MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The State is Nothing But Appetite

Posted by M. C. on February 11, 2025

by Oscar Grau

While the state cannot achieve everything, it can certainly achieve much, because the state is the monopoly of monopolies—the one and only that makes all other monopolies possible.

The state admits no competition to its supreme authority. And while it concentrates power in an essential sense, the state also extends or divides this power, whenever those who hold it see fit to extend or divide it in order to expand or protect their own power.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/the-state-is-nothing-but-appetite/

depositphotos 10329262 l

Be it the group that controls the state apparatus or the one that represents the institution of government, let us simply refer to the state.

While the state cannot achieve everything, it can certainly achieve much, because the state is the monopoly of monopolies—the one and only that makes all other monopolies possible. First, the state is the compulsory territorial monopoly of the services of justice (law) and security (order), which, with institutional power to impose property transfers (taxes) for its maintenance, takes by force or threat the final decisions in society. And second, the state is legitimized by opinion (ideology), which reinforces its existence and intrusion in other fields of social life. Thus, to achieve its goals, the state legislates through its jurisdictional monopoly and educates—mind molds—its subjects to alleviate any opposition.

The state rules its subjects by tampering with their right to self-defense; their right to associate and agree on their terms, and to contract and agree on the protection and enforcement of these terms. And since the norms of the just acquisition of property are not a restriction on the state, because it assigns property to itself not through original appropriation or voluntary transfer of property, the state corrupts an otherwise entirely peace-oriented social order—one of full private property. Therefore, the state stands in the way of its alleged goal of protecting peace and social life, because it systematically violates peace in the attempt of this protection. To further explain, given that conflict is possible but not inevitable, as philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe notes:

“…it is nonsensical to consider the institution of a state as a solution to the problem of possible conflict, because it is precisely the institution of a state which first makes conflict unavoidable and permanent.”

As the state intervenes in social life, with no other limit than the one coming from any resistance to its authority, the state restricts social authority and any voluntary organization for conflict resolution or social regulation. Thus, the demonstrated preference for peace and cooperation on the part of most people is not only hindered but ignored systematically.

The state admits no competition to its supreme authority. And while it concentrates power in an essential sense, the state also extends or divides this power, whenever those who hold it see fit to extend or divide it in order to expand or protect their own power. Similarly, the state spares no effort to legislate against the strengthening of any authority in society contrary to the state’s wishes. Any authority that inspires genuine and voluntary respect is bound to be undermined. So, clubs, churches and all kinds of civil associations become increasingly subordinated to state legislation, the more they grow in influence and relevance. And then there is the intrusion into the family. Given that the family is the most important pillar of loyalty, cooperation and natural hierarchy in society, the pinnacle of state intervention is meddling in the affairs of the family.

The state distorts the development and functioning of social institutions, causing errors in the understanding of different—albeit fundamental—concepts within society: confusing freedom with state permission, and justice with the application of state-made law. In addition, the legislative power of the state is used to favor particular interests other than those created by the existence of the state. Along with this, the state generates conflicts and unrest through its legislation, provoking controversies and disputes that would not occur in its absence. The state invents “crimes” and “offenses,” even without victims, and puts the use of the state apparatus under discussion while it pits different groups against each other into ideological wars—on culture, religion, and more. So, the powers that be, through the institution of the state, divide the subjects to obtain support, according to need. In this process, the state benefits certain groups outside the state for specific reasons, with the help of the legal system managed by the same state.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Is This The Beatles’ Strangest Song? (No Chorus, Two Bridges!)

Posted by M. C. on February 10, 2025

My favorite!

A lot of music tech talk but still interesting.

Remember when oldsters told you how dumb and simple Beatles music was? This discussion puts that to rest.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Dean Acheson’s Taiwan Dilemma

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2025

by Joseph Solis-Mullen

“As economist Murray Rothbard noted at the time, this policy of defending Taiwan was always based on fallacious reasoning, parroted to this day by the current crop of hawks:

“A peaceful Pacific moat is needed for our defense. In order to protect this moat, we must secure friendly countries or bases all around it. To protect Japan and the Philippines, we must defend Formosa [Taiwan]. To protect Formosa we must defend the Pescadores. To protect the Pescadores we must defend Quemoy, an island three miles off the Chinese mainland. To protect Quemoy we must equip Chiang’s troops for an invasion of the mainland. Where does this process end? Logically, never.”

“And that is precisely the point.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/dean-achesons-taiwan-dilemma/

screenshot 2025 01 29 at 12.51.56 pm

In the aftermath of World War II, U.S. policymakers felt they faced an increasingly dire situation in China. By late 1949, Mao Zedong’s Communist forces had decisively defeated Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists (Kuomintang/KMT), pushing them off the mainland to Taiwan. In the mind of Dean Acheson, secretary of state under President Harry Truman, the collapse of the Nationalists raised pressing questions. Could Taiwan be held against a Communist invasion? And was Chiang Kai-shek the right leader for this task? Acheson’s initial plans, however fleeting, to replace Chiang underscore the uncertainty and improvisation that characterized U.S. strategy in the early Cold War, and the hubris of the policymakers in Washington, convinced of their right to run the world.

