Skip to content

Tag: libertarianism

Vaccines: Your Body, Their Choice?

James Corbett discusses possible mandatory vaccines. Like with COVID? (the thing with a case fatality rate of .1%)

On the YouTube page: “Stripped of its contextual baggage, the phrase ‘My Body, My Choice’ makes a compelling rallying cry because it conveys a fundamental truth that we all innately understand: I have the claim to my own body and what is done to it. So why, then, are we being asked to believe that when it comes to vaccinations during a declared pandemic it is ‘Your Body, Their Choice’?”

More Fallout from “Libertarian” Party Elites Snubbing the Grassroots Voters

As I mentioned before, the elites of the “Libertarian” Party held a virtual convention in which they decided to nominate Jo Jorgensen for President, even though in state primaries Jacob Hornberger won many more votes from the actual LP voters. “Libertarian Party voters in primaries gave Jacob Hornberger 9,035 votes with 7 state wins, while they gave Jo Jorgensen 5,034 votes with 2 state wins,” I wrote.

And then I wrote about Jorgensen attending a Black Lives Matter candlelight vigil, and she tweeted, “It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist.” Of course, I’ll bet she doesn’t include being actively anti- anti-white racist. If anyone does that, oppose anti-white racism, then one will be labeled “white supremacist,” etc. So much for equality.

But now, Robert Wenzel has posted or reposted a tweet with a photo showing Jorgensen elbow-bumping her VP nominee, Spike Cohen. The horrible and horrifying thing about that is they are wearing those face masks whose only purpose is to show obedience, compliance, and submission to government authority. That is soooo un-libertarian.

Libertarianism is about the Non-Aggression Principle. We oppose the initiation of aggression. It is also about self-ownership, private property rights and freedom of association, in my view.

What is government? Government is by its very nature, aggression. The government has assumed for itself the authority over the lives and property of the people. The government owns the people, frankly, and the government — that is, its bureaucrats and their enforcers — can order you to do this or that, can arrest you, drag you out of your home, terrorize you, steal from you, etc. with impunity. They own you.

So, when we have political candidates who supposedly represent the “Libertarian” message, i.e., the anti-aggression anti-interventionism message, when they show themselves wearing the very symbols of submission to government control and authority, and the very symbols of the suppression of speech and dissent, they show themselves to be not particularly libertarians, or perhaps just clueless.

Yes, they should have the freedom to wear the mask if they want to. But they shouldn’t for the aforementioned reasons, but also because the masks are unhealthy, and shown to not prevent transmission of viruses. The sole purpose of the masks is control.

The LP conventioneers should have gone with the voters’ decision to nominate Jacob Hornberger.

On Voting Libertarian in 2020

I had written previously about the Libertarian Party’s virtual convention, in which the conventioneers decided on Jo Jorgensen to be their LP nominee for President for 2020. And I was thinking of writing more about Jo Jorgensen, even though Jacob Hornberger received many more votes than she did in the state LP primaries, and Hornberger should have gotten the nomination. But the latest with Jorgensen is a reminder that I will not be doing that.

The upcoming U.S. Presidential election will not be legitimate anyway, no matter the outcome, no matter who “wins.” We will now have “mail-in voting” (a.k.a. mail-in cheating) throughout the USSA as well as “early voting” (a.k.a. early cheating) in many states. I think that any chance of these elections having any bit of legitimacy is finished. Add to that the tech companies censoring, de-platforming, and silencing anyone who opposes “social justice” warriorism and race-based and gender-based identity politics.

That is what daily life in Amerika is all about now. The President (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump) continues to authorize drone strikes that kill and murder mainly innocent civilians overseas, that means nothing to millions and millions of schmucks in Amerika. The President continues with the unwinnable “war on drugs” slaughtering and falsely imprisoning and/or otherwise causing the deaths of many young black males. The morons all across the country don’t care about those things. And the idiots on the other side are obsessed with the National Anthem (a horrible song!) and the American Flag, that Bozo in the White House wants a law to protect, like it’s a human being.

So the Libertarian Party giving the nomination to Jo Jorgensen when it was Jacob Hornberger who, rightly, received the most votes in the state primaries, what a joke, that Libertarian Party. They are just as much elitist hacks as the Democrat and Republican party racket.

The latest from Jo Jorgensen? She attended a “Black Lives Matter” candlelight vigil. Okay, so she’s misguided and ignorant. So? However, she tweeted: “It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist.

Robert Wenzel writes:

Why can’t someone be passively not racist? For that matter, why is it a concern of libertarians if someone is a racist but does not violate the non-aggression principle?

