“Since our party’s inception, we have advocated for dismantling government-run schooling, insisting that parents, teachers, and communities, not federal bureaucrats, are best equipped to guide children’s educational paths.
“For decades, the Department of Education has centralized power, diverted critical funding, and imposed rigid, one-size-fits-all regulations on local schools,” said LNC Chair Steven Nekhaila.
LIBERTARIAN newsletter
President Trump has officially signed an Executive Order to begin dismantling the Department of Education, marking what the Libertarian Party views as a pivotal, though partial, victory in the fight to remove government control from America’s classrooms. Since our party’s inception, we have advocated for dismantling government-run schooling, insisting that parents, teachers, and communities, not federal bureaucrats, are best equipped to guide children’s educational paths. Help us continue to push the narrative toward true educational freedom >>> “For decades, the Department of Education has centralized power, diverted critical funding, and imposed rigid, one-size-fits-all regulations on local schools,” said LNC Chair Steven Nekhaila. “Today’s action rolls back one layer of that federal overreach, allowing states and localities to innovate and tailor education to the unique needs of their students. We applaud President Trump for taking this bold step, one that paves the way for true educational freedom.” While President Trump’s Executive Order has started the process, it still needs to pass a Congressional vote to be fully enacted (such as Thomas Massie’s H.R.899 Bill to Terminate the DOE), and even under Trump’s order the DOE will continue to function as a dealer of student loans. The Libertarian Party maintains that education should be voluntarily funded and freed from government interference.
The big problem with our society is that we do not have enough gangs. Gangs are good. Gangs create jobs. Gangs stop petty thievery in their own neighborhoods. Did I mention that gangs are good? Young boys need role models. Who better to serve in this capacity that, you guessed it, gangsters.
So far we have gangs what produce heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl. This is all to the good. But we need more such.
I have a modest proposal. Let us now ban chocolate, along with all these other addictive drugs. Chocolate is pretty much as addictive as is any of these other addictive substances. I’m living proof of that. I can’t keep my mitts off of this foodstuff, and neither could Homer Simpson! Lots of people need their fix of this delicious sweet concoction.
What will happen if my modest proposal is adopted? (This phrase is original with me; Jonathan Swift, Taylor Swift’s secret son, plagiarized this phrase from me). Will people obey this new law and stop eating this ingredient, cease and desist from mixing its powder with their milk, sprinkling it onto their ice-cream? You gotta be kidding. Fughedaboudit. If there is one thing we can rely upon in this vale of tears it is that people have to have their chocolate fix.
What, then, will occur? Who will supply this drug? Nestles? Hershey? Of course not. They will go broke immediately since they are law-abiding concerns, and its production is now illegal, if I have my way. They are not gangsters! The production of this substance will now be driven underground. Secret laboratories will produce it. Will they make it available to consumers? Of course. Who else? But it will not appear any longer in grocery stores and supermarkets. Rather, it will be sold on street corners in rough neighborhoods and in speakeasies.
The quality of this product will readily decrease. There will be “bathtub chocolate.” The costs and subsequent price will rise. But that is a small negative to endure. We’ve all gotta have our fix. Plus, the coffers of gangsters will rise. Have you forgotten so quickly that gangs are good? If so, reread from above.
Gang wars will of course break out. They will fight over chocolate turf. This, too, will keep the economy going. There will be a big boost in demand for guns and bullets. This will, in turn, help the lead and metal industries. Cemeteries, too, will do a land office business, not only with dead gangsters, but innocents too, caught in the cross fire. Undertakers will have a field day. The GDP will hit the roof. What moral, rational, person could oppose any of this?
The problem with marijuana is that it is not legalized in all too many states, and not just for medical purposes. There are even vaping establishments, forsooth. Is this any way to run an economy? Of course not. We must now re-prohibit pot.
The same goes for alcohol. Have we not learned anything from the end of prohibition? In the good old days we had bathtub gin, speakeasys, all sorts of great fun. Now the entire industry, I hate to say this in a family periodical such as this, is boring. Yes, boring! Let’s bring back a bit of life, ok, ok, death too, in the provision of beer, wine and liquor, say I.