Chiang’s regime had long been viewed with skepticism by American officials, even during the wartime alliance against Japan. Rampant corruption, poor governance, and military failures left the KMT vulnerable to the Communist insurgency. By 1949, Acheson and many in the Truman administration believed that Chiang bore significant responsibility for the Nationalists’ defeat.

Acheson’s January 1950 white paper on China publicly declared that the United States had done all it could to support Chiang’s regime and absolved Washington of blame for his collapse. Privately, Acheson believed that continued support for Chiang could harm American credibility and that Taiwan’s future depended on new leadership. He and other officials entertained various proposals, including sidelining Chiang in favor of a more competent leader or placing Taiwan under an international trusteeship.

One idea floated within the State Department was to engineer a transition of power within the KMT, potentially elevating more reform-minded figures such as Sun Fo, the son of Sun Yat-sen. Other suggestions went further, advocating for the establishment of a coalition government that might include non-KMT factions to stabilize Taiwan’s governance and make it a stronger bulwark against communism.

Chiang was acutely aware of these discussions. In early 1950, he acted preemptively by arresting General Sun Li-jen, one of the most respected Nationalist military leaders. Often referred to as the “Rommel of the East,” Sun was widely admired in Washington for his competence and honesty, qualities that stood in stark contrast to the corruption and inefficiency of Chiang’s regime. Fearing that Sun was being groomed by the United States as a replacement, Chiang accused him of plotting a coup and placed him under house arrest, where he would remain for decades. This decisive move eliminated a potential rival and signaled Chiang’s refusal to cede power.

By June 1950, Acheson was still grappling with the question of Taiwan’s future. At a meeting held at the Willard Hotel in Washington DC, he and several senior officials discussed various scenarios for the island, including the possibility of replacing Chiang. The meeting reflected the depth of American frustration with Chiang’s leadership and the desire to stabilize Taiwan as a potential bulwark against communism.

However, events overtook these deliberations.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

VW Cancels a Device

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2025

By eric

CAFE has been used for decades to dwindle down the size of vehicles and of engines available in mass-market vehicles that working and middle class people used to be able to afford and with the doubling of the “standards” under the Biden Thing the pincers were about to close completely, effectively forcing everyone into a device.

The 2024 election just prevented that.

Here Duffy touches on something of critical importance in that CAFE “standards” are not constitutional because Congress didn’t pass a law requiring vehicle manufacturers to meet them.

More good news from the front lines – in the war against the pushing of devices.

VW has just announced it won’t be bringing one of its newest devices – the ID 7 sedan – to the United States. On account of “changing market conditions,” by which is meant there’s not much of a market for devices – and because of the changes ushered in with the ushering out of the Biden regime.

The new Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy, has “directed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to reconsider rules covering the 2022 model year through the 2031 model year for cars and trucks. The agency in June said it would hike Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements to about 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031 from 39.1 mpg currently for light-duty vehicles,” according to a report published by Automotive News

The headline of the Automotive News article reads: “Newly confirmed U.S. Transportation chief moves to repeal Biden vehicle fuel economy standards.”

Elections apparently do matter.

The 2020 election – if you want to call it that – brought us Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, the outgoing secretary of transportation. That brought us a near-doubling of federal CAFE “standards” – as these edicts are styled. They are not optional suggestions. Vehicle manufacturers are forced to comply with them. And the only way to comply with a 50.4 MPG CAFE requirement is to manufacture lots of devices – i.e., electric vehicles such as the ID 7.

This “works” to create an “incentive” to manufacturer devices. Not a mandate, per se. So President Trump hasn’t got it quite right when he talks about ending the “EV mandate” because at least at the federal level, there isn’t one. Per se. But the regulations – especially CAFE regs – effectively mandate EVs. It’s an extremely clever ploy by the car-hating Leftists that infest the DOT and EPA and the entire federal bureaucracy. More finely, who hate that people who aren’t them and most especially the working and middle class Deplorables who insist on driving V8-powered trucks and SUVs like the ones government apparatchiks get driven around in.

CAFE has been used for decades to dwindle down the size of vehicles and of engines available in mass-market vehicles that working and middle class people used to be able to afford and with the doubling of the “standards” under the Biden Thing the pincers were about to close completely, effectively forcing everyone into a device.

The 2024 election just prevented that.