Why must libertarians be actively anti-racist? Why should it be demanded of us, under the libertarian banner, to be an active participant in a black public relations effort?

Really, lady, I have enough of my own problems.

I have explained before that I think racists are clowns but if these clowns are not violating the non-aggression principle why is it a concern of libertarians qua libertarians?

Further, Jorgensen, may or may not realize it, but she is jumping on the bandwagon that is being run by very shrewd Marxist revolutionaries who want to destroy capitalism.

Even if I thought there was some merit to the BLM movement, which I don’t, I would stay far away from this effort. The top operators know how to take advantage of alliances. As one of the founders of the Black Lives Matter organization put it, “We are trained Marxists.”

If you are not part of the inner circle, you are a useful idiot to them.  Jorgensen is not part of the inner circle. She is falling into a trap fighting to eliminate “systemic racism” that doesn’t exist (Not to be confused with a few random racists who do exist). BLM  is a front group, a tool, of some very strategically-skilled power-hungry communists.

What the hell is Jorgensen thinking?

Answer: She’s not.

Now, I’m not the biggest fan of Pat Buchanan, but he recently wrote about the “Black Lives Matter” phenomenon, in his article, The New “Systemic Racism” That Is Coming. Basically there are activists in the USSA who want to erase the idea of “not discriminating against someone based on race,” as well as erase that from various state constitutions and probably the Civil Rights Act, so they can institutionalize discrimination against whites and Asians.

But the “Black Lives Matter” organization is led by self-admitted Marxists who don’t believe in freedom, equal justice, due process, and a “color-blind society.” They also don’t believe in private property and freedom of association, freedom of thought and conscience and free exchange, and the libertarian non-aggression principle. They are Marxists.

People who are “libertarians” should not stand with such an organization that is opposed to all the important libertarian principles. And that’s my view on that.

So Jo Jorgensen is now insisting and demanding that we be “actively anti-racist.” Right, Jo. When these race-obsessed activists include anti-white racism as a part of being “anti-racist,” then maybe I’ll support them. When we have millions of white people who haven’t harmed anyone, who haven’t “discriminated against black people” in all their lives, then I would say that they, too, have a right to not be the target of anti-white racism just as much as innocent black people have a right to not be the target of anti-black racism. Right?

But anyway, the Libertarian Party reinforced its more recent moniker as “a joke” when they selected Jo Jorgensen as their 2020 Presidential nominee, even though Jacob Hornberger got many more votes in the primaries.

End Government-Imposed Restrictions and Central Planning in Immigration

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked Donald Trump from dismantling the “DACA” program, or “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals”, which exempts immigrant children from some immigration restrictions. It is not a legislative act, but an unconstitutional executive “memorandum” imposed by Premier Obama. So, it can’t be repealed via legislation, although the legal restrictions being waived could be, I supposed. Premier Trump wants to have another try at dismantling the program.

My view on all this, if you don’t already know, is to repeal every immigration restriction legislatively or by executive order, or just not enforce them, and dismantle ICE and the IRS (and DHS, TSA, FBI, ATF, and all the rest of those fascist agencies that are unbecoming of a free and civilized society).

One of my main points on the immigration issue is regarding this false belief or assumption that many people seem to have that there is some kind of common ownership of the territory as a whole. That is just a myth, an “old wives’ tale,” and not backed by any legal or constitutional basis. It is based on emotion and collectivist ideology, not morality or rationality.

So, there is no such common ownership of the territory because in our society we have something called private property.

In April of 2019 I posted a compilation of excerpts from my past posts dealing with the immigration issue, and I will repost most of that post now because the immigration problem will never be resolved in the U.S. as long as the control over such matters continues to be seized by the idiot moron central planners in Washington.

Here is that earlier post:

In the post, Freedom Matters, I wrote:

In the article, titled “Culture Matters,” the writer Jim Cox compares the U.S. territory and its public or collective ownership to a condominium made up of several buildings with commonly owned areas, in which the condo owners “own the land between the 27 buildings and the pavement in common and own only our individual units separately.”

And he continues: “This is a very analogous situation to US citizens owning private property as well as public property via government. The condominium association has rules about people coming onto the common property.”

In Cox’s example, each condo owner buys one’s own unit with the rules of the condo association in mind.

Already Cox confuses private and public property. The entire territory of a country is not a commonly owned parcel of private property and can’t be compared to that.

Outside of each individually-owned unit, the property of the condo buildings and real estate is commonly owned by the condo owners. But it is still all private property.