It cannot be denied that if we legalized drugs, all of them, without any exception whatsoever, the cartels will turn more to other occupations, some of which they already engage in, such as kidnapping, murder for hire, etc. The gangsters are not exactly choir boys (but, remember, they are good!). But right now, under prohibition these are just mere sidelines. They specialize in drugs because that is where the big bucks are. Willie Sutton, the bank robber, was once asked why he targeted these establishments. “That’s where they keep the money” he replied (he also plagiarized this statement from yours truly).
In like manner, gangs focus on drugs because they have a comparative advantage in this field. Were this not the case, they would focus their attention elsewhere. We may deduce from this contrary to fact conditional that this is where they think the most profits lie.
So are you with me folks? Three cheers for chocolate prohibition.
The Stamp Act wasn’t just about taxes—it was about government overreach, economic control, and the denial of individual liberty. The American colonists understood what too many politicians today forget: government will always find excuses to take more from the people unless they are stopped.
Stamp Act
On this day, March 22, 1765, the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act, imposing direct taxes on the American colonies by requiring them to purchase official stamped paper for legal documents, newspapers, and even playing cards. This blatant act of taxation without representation ignited colonial resistance and helped spark the American Revolution.
The Stamp Act wasn’t just about taxes—it was about government overreach, economic control, and the denial of individual liberty. The American colonists understood what too many politicians today forget: government will always find excuses to take more from the people unless they are stopped.
As Libertarians, we continue this tradition of opposing this government overreach. While the common rallying cry was that “taxation without representation” was theft, we take that one step further by declaring that any taxation without consent of the person being taxed is theft. Nobody has the right to the products of your labor and this is true even if many people believe they are. We relentlessly point out that the natural state of government is expansion. Any chance a politician or bureaucrat has to take an inch, they’ll take it, but they will also try for a mile. The tax rates the founding fathers rebelled over are nothing compared to the burdensome tax bill the average American faces every year.
But the founding fathers didn’t just complain about these injustices, they took action. They protested and boycotted and formed groups like the Sons of Liberty to oppose these actions by the British. In less than a year, Britain was forced to repeal the tax.
The Stamp Act may be history, but the fight against government overreach is just as relevant today. Whether it’s taxation, corporate bailouts, or endless regulations, the government continues to take from people while failing at many of their most basic tasks. They would rather spend that money on their pet projects, useless boondoggles, funding ridiculous research, or giving your money to their friends in other countries. The lesson from the Stamp Act is clear, sitting back and complaining won’t make a difference, change comes from action. A small group of dedicated activists took on the most powerful nation of their time and birthed a nation founded on the principles of life, liberty, and property. Are you ready to take action?
Without a heavy emphasis on gathering the public, congressional, bureaucratic, and legal support to abolish the income tax, the far likelier outcome of Trump’s interest in tariffs is a system where the income tax remains in place, and tariffs are added on top of it. (emphasis added)
Obviously, people assumed then as they do today, that other people will be taxed and burdened, that they will not, and/or that if the government taxes other people, they will receive some of it. Historically, this is not the case.
Income taxation appeals to the governing class because in its everlasting urgency for power it needs money.
Income taxation appeals to the mass of people because it gives expression to their envy; it salves their sense of hurt. (emphasis in original)
Much has been written recently on Trump’s statements regarding tariffs and even his idea to replace income tax with tariffs. Writings have tackled the economic destructiveness of tariffs, how they raise increase costs, how they affect capital goods, how they are protective and a limitation of competition for special interests, how a choice must be made between revenue from tariffs and protecting American jobs, etc. This is nothing new for Mises.org, in fact, Austrianeconomists and other fellow travelers have held the same positions on tariffs for centuries and “tariffs” have been one of the most popular searches on the Mises.org site for the last several months.
This article on tariffs will focus in on a simple, but insightful, point made recently by Connor O’Keeffe regarding replacing the income tax with tariffs,
Because of how unfathomably damaging the income tax is, it could certainly be the case that a tariff-only tax system would be less destructive than what we have today. But just as with government spending, in Washington, it is much harder to eliminate a tax than it is to add a new one. Without a heavy emphasis on gathering the public, congressional, bureaucratic, and legal support to abolish the income tax, the far likelier outcome of Trump’s interest in tariffs is a system where the income tax remains in place, and tariffs are added on top of it. (emphasis added)
This quote reminded me of an important point made by Frank Chodorov in his excellent The Income Tax: Root of All Evil (which Connor referenced). While it would be great to get rid of the income tax, even if we still had tariffs, we will probably end up with both income tax and tariffs.