“Artificially high fuel economy standards designed to meet non-statutory policy goals, such as those NHTSA has promulgated in recent years, impose large costs that render many vehicle models unaffordable for the average American family,” reads Duffy’s memo. “They also put coercive pressure on automakers to phase out production of various models of popular (internal combustion engine) vehicles.”

Italics added.

“Non-statutory policy goals” refers to edicts that were never passed by the legislature – Congress, in this case. Here Duffy touches on something of critical importance in that CAFE “standards” are not constitutional because Congress didn’t pass a law requiring vehicle manufacturers to meet them.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Now Is a Great Time for California to Secede

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2025

Rather, the United States is today held together only by an intricate system of federal patronage. The federal government, using taxpayer money, essentially pays people to make sure they remain attached to, and dependent on, the central government. For example, the federal welfare state has been fabulously successful at making a large portion of the population hooked on the government’s social benefits.

In a recent article on Trump’s call for annexing Canada, I noted that adding Canada to the US would be like adding a second California. Such an annexation would greatly shift American political ideology to the left and import millions of new voters who favor policies like government-controlled healthcare and draconian gun-control measures.

California secession would work in the opposite direction. By placing California outside the borders of the United States, the US would free itself from millions of voters who, like Canadians, generally favor high taxation, runaway government spending, stringent gun control, and harsh government regulations of nearly every kind.

https://mises.org/mises-wire/now-great-time-california-secede

Mises WireRyan McMaken

The issue of California secession isn’t going away.

Last week, the California secretary of state approved a new ballot measure on secession for the signature gathering phase of the initiative process. If activists are able to collect enough signatures by late July, voters in 2028 will be able to vote yes or no to the question “Should California leave the United States and become a free and independent country?”

A majority vote for this measure wouldn’t sever ties with the United States government, of course. It would merely create a commission to study the option of political independence.

Even if the measure managed to get a majority vote, it would do little, legally speaking. On the other hand, it certainly would continue a political and ideological process that is a necessaryalbeit insufficient—condition for eventual separation.

The issue of redrawing California’s borders has arisen repeatedly over the past twenty years., Whether we’re talking the “Six Californias” attempt to break the state up into smaller pieces, or the 2017 “Calexit” campaign, talk of radical change to California’s status quo isn’t going away. This repetition of calls for change is essential to laying the ground work for eventual secession. Each new campaign in itself has few implications for the short term, but in longer term, pushing the option over and over does make secession more likely. After all, as we’ve seen in the dozens of successful cases of secession since 1945, an important first step is thinking in terms of separateness and independence.

California Secession Would Be Great for “Rump America”

Unfortunately, we are only at the beginning of a long process, but most of us who presently reside in the tax farm called “the United States” would be much better off if California were to secede as soon as possible. 

Now, I know that many of my readers are not big fans of California—or at least the politicians elected by the people there—and are not inclined to cheer on the state’s political activists. Nonetheless, for those of us who actually want to improve prospects for greater freedom and less state power in North America, we ought to wholeheartedly support secession for California.

The immediate benefits should be clear. In a recent article on Trump’s call for annexing Canada, I noted that adding Canada to the US would be like adding a second California. Such an annexation would greatly shift American political ideology to the left and import millions of new voters who favor policies like government-controlled healthcare and draconian gun-control measures.

California secession would work in the opposite direction. By placing California outside the borders of the United States, the US would free itself from millions of voters who, like Canadians, generally favor high taxation, runaway government spending, stringent gun control, and harsh government regulations of nearly every kind. American politics would shift much more in favor of free markets, relative fiscal restraint, and public safety. California’s 52 members of the House of Representatives would be eliminated from the US Congress, as would be the state’s two senators. Most of these, of course, are dedicated social democrats of the Kamala Harris variety. The political and ideological status quo among America’s elected officials would be transformed overnight.

This would by no means change the US into a laissez-faire paradise, but the positive change would be immense.

Moreover, California residents would cease to be US citizens, and thus would no longer be eligible to vote in US elections. No longer would residents of nearby regions like Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, and Texas have to suffer waves of Californian migrants who are free to recreate the disastrous political realities of California in new locations.

The damage done by these migrant Californians is magnified by the fact that, so long as California is part of the United States, a Californian’s citizenship seamlessly transfers to the new state. That is, Californian migrants are able to almost immediately participate in the political system in their adopted homes—to the disadvantage of longtime residents. After California secedes, this unfortunate situation would come to an end, and Californians would become foreign nationals when living in the “Old United States.” No longer would the corporatist Silicon Valley “elites”—most of whom are dedicated servants of the surveillance state—and the retired civil “servants” of California, living on fat pensions, be able to so easily hijack the political institutions of non-Californians.

Nor would these foreign nationals from California be eligible for the welfare state of Rump America. After all, without California policymakers present to block every attempt at reforming the US’s broken system of naturalization, Americans would be free to ensure that foreign nationals no longer receive free money from the taxpayers. Rather, only migrants who are able to support themselves would find it feasible to relocate to the Old United States.