In contrast, “public property” is supposedly publicly owned. Actually, as Jim Davies pointed out, public property is unowned. Either no one has actually legitimately homesteaded or honestly acquired it, or it was owned but the bureaucrats of the State have seized and occupy it.

Many individuals, groups and business owners own individual parcels of private property. But it’s more difficult to define who the actual owners of public property are. An intruder onto the condo property is trespassing onto private property. But if the “public” supposedly owns non-privately-owned public property, just which part of the public can be considered an owner or an “intruder”? “Citizens” or non-citizens? Taxpayers or non-taxpayers?

As I asked in this critique of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, what about non-taxpaying citizens, such as those who work but don’t earn enough to be required to pay income taxes? Are they less owners of the “public” property? Are they “intruders”? What about working, taxpaying non-citizens?

And what exactly is a “citizen”? As Carl Watner notes, a “citizen” is a “member of the State.” Other sources define citizen as someone who is legally recognized by the government. But who is the government to “recognize” or authorize someone as legitimate?

Sadly, statists look to the ruling government bureaucrats for validation. But just who exactly are the ruling bureaucrats, and what exactly is the State?

As Murray Rothbard has pointed out (.pdf) in his Anatomy of the State,

The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.

And, in his great treatise The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard asserts,

Thus, the State is a coercive criminal organization that subsists by a regularized large-scale system of taxation-theft, and which gets away with it by engineering the support of the majority (not, again, of everyone) through securing an alliance with a group of opinion-moulding intellectuals whom it rewards with a share in its power and pelf.

But there is another vital aspect of the State that needs to be considered. There is one critical argument for the State that now comes into view: namely, the implicit argument that the State apparatus really and properly owns the territorial area over which it claims jurisdiction. The State, in short, arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area — larger or smaller depending on historical conditions, and on how much it has been able to wrest from other States.

If the State may be said to properly own its territory, then it is proper for it to make rules for anyone who presumes to live in that area. It can legitimately seize or control private property because there is no private property in its area, because it really owns the entire land surface. So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property.

So what we have from Cox is the collectivist notion of a common ownership of a territory. He writes: “Until we can shift to a Private Property Society we are stuck with a government handling immigration.”

Unfortunately, “government handling immigration” is the police state that we have now. Bureaucrats empowering border control agents to violate due process rights, arrest innocent people who have not harmed anyone, arresting employers for not getting government permission to hire a worker, arresting workers who are peacefully making a living, an out-of-control “ICE” working to take citizenship away from naturalized citizens, storm troopers ripping whole families apart. All this because the people have gullibly empowered a centralized government to decide who is and who isn’t on the premises legitimately.

And Cox lists “negative cultural traits” of possible immigrants that people wouldn’t want to invite in. He neglects to mention, however, that it’s the government planners (that we are “stuck with”) who are responsible for bringing in the violent criminals he mentions.

But the collectivist-minded writer is putting ALL immigrants into one big group, the “undesirables,” the riffraff and the actual violent criminals, all lumped together with the peaceful people, the hard-working laborers, the honest folks.

Whatever happened to the individualism and free markets that used to be associated with libertarianism? Whatever happened to presumption of innocence? If you don’t suspect an individual of something, leave him alone.

And why would libertarians want bureaucrats to control markets, labor and employment? “We’re all socialists, now”?

Regarding the crime problem, the rapes and assaults, murders, etc., why are the anti-immigration crowd so bent on being dependent on centralized bureaucrats and government police for their protection from criminals? Why don’t they ever bring up the right of the people to keep and bear arms? They only seem to bring that up when the gun control debate is in the news.

When criminals know ahead of time that their prospective victims are armed there would be far fewer rapes, assaults and murders, and attempted rapes, assaults and murders. That would be the same with violent foreigners entering the territory, no?

Is the “culture” stuff actually more important to these immigration critics than their security? So instead of promoting the right of people to keep and bear arms and use the arms to protect themselves from actual criminals, the anti-immigration crowd are more concerned with promoting government-controlled social engineering.

And to say that someone not violating the person or property of another, who is peacefully exercising one’s freedom of movement to find a better life for himself and one’s family, is a “criminal,” is to not understand the libertarian non-aggression principle.

***

In the post, Walter Williams on Immigration: Very Collectivist-Minded, I wrote:

Walter Williams has been considered very “libertarian” in his thinking and his writing, although a conservative libertarian. He has been great in his essays raking the political correctness crowd and the college hystericals over the coals, and his books Up from the Projects and Race and Economics should be read by everyone, especially the youngins in college if they want to get a dose of reality in life.