Chodorov was part of the anti-New Deal Old Right and wrote this book in the 1950s, which was dedicated to Albert J. Nock. In his book, he details some of the history leading up to the adoption of the 16th Amendment and income tax in the United States. The situation from 1890-1913—which Trump admires—was sort of a mirror image of what is being proposed today: they had tariffs and many believed that income tax would replace tariffs. Instead, they got both. Chodorov’s words provide us with some much-needed wisdom.
The temporary income tax of the Civil War was scheduled to end in 1870, but was extended to 1872. While there were benefits of relatively low taxes and greater industrial production, the government monetary inflation and cronyism brought some instability during this period, which helped prepare the populace for the “reform” of the Fed. This instability—plus tariffs hitting farmers harder, plus the envy and class warfare of socialist doctrines, plus the labor union movement and beginning of the Progressive movement—created a ripe environment for resentment. Unfortunately, this resentment, as it often does, led to calls for more power and money to the government in the name of equalizing different groups.
Chodorov frankly acknowledges what had been a complaint throughout the 1800s, “The plight of these farmers was made worse by the protective-tariff policy of the government.” This was true enough, as was the recognition of cronyism, especially for railroad companies. In this context, many began to call for an income tax against the “rich” (presumably instead of tariffs). Chodorov explains,
So, during the latter part of the nineteenth century, Americans took to the class-war doctrine recently imported by the socialists; here was a plausible cause of all their misfortunes, a logical scapegoat for their dissatisfaction. And the words that hung on the lips of the country were “plutocracy” and “robber barons” and “bloated rich” and “money bags,” with suitable overtones. Also, since the opulence of the country was concentrated in the East, sectionalism added fire to the class-war doctrine, and “Wall Street” became the ultimate cause of all the economic ills of the country.
Like many throughout history who neglect the coherence of libertarian casteanalysis, many Americans sought government growth. The obvious non sequitur should have been noticed. Why would giving the government more power and money be the solution? Obviously, people assumed then as they do today, that other people will be taxed and burdened, that they will not, and/or that if the government taxes other people,they will receive some of it. Historically, this is not the case. The political class—those responsible for the inflationary booms and deflationary busts, tariffs, and cronyism—are supposed to solve the problems if they only receive more money and power. Chodorov explains what the appeal of income tax was,
Income taxation appeals to the governing class because in its everlasting urgency for power it needs money.
Income taxation appeals to the mass of people because it gives expression to their envy; it salves their sense of hurt. (emphasis in original)
While the political class ought to be held to the highest accountability, the masses who support them in the hope that they will benefit deserve blame too. “Envy” is a key word here. It is not the same as greed, jealousy, or covetousness, envy has to do with willingness to see something destroyed for others because it cannot be possessed. Envy is key to socialism because it is a system that can only destroy wealth and production, not create it. Through envy, the masses empower the political class, thinking they will somehow benefit. Chodorov starkly reminds us,
The only beneficiaries of income taxation are the politicians, for it not only gives them the means by which they can increase their emoluments but it also enables them to improve their importance.
Another unjustified assumption in the push for the income tax was that the income tax would replace the tariff. People rightly recognized that tariffs fell harder on certain populations and certain regions and were protectionist special privileges for certain businesses against foreign competition (at the expense of Americans), but the government significantly depended on tariffs for revenue, therefore, “the Populists were prepared with their cherished ‘soak the rich’ proposal, the income tax.”
Americans saw tariffs and income tax as an either/or trade-off, but it would shortly be revealed as a both/and—tariffs and income tax. An 1894 bill and several income tax bills introduced afterward “linked tariff reduction with income taxation.” This connection was a fiction. Chodorov explains, “Not until the constitutional amendment was passed by Congress was the fiction dropped that tariff reduction and income taxation are related.” Wisely, Chodorov reiterated a principle we would do well to remember, “[Government] never gives up power; it never abdicates.” We could argue that people should have known better back then, but they could argue that we should know better now. Chodorov argued from experience too,
The reason Johnson’s statement is so important is he is admitting that war could have been prevented.
At the Institute, we have thoroughly documented all the opportunities to end the war in Ukraine that were rejected or prevented, not by Putin, but Zelensky, Ukrainian neo-Nazis, or Ukraine’s Western backers.
