed State apparatus.
When the government wants to do something that erodes or limits the freedom of the people, the right thing to do is to assume that the government is lying to you. Whether it’s about Vietnam or Iraq, or… “election fraud? nothing to see here, move along…” or Covid. They are lying.
And speaking of Covid, I think that when the LP’s 2020 nominees for President and VP Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen photo-opped themselves wearing the self-censorship/self-suffocation gags, I found that quite disturbing. They seemed to be making light of the government’s totalitarian orders to display one’s slave status and submission to the supreme State, or they were endorsing it.
The Libertarian Party presidential ticket: https://t.co/0HyRwudxEU
— Adam Dick (@MrAdamDick) July 13, 2020
They can say, “Oh, we were just kidding around,” yeah sure. But I am NOT laughing! That whole bunch of CRAP is NOT funny!! The government orders people to have to wear those goddamn things for no good reason, which probably in many cases makes people sick, with their breathing in the bacteria buildup and re-breathing the exhaled CO2 while being deprived of oxygen!
Real libertarians have to recognize that the State, especially the more centralized the government, needs to be dismantled and its “workers” sent back into the private sector. (I know, “kicking and screaming,” but it’s the only way!) Centralized government cannot be “reformed” and made to “work for the people.” Even in recent times, the 1994 “Republican Revolution,” the 2000-2006 Republican majority with a Republican President, 2010 “Tea Party” successes and 2014, “reform” did not happen, and it will not.
Here is a Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign ad (when he was a Republican, but he sure out-libertarianized the Libertarian Party candidate, that’s for sure).
But now, in the “Live Free or Die” state of New Hampshire, the LP is divided between the radical freedom wing and the faux freedom Big Cheesette who kicks out the ones who are not afraid to tell the truth.
Here is a video discussion on Rumble by Joseph Cotto, Walter Block, Michael Edelstein, Murray Sabrin, Chris Rossini, and others, with their remembrances of Robert Wenzel:
Libertarian economics writer Robert Wenzel has died. His two blogs, EconomicPolicyJournal.com and TargetLiberty.com have for years been among the go-to blogs for libertarian-based economic analysis and libertarian philosophy and commentary. The loss definitely will leave a void, for sure.
Wenzel just put it all out there, his criticisms of the Black Lives Matter movement and Marxism in general, the modern cultural Marxism movement, Keynesian “economics” and socialism, and the present-day Covid scamdemic, as well as his promotion of the libertarian non-aggression principle and the private property society. Such commentary will surely be missed.
And regarding his death, it was apparently unexpected. At least, it was a shock to me, given that he had not mentioned on his blogs any recent illnesses or serious conditions. Tom Woods noted that Wenzel had “died peacefully in his bed.” And then I saw on Murray Sabrin’s blog the same thing, that he had died in his sleep, according to Wenzel’s daughter-in-law. And supposedly he was only 63.
Wenzel didn’t really say much about his personal life. I had the impression that he was either a single bachelor, or divorced. He may have mentioned an ex-wife, but I am not certain about that. So now we know that he had a daughter-in-law, and obviously at least one son. There really is no information about him, no particular obituary (so far), etc. He apparently had died around May 25th, a week ago.
He had been living in San Francisco or the greater SF area, and had given frequent updates on various situations there, such as how Walgreens had to close multiple stores because of government-approved shoplifting, for example. Wenzel had described how security guards or police are only allowed to make shoplifters give back the stolen merchandise at the door, but with no arrests if the merchandise is less than $950.
And he had described over this Year of the Covid Scamdemic how most of the sheeple in SF were masked, even outdoors, on their bike, or walking alone with no one around, or in the car alone. And he described and had video of one confrontation he had with a young male mask-stasi in the elevator yelling at him for not wearing a mask. The elevator stasi guy was hysterical (and I don’t mean “funny” hysterical). I found the post.
Wenzel’s first blog Economic Policy Journal included a lot of informative posts and articles on economics with analysis and commentary. Here is his 2018 book Foundations of Private Property Society Theory. And here is his most recent video from his series “This Week in Economics,” An Introduction to Austrian School Business Cycle Theory.
Also, you might be interested in hearing Wenzel’s 2012 interview with Gary Johnson when Johnson was running for President the first time as a Libertarian (sic) Party candidate.
After years of EconomicPolicyJournal.com, Wenzel decided to put the more political, social and philosophical news and commentary on a new, separate blog, Target Liberty. It was there where his thought-provoking commentaries on issues like BLM, criminal justice and government police, the political class, and the insanity of Covid policies are located. He covered many issues.
On the right sidebar toward the top of Wenzel’s Target Liberty, he has a list of links to the “most popular posts in the last 30 days,” including MIT Researchers Infiltrated a Covid-19 Lockdown/Mask Skeptics Community: This is What They Found, and State Department Memo Authorizes and Encourages the Hanging of BLM Flag at All US Diplomatic and Consular Posts. A similar list is at the top right sidebar of his Economic Policy Journal.
Of course, I read Wenzel’s two blogs each day for years, and it’s hard to believe that such blogs will not continue. It is hard to believe that he actually died, without any advance notice. Perhaps someone can let us know what exactly the cause of death was. And if that’s too personal and invasive of me to ask, then never mind. But this really is a shock.
Laurence Vance describes the kind of politicians we need to have a good government.