However, when it comes to nationalism and immigration it seems he is less libertarian and, unfortunately, extremely collectivist, and his latest article on that subject is no exception. So, I feel I must fisk Dr. Williams on this one, because clarification of the issues, ideas and principles is necessary here.

First, Williams asks,

How many Norwegians have illegally entered our nation, committed crimes and burdened our prison and welfare systems? I might ask the same question about Finnish, Swedish, Welsh, Icelanders, Greenlanders and New Zealanders.

How many U.S. citizens who are here legally commit crimes against others? And who has committed more crimes against the American people, immigrants or the government in Washington (and the bureaucrats of the state and city governments)? (Answer: It’s governments, no contest.)

Williams continues:

The bulk of our immigration problem is with people who enter our country criminally from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East. It’s illegal immigrants from those countries who have committed crimes and burdened our criminal justice and welfare systems.

No, the bulk of our immigration problem is that immigrants from those “undesirable” countries are brought in under the control of government bureaucrats in Washington. The bureaucrats have no incentive to strive for better outcomes in their policies because government bureaucrats are not accountable. They have a monopoly in their control over immigration, and monopolists are not accountable.

In the debate about illegal immigration, there are questions that are not explicitly asked but can be answered with a straight “yes” or “no”: Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.? Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country? Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?

“Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.?” This is not a “yes” or “no” question. Everyone has a right to live wherever one finds it to be a better place for oneself and one’s family, as long as one doesn’t violate the persons or property of others. I know, some people have the mistaken belief that the U.S. territory is “our” property, and outsiders entering the territory sans authorization are “trespassing.” Nope. The territory contains many, many parcels of private property. The owners of the private property have the ultimate right to decide who enters and who does not enter their private property, not the community, and not the government. This applies to people’s homes, their businesses, churches, and so on.

“Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country?” Again, not a “yes” or “no” question. Many people believe that Americans as a group, by majority rule, have a right to decide those things, and that the government has the authority (constitutional or moral) to implement those decisions, regardless of a private property owner or employer’s decision to invite someone. If the collectivists’ vision were the case (as it currently is now), then we don’t really have private property rights, and the majority of the territory’s population and the government really are the ultimate decision makers of who may enter private property.

“Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?” Why is there “U.S. border control”? That’s referring to U.S. government border control, which is a police state now. A “100-mile Constitution-free zone”!

And then Williams gets into the cultural aspects of the problems of today:

People who came here in the 19th century and most of the 20th century came here to learn our language, learn our customs and become Americans. Years ago, there was a guarantee that immigrants came here to work, because there was no welfare system; they worked, begged or starved. Today, there is no such assurance. Because of our welfare state, immigrants can come here and live off taxpaying Americans.

Then get rid of the welfare state! THAT’s the answer to that problem. It’s the welfare state that FDR and LBJ (and Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, et al., ad nauseam) have forced on us. Dr. Williams has many times written in his articles that it is immoral to take earnings from one person to give to another, by force. Why doesn’t he say outright here that involuntary contracts and theft (i.e. taxation), Social Security, Medicare and all their spin-offs should be abolished?

There is another difference between today and yesteryear. Today, Americans are taught multiculturalism throughout their primary, secondary and college education. They are taught that one culture is no better or worse than another. To believe otherwise is criticized at best as Eurocentrism and at worst as racism.

Well, that’s because governments in the U.S., federal, state and local government, control education in America! Get the government out of education, completely! And THAT’s the answer to that problem, this “multiculturalism” crapola. You think that an all-private schools system, without any government handouts and without the imposition of monopolistic government bureaucrats’ sick, irrational, kooky claptrap would survive in an educational free market?

Very unfortunate for our nation is that we have political groups that seek to use illegal immigration for their own benefit. They’ve created sanctuary cities and states that openly harbor criminals — people who have broken our laws.

That’s because “sanctuary cities” are run by city governments — THAT’s the problem! Bureaucrats should not be empowered to get involved in bringing in foreigners, unless those actual bureaucrats invite the foreign visitors or workers to live in their homes, the bureaucrats‘ own homes, and they pay for their visitors, not the taxpayers. Sadly, government bureaucrats mainly just want to have as much welfare parasites (and voters) brought in, because getting reelected and expanding their tax-funded racket is what bureaucrats really care about.

And also, it’s not really about “legal” vs. “illegal” with many of today’s anti-immigration conservatives, unfortunately. A lot of this anti-immigration stuff is just coming from a collectivist, nationalist anti-foreigner mentality. “We are all one ‘family,’ and we don’t want ‘them’ invading ‘our’ home,” and all that. I’m hearing that on a constant, daily basis from the conservative talk radio personalities and their dittohead followers calling in.