-Kyle Anzalone
In a conversation on the TRIGGERnometry podcast, former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson explained that Ukrainian President Zelensky attempted to make a deal with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in 2019, but was prevented from doing so by Ukrainian nationalists.
“You got to remember that Zelensky is not an unreasonable guy. He got elected really as a peacenik. [In] 2019, he tried to do a deal with Putin, as far as I can remember, his basic problem was that, you know, the Ukrainian nationalists couldn’t accept the compromise.”
The event in question was documented by Alex Rubinstein and Max Blumenthal:
“Back in October 2019, as the war in eastern Ukraine dragged on, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky traveled to Zolote, a town situated firmly in the ‘gray zone’ of Donbas, where over 14,000 had been killed, mostly on the pro-Russian side. There, the president encountered the hardened veterans of extreme right paramilitary units keeping up the fight against separatists just a few miles away.
Elected on a platform of de-escalation of hostilities with Russia, Zelensky was determined to enforce the so-called Steinmeier Formula conceived by then-German Foreign Minister Walter Steinmeier which called for elections in the Russian-speaking regions of Donetsk and Lugansk.
In a face-to-face confrontation with militants from the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion who had launched a campaign to sabotage the peace initiative called ‘No to Capitulation,’ Zelensky encountered a wall of obstinacy.
With appeals for disengagement from the frontlines firmly rejected, Zelensky melted down on camera. ‘I’m the president of this country. I’m 41 years old. I’m not a loser. I came to you and told you: remove the weapons,’ Zelensky implored the fighters.
Once video of the stormy confrontation spread across Ukrainian social media channels, Zelensky became the target of an angry backlash.
Andriy Biletsky, the proudly fascist Azov Battalion leader who once pledged to ‘lead the white races of the world in a final crusade…against Semite-led Untermenschen,’ vowed to bring thousands of fighters to Zolote if Zelensky pressed any further. Meanwhile, a parliamentarian from the party of former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko openly fantasized about Zelensky being blown to bits by a militant’s grenade.”
The reason Johnson’s statement is so important is he is admitting that war could have been prevented.
At the Institute, we have thoroughly documented all the opportunities to end the war in Ukraine that were rejected or prevented, not by Putin, but Zelensky, Ukrainian neo-Nazis, or Ukraine’s Western backers.
Be sure to read Ted Snider’s weekly articles, often discussing the sabotaged peace opportunities in Ukraine. And of course, the most thought retelling of events, Scott Horton’s Provoked.
To ensure that we can continue to debunk NATO propaganda, donate to the Institute today. If you make a significant contribution to our ongoing spring fund drive, you can receive a signed copy of Scott’s book.
The United States Marine Corps has warned that the constant support it has provided to Ukraine’s military over the last three years of war has significantly drained its own supplies and could impact war readiness. This was the testimony of the second highest-ranked Marine, Gen. Christopher Mahoney (assistant commandant of the Marines), to a Senate subcommittee on Wednesday.
“The Marine Corps has provided over $2 billion [replacement cost about $5 billion] in equipment and munitions to the Armed Forces of Ukraine via PDA presidential drawdown authority],” Mahoney said in his opening statement.
Image: Department of Defense
“Replacement and reimbursement for these inventory losses are needed to rebuild the depth of magazine needed to gain and maintain lost proficiency,” the General added.
He emphasized that “significant challenges” remain the meet production demands needed to replenish Marine Corps arms and equipment handed over to Ukraine:
“Though some funds have been reimbursed through PDA replenishment funds, the defense industrial base (DIB) faces significant challenges in meeting production demands for replenishment.”
Mahoney continued, “New procurement lead times delay replenishment, as existing programmed deliveries take priority. To mitigate impacts, the Marine Corps has adjusted training allocations and inventory management.”
“The military industrial complex demands about $50 billion per year in war. As soon as we quit spending $50b per year in Afghanistan, we started spending $50b per year in Ukraine. Watch where the next $50b per year goes when we stop sending it to Ukraine. The MIC is always hungry.”
The Debrief – Libertarian Institute
America’s best lawmaker, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, offered a key foreign policy insight rarely ever uttered by a US politician. Washington, he said, always keeps at least one war going in order to feed the sprawling Military-Industrial Complex – which stands to rake in vast sums of taxpayer money from deadly conflicts abroad.