This immigration stuff is mainly to do with a collectivist nationalism, which is not what “America” is all about. America was all about individualism and private property, NOT collectivism and collective ownership of a territory that overrules the will of the private property owner.

And “America” is also not about central planning as well. Most of the early Americans who founded the country would not have agreed to empowering central planning bureaucrats to have authority over controlling immigration matters. Leave those matters up to Americans themselves, not the government.

***

And finally, in Immigration and Private vs. Public Property, I critiqued a speech by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in which I wrote, among other things:

Unfortunately Hoppe gets into some confusion between private property and “public property,” and some of his “rights to exclusion” seem quite collectivist, in my view. He seems to advocate a public, collective right to exclusion, whereas the only legitimate right to exclusion is the private property owner’s right to exclusion, and the individual self-owner’s right to exclusion, and the right to inclusion as well.

For instance, Hoppe states: “In a fully privatized libertarian order there exists no such thing as a right to free immigration. Private property implies borders and the owner’s right to exclude at will.”

But he goes on to say that “’public property’ has borders as well.” Wait a minute, the “public property” borders he’s talking about are government-drawn borders, therefore they are not legitimate.

Hoppe states that public property “is not unowned. It is the property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners.”

I have some questions here, using the U.S. as an example. Just how did the taxpayers come to own such “public property”? Did they inherit the property? Was it by way of a voluntary contract? Or was such ownership imposed on them involuntarily along with the tax-thefts that were imposed on them involuntarily?

My answer is that, if there is any ownership at all of so-called public property, and he suggests the owners are the taxpayers, then of course such ownership is involuntary just as are the tax-thefts imposed on them. Therefore, such ownership is lacking in any moral justification.

Some further questions: Millions of undocumented workers’ presence and labor in the U.S. have not received proper bureaucrat-parasite authorization, but they have paid billions of dollars in federal taxes. And while some of their legitimate, honest earnings are withheld by employers to pay the feds the demanded booty, they are nevertheless ineligible for Social Security from those earnings. But they are “taxpayers.” Do they thus share in ownership of U.S. “public property”?

And also, do you divide ranks in “public property” ownership”? For instance, do very wealthy people have a higher percentage of ownership than lower-class workers, and thus have more ownership rights of control than the others? What if many wealthy progressive thinkers have a larger percentage of ownership/control, and want to have marijuana dispensaries, abortion clinics, etc. on “public property,” but a minority of the tax-payers disagree with that scheme? Is that legitimate?

When Hoppe says that public property is the “property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners,” what about domestic non-taxpayers? What about “citizens” (non-foreigners) who do work for a living, but don’t make enough to be required to have to pay income taxes? Are they denied rights of exclusion or inclusion because of this? So in other words, those who don’t pay the feds anything in tax-thefts should have the same denied rights of access to public property as the foreigners/non-“citizens”?

And also, it seems here in Hoppe’s justification of taxpayers’ involuntary ownership of public property he apparently, at least for this topic, accepts the State’s existence. Although he does admit that “the State is a criminal organization,” but its inaction regarding border control “will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry.” Does Hoppe here seem to abandon his description of so-called “fake libertarians” at the very beginning of the speech, in which he says a “fake libertarian” is one who “affirms or advocates” “the necessity of a State” or “of public or State property”?

Now back to Hoppe’s recent speech (as shown at the top), he states that “immigration must be by invitation only,” and that “immigrants must be productive people and hence, be barred from all domestic welfare payments.” But he gets into a lengthy discussion of his proposed rules that seem very central planning-like, in my view.

For instance, immigrants “or their inviting party must place a bond with the community in which they are to settle, and which is to be forfeited and lead to the immigrant’s deportation should he ever become a public burden.”

And with whom in the community will such a bond be placed? Who is to be in charge of that? What if a foreigner peacefully travels to the community and doesn’t give anyone a bond?

So are you saying that the immigrant is morally obligated to pay some third party some payment, without any voluntary, mutually-agreeable contract? What if he finds a room to rent or buys a home, who is it that owns the property? Does the individual landlord or property seller own the property, or does the community share in ownership of those properties? Is the entire community collectively owned by its inhabitants (regardless of separate private property parcels)?

It seems to me that Hoppe is suggesting that the community shares in ownership of property within the community. Not good.

In the just society, each property owner has full, 100% sovereignty over one’s property and its property title that he and only he may decide to whom to transfer, and he and only he may decide to whom to rent, and for whatever reason.

Hoppe continues: “As well, every immigrant, inviting party or employer should not only pay for the immigrant’s upkeep or salary, but must also pay the residential community for the additional wear and tear of its public facilities associated with the immigrant’s presence, so as to avoid the socialization of any and all costs incurred with his settlement.”

Who is going to decide how much “wear and tear” one immigrant has caused or might cause in the future? Who has the authority to charge the employer such a fee and decide how much to charge? Sounds very central-planning, if you ask me.

This all sounds very communal or “private club”-like to me, and seems to abandon the principles of private property and freedom of association. My neighbor doesn’t own my property and has no authority to dictate to me whom to let on my property, quite frankly.

And Hoppe continues: “Moreover, even before his admission, every potential immigrant invitee must be carefully screened and tested not only for his productivity but also for cultural affinity (or ‘good neighborliness’)…”

“Carefully screened”? By whom? The employer? Landlord? Prospective home seller? The community? Who will be in charge of this? Who owns the lives of the immigrants? Do they lose their self-ownership when moving to a new territory, even though they are peaceful and there’s no reason to think they might be a burden on the public? What if some family from a different area just moves into a home they’ve bought or rented and they don’t submit to screening, and there’s no reason to suspect them of not having “good neighborliness”? How about just letting property owners, businessmen and home sellers make those decisions, not by some some preset rules but by random events that take into account multiple, spontaneous factors? Whatever happened to Hoppe’s promotion of “Natural Order”?

So Hoppe’s “right of exclusion” seems to mean that the collective public may decide who gets in and who stays out. But how? By some sort of democratic vote? How else could a large group, such as U.S. taxpayers who supposedly own the public property, be able to come to a decision regarding who gets in and who stays out?

The true free market way is when an individual anywhere in the world who wants to make a better life for himself and his family travels to wherever he sees an opportunity, as long as he doesn’t violate the persons or property of another. He can rent a home or purchase one from a willing landlord or seller. And the property owner who rents out or sells a home is the owner, not his neighbors or the community.

I don’t see any moral obligation to pay the community some advance tribute, as the aforementioned family never entered into any contract with the “community,” only the employer, landlord or home seller, etc.

The end.

The “Libertarian” Party Continues to Stray in 2020

I was going to write another scathing critique of the “Libertarian” Party in its nominating someone to be its 2020 Presidential nominee other than the one who actually got the most votes during the primaries. But I have moderated my scathing critique to being a little less scathing.

In a virtual convention in May (virtual because of the scamdemic panic and hysteria and irrational cancellations), the delegates to the LP convention nominated 63-year-old psychology professor Jo Jorgensen for President, and 38-year-old retired web designer Spike Cohen to be their VP nominee.

Meanwhile, actual Libertarian Party voters in primaries gave Jacob Hornberger 9,035 votes with 7 state wins, while they gave Jo Jorgensen 5,034 votes with 2 state wins. At the virtual convention in May, there were 4 rounds of votes by delegates, who despite the difference in popular vote nevertheless gave Jorgensen the nomination. (Info from Wikipedia on the primaries and the LP national convention.)

I had been annoyed at the Libertarians giving Jorgensen the nomination and not Jacob Hornberger, given his apparent better understanding of and communicating the principles of libertarianism, and the need for dismantling the welfare/warfare state and especially its enabler the IRS, and also given that he had received many more votes from actual grassroots libertarian voters than Jorgensen had received.

However, I can see one possible reason why Jorgensen received more endorsements by former candidates and delegates to the convention, that being that Hornberger may have been a bit too aggressive in his style of campaigning and/or writing on his campaign blog. One example was a.) his criticism of candidate Adam Kokesh’s answer to a debate question on Medicare, and b.) the accusation that Hornberger lied about Kokesh’s position.

Now, it seems to me that Hornberger didn’t lie about Kokesh but had not stated clearly what Kokesh’s view on Medicare was. But I think the damage was done, and this episode may have influenced some convention delegates in the negative direction. So much for the “will of the voters” in the primaries.

Another issue is that Hornberger isn’t afraid to say exactly what needs to be done. Some people just don’t like that. They are “afraid of losing votes” in the general election. Gary Johnson was a principles-compromiser in the extreme, although probably more because he just doesn’t understand the actual principles of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle, self-ownership and non-interventionism most of all.

For instance, abolish the CIA, the IRS, as well as the other totalitarian agencies. Kokesh also has made it clear that those things must not exist in a free society.