In a banger social media post on Monday morning, Massey wrote:
“The military industrial complex demands about $50 billion per year in war. As soon as we quit spending $50b per year in Afghanistan, we started spending $50b per year in Ukraine. Watch where the next $50b per year goes when we stop sending it to Ukraine. The MIC is always hungry.”
His observation is important. Sure, we can pressure the War Party to wind down an intervention every now and then; however, the White House is constantly agitating for the next one, keeping the war machine well fed.
In the halls of power in Washington, virtually everyone calling to end US involvement in Ukraine or the Middle East is only doing so to allow the Pentagon to prepare for a coming war with China over Taiwan.
We need real reform in the US foreign policy establishment, which must abandon all pretensions to Empire. It’s time to close the hundreds of overseas bases, bring the troops home, and stop squandering trillions of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars on disastrous foreign adventures.
At the Institute we are dedicated to this mission. We see a bright future possible for America if we can break the hold the MIC has long had over our government. Help us make it a reality.
• On Conflicts of Interest, I discuss the latest from Ukraine and the Middle East, including President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky to finally hold elections after a lengthy wartime hiatus.
• Regular Institute contributor Bill Buppert delves into the murky world of private military contractors on the latest episode of WarNotes.
In my latest op-ed, I argue that the war in Ukraine could’ve been ended through a negotiated settlement long ago. It’s not clear Washington truly wants that, however.
“Before the invasion and in the early months of the war, Putin made serious offers to both Washington and Kiev to allow eastern and southern Ukraine to remain under Kiev’s control if the country agreed not to join NATO.
The Joe Biden administration outright refused to negotiate on those terms, even if they were acceptable to Kiev. Preventing those talks from occurring first provoked the Russian invasion, then prevented it from ending within a few months.”
The great Jim Bovard pushes back on recent comments from Trump insisting the USA has always been a bastion of individual liberty, recounting a number of grave exceptions to that claim.
“Americans are indoctrinated in government schools to presume that our national DNA practically guarantees we will always be free. But few follies are more perilous than presuming that individual rights are safe in perpetuity. None of the arguments on why liberty is inevitable can explain why it is becoming an endangered species. Presuming that freedom is our destiny lulls people against political predators.
Sorting out the absurdities in Trump’s “always be free” assertion is like peeling a political onion.”
Stand with The Libertarian InstitutePlease consider supporting our work to keep this operation on its feet.
“It is the same Republican Party that weaponized debt concerns under Obama, only to balloon spending under Trump, Biden, and every administration before them. They do not fear big government; they fear accountability.
“Massie’s vote is a reminder that true liberty will never come from the two-party duopoly. He is carrying the spirit of Ron Paul and the founding principles of this country on his back while the GOP, the self-proclaimed “party of limited government,” turns against him.
From The Libertarian Party Newsletter
While Republicans campaign on promises of fiscal conservatism, Thomas Massie has once again proven he is one of the only members of Congress who truly means it. By standing firm and pledging to vote against the latest Continuing Resolution (CR), Massie refuses to play along with the never-ending expansion of government that both major parties enable.
Yet instead of being applauded, he is now under attack. Not just from Democrats, but from his own party and even Donald Trump himself.
This is the same Donald Trump whose supporters just celebrated mass audits of government waste, fraud, and abuse, yet now advocate for kicking the can down the road and continuing to fund that very corruption.
It is the same Republican Party that weaponized debt concerns under Obama, only to balloon spending under Trump, Biden, and every administration before them. They do not fear big government; they fear accountability.
Massie’s vote is a reminder that true liberty will never come from the two-party duopoly. He is carrying the spirit of Ron Paul and the founding principles of this country on his back while the GOP, the self-proclaimed “party of limited government,” turns against him.
Libertarians recognize this betrayal for what it is: a warning that the Republican Party will always cast aside its most principled members when they become inconvenient.
Massie is not just one Congressman; he represents every American who believes in real fiscal responsibility and the fight for limited government. When they attack him, they attack all of us.
The Libertarian Party stands in unwavering support of Massie’s commitment to principle. We will not back down, and we will not forget those who have exposed themselves as frauds.
To the Republicans who pretend to be the party of smaller government: If you have no place for Thomas Massie, then you have no place for liberty.
MCViewPoint 