In his criticism of the aforementioned debate among several LP candidates that Hornberger attended but did not participate in, Hornberger noted that Jorgensen’s response to the question on Medicare was “Jo Jorgenson answered that healthcare costs be cut so that expenses go down.” So it appears to me that she is yet another “libertarian” candidate who is afraid to say that Medicare must be abolished (along with HHS and IRS, etc.) so that medical patients and doctors can establish their own payment contracts and it would be much easier for doctors to treat those in financial need for free, like it used to be.

Another possible reason the “Libertarian” Party conventioneers voted for Jo Jorgensen and not Jacob Hornberger is that the Party hacks maybe wanted to have a female nominee in the name of this more recent “social justice virtue signalling” phenomenon. The “social justice” mentality seems to have pervaded every aspect of daily life now, unfortunately.

One example of that “social justice virtue signalling” with the 2020 Libertarian Party convention was the LP’s selection of a keynote speaker. According to Wikipedia, “Black Guns Matter founder…Maj Toure was initially chosen to be…keynote speaker. This changed in November 2019, when Convention Oversight Committee Chairman Daniel Hayes rescinded Toure’s invitation…(citing) tweets posted by Toure that were perceived as being transphobic and anti-immigrant.” I’m trying to find any reference to Toure’s “transphobic” tweets online, but can’t find any. What exactly IS “transphobic”?

The LP then replaced Maj Toure with Larry Sharpe, the statist “libertarian” who, in his campaign for governor of New York in 2018, wrote in his policy page:

While Larry believes in freedom of association, he recognizes the need for measures that ensure marginalized groups, like transgender people, are protected. He supports band-aid measures, including GENDA, which is a law with specific components intended to protect people from discrimination due to their gender identification.” Excuse me, Larry, but the concepts of self-ownership and freedom of thought and conscience require that people be allowed to “discriminate” in their associations, their contracts and trades, and every other way, and for ANY reason!

Sharpe continues: “To truly advance rights for transgender people, as well as all those within the LGBTQ+ populace, it is ultimately Larry’s goal to encourage a culture that no longer requires these types of laws. We must work towards acceptance.” Excuse me, Larry, but many people don’t and won’t accept the LGBT agenda, homosexuality, or transgenderism, and they have a right to NOT accept those lifestyles if they don’t want to!

And he concludes: “It is imperative to acknowledge that if an individual’s actions have no impact on ourselves or others, nobody else has the right to assert dominion over that person’s identity or lifestyle.” Sorry, Larry, but people who don’t accept those lifestyles are not “trying to assert dominion” over those people’s identity or lifestyle, it’s quite the opposite! When a lesbian couple goes to court to force a baker to have to make a cake for them or else pay a fine, who is “asserting dominion”?

The intolerance of the “social justice” crowd now is that if someone doesn’t accept and bow down to “alternative lifestyles” they are shunned, shamed, banned from Twitter, fired from their jobs, sued, etc. Who is “asserting dominion” over whom, Larry (and all the other “social justice warriors” out there)?

Incidentally, Jo Jorgensen had proposed a slogan “I’m With Her,” referring to the Hillary Clinton “I’m With Her” slogan, and it seemed to get the thumbs down on that Twitter thread. (Although further down that thread she says it’s “just a joke.” Well, that’s good.)

So, the irrational “social justice” crap seems to have been infiltrated into the “Libertarian” Party just like most other areas of society, and the LP no longer seems to be concerned with being the Party of the non-aggression principle.

However, Jorgensen’s Issues page on Neutrality and Peace seems to say some right things. But she doesn’t get into the national security state in general, she doesn’t say we must abolish the CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, TSA, ICE, etc., etc., which Jacob Hornberger has been saying for decades, along with Ron Paul.

But on Health Care she writes: “We can reduce the cost of health care 75% by allowing real price competition, and by substantially reducing government and insurance company paperwork. This will make health care affordable for most Americans, while also reducing the cost of legacy programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA.” Where’s “abolish”?

And on Taxes, she writes: “As President, I will work tirelessly to slash federal spending, make government much, much smaller, and let you keep what you earn.” Why isn’t she saying, “Government taxation of private wealth and income is theft. It must ALL be abolished forthwith!“? And, I think she really needs to say, “I will abolish the IRS and all taxes. And if Congress doesn’t go along, I will actively not enforce the income tax and other federal taxes by not only pardoning any ‘violator’ of any federal tax law but I will have arrested any agent attempting to enforce such ‘laws.’ If I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, then that includes the Bill of Rights.”

I think that for the Libertarian Party to be consistent in its principles, it really has to acknowledge on its platform that the ultimate goal is to abolish the government completely, or at least the U.S. government a.k.a. criminal racket in Washington. But they don’t do that. Therefore, the Party is a statist party, just like the Republicrats and the Demopublicans.

But the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential nominee, Spike Cohen, has the right idea, at least on his website:

Because you own yourself, you own your life and labor.

Because you own your labor, you own the product of your labor. That product is your property.

Because you own yourself, your life, your labor and your property (including money), it is inherently wrong for anyone to take any of these from you.

If someone calls themselves “the government”, that doesn’t suddenly make it right for them to take from you.  Therefore, all government is inherently wrong and should end.

I am running for VP on a message of radical libertarianism; that is, that all interactions between people should be peaceful and voluntary, and that therefore there is no good reason for government to exist.

Nobody Is Running for Governor of New Hampshire

There is a candidate for governor of New Hampshire that I thought you might find of interest, especially if you live in New Hampshire and want to oust the current fascist governor, Chris Sununu, who ordered businesses closed for no good reason, just like all the other fascist governors throughout the country.

The candidate who is running against Sununu in the Republican primary is someone named Nobody. Apparently, Nobody legally changed his name from Richard Paul to “Nobody” last year for the purposes of “performance art and protest,” according to his statement in the court.

And while Nobody is running in the Republican primary, there is a Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot, Darryl Perry, who I had praised in my scathing critique of the Libertarian Party in 2016. At that time Perry was running for President, but now running for governor of New Hampshire. Unfortunately, his platform seems kind of wishy-washy. That’s just my view on that.

So, if I were living in New Hampshire, I would vote for Nobody, though I am uncomfortable with the marijuana stuff. But, whatever.

Nobody’s main issue is ending the War on Drugs, which he had personally been a victim of. And the corrupt criminal injustice system, false arrests, and so on.

In the video below is Nobody filing for his Declaration of Candidacy for governor against fascist Chris Sununu in the New Hampshire Republican primary at the Secretary of State’s office which is set up outside (being outside presumably because of the ongoing scamdemic-caused hysteria and panic).

Nobody eloquently quotes the Declaration of Independence because obviously he has a very good understanding of it. (Quite the opposite from Chris Sununu, the son of a previous fascist governor of New Hampshire.) Nobody says that instead of government being the chief protector of our rights, government has become the chief violator of our rights. “Government does things that nobody should do, and I want to get into office and refuse to do them.”

Amen.

On his list of things to do as governor: “Release list of crooked cops.”

Yep.

Justin Amash: Another Gary Johnson Statist to Exploit the Libertarian Party? Again? (Updated)

(Updated below)

It appears that Congressman Justin Amash is getting more support among Libertarian Party primary voters. Previous to statist Amash’s announcement that he wants to run for President as a “libertarian,” Jacob Hornberger had been winning all or most of the primaries and caucuses thus far. (Jacob Hornberger actually IS a libertarian!)

The latest is in Kentucky apparently, in which as each round of voting progresses, Amash is gaining more and more votes, and Jacob Hornberger eventually eliminated. Hmm, what’s wrong with the “Libertarian” Party members in Kentucky?

And I found this article on Reason by Brian Doherty distressing, mentioning Amash as the possible “frontrunner,” even though Hornberger had been winning all the primaries and caucuses. Doherty doesn’t even mention Hornberger! Yet, he’s mentioning the non-libertarian statist, Amash!

On his campaign wins thus far, Jacob Hornberger wrote,

Thank you to all of you Libertarians in Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, and Connecticut. It is a big honor to win your vote of confidence. I only wish we could have gotten together personally in state conventions so that you all could charge up my Libertarian batteries!

These four wins now add to our first-place finishes in straw polls at state conventions in California, Florida, Arkansas, Indiana, Virginia, Montana (tie), along with Libertarian Party primary election wins in North Carolina, California, Missouri, and New York, as well as caucus wins in Iowa, Minnesota, and Ohio.

Hornberger also wrote some posts criticizing Amash’s positions on CIA, the stimulus package, sanctions on Iran, and he’s had more similar posts since those.

Justin Amash is just another statist, just like Gary Johnson and Bob Barr. Amash is NOT a “libertarian,” and should be rejected by the Libertarian Party. If not, then finally the Party needs to be disbanded forthwith!

UPDATE: Amash has decided against running.

Libertarian-Based Talks on Coronavirus Panic

Jacob Hornberger and Richard Ebeling of the Future of Freedom Foundation discuss the coronavirus panic and the libertarian answer to the problem.

James Corbett and James Even Pilato discuss medical martial law with coronavirus panic:

And Larken Rose discusses coronavirus predictions:

Democrats Rigging Debates and Primaries Again; Libertarians a Better Alternative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you a voter? I’m not.

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