This isn’t to say that no one from California would be welcome. Without the opportunity to live on the dole, and without immediate access to the benefits of citizenship, it is likely only the most motivated and industrious Californians would seek to emigrate to Rump America. The minority of Californians who actually value freedom and fiscal sanity, and who are capable of leaving other people alone, should be welcomed with open arms in Rump America.

Secession Is the Future

Admittedly, this is all unlikely to happen in the short term. A response one often hears from those who reflexively defend the status quo is “it will never happen.” But in the world of politics, “never” is an absurdly long time. One can consult any political map of the world as it was 100 years ago to see just how non-permanent political institutions are. Rather, political disintegration of the United States is inevitable. It happens to every large state eventually, with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s as only one recent example. In the late 1980s, most of these prophets of what will “never happen” also told us that the USSR would last for many generations more. 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Yes, your car can be hacked.

Posted by M. C. on February 7, 2025

You know your government wants to install electronic (hackable) kill switches in cars?

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

If It Happens…”Taking Over Gaza” Could Be Trump’s Vietnam

Posted by M. C. on February 6, 2025

No Kidding!

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Trump/Musk Attack CIA Fronts USAID & NED: With Mike Benz

Posted by M. C. on February 6, 2025

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Israel’s Senators Want War with Iran

Posted by M. C. on February 4, 2025

The Libertarian Institute

If Senators are concerned about officials disagreeing with the intelligence community to push a foreign country’s propaganda, they should first look to Senator Graham, who continues to lie that Iran nearly has a nuclear weapon even when the CIA repeatedly assessed that Tehran is not attempting to build a nuke. Graham is lying to the American people so they will support an Israeli attack on Iran.

Unless the White House reclaims its sovereignty from Tel Aviv, Washington will continue to enact policies that benefit Israel at the expense of Americans.

They will do anything for…well not US voters.

The Debrief – February 3, 2025
Israel’s Senators Want War with Iran

-Kyle Anzalone Senators John Fetterman and Lindsey Graham appeared on Fox News Sunday Morning to push their new Resolution instructing the President to back an Israeli attack on Iran. 

The less articulate of the two, Fetterman, explained that no matter what, he supports Israel. In fact, he seems to be confusing Pennsylvania with the Jewish State. He told Americans that while he will not always agree with the American president, he will always stand with Israel.

Not to be outdone, Graham then called for the US to aid Israel in attacking Iran. Graham stated that Iran nearly has a nuclear weapon that Tehran will use to destroy the world.  

These two Senators’ remarks are highly ironic following Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation hearing. During last week’s session questioning, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence nominee was smeared with accusations of being a Russian, Iranian, and Syrian agent. 

While no proof exists to back those claims, if Senators are concerned about an American politician with foreign loyalties, they should look at Fetterman, who proudly proclaims Israel to be his number one priority. 

If Senators are concerned about officials disagreeing with the intelligence community to push a foreign country’s propaganda, they should first look to Senator Graham, who continues to lie that Iran nearly has a nuclear weapon even when the CIA repeatedly assessed that Tehran is not attempting to build a nuke. Graham is lying to the American people so they will support an Israeli attack on Iran. 

As Professor Jeffery Sachs explained on Judging Freedom with host Judge Andrew Napolitano, Israel has captured Washington’s Iranian and Middle East policy. Unless the White House reclaims its sovereignty from Tel Aviv, Washington will continue to enact policies that benefit Israel at the expense of Americans. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Back Against the Wall, CIA Admits COVID Likely Emerged From Wuhan Lab

Posted by M. C. on February 1, 2025

By Ben Bartee

However, the agency swears to God that its sudden about-face has nothing whatsoever to do with the new administration that took office four days ago.

No mention of The Fauch nor gain of function research forbidden by Obama. Three letter government agencies can be dumb when it suits them.

The Daily Bell

Originally published via Armageddon Prose:

The rats, it seems, are very much looking for exits from the sinking, rotten ship that is the COVID scam, perpetrated since 2020 first under the naïve and trusting leadership of Donald Trump who made the mistake of listening to The Experts™ (one he hopefully has learned from) and then for four brutal years under the boot of the imminently corrupt and despotic Brandon regime.

Via The New York Times (emphasis added):

The C.I.A. has said for years that it did not have enough information to conclude whether the Covid pandemic emerged naturally from a wet market in Wuhan, China, or from an accidental leak at a research lab there.

But the agency issued a new assessment this week, with analysts saying they now favor the lab theory.

There is no new intelligence behind the agency’s shift, officials said. Rather it is based on the same evidence it has been chewing over for months.

The analysis, however, is based in part on a closer look at the conditions in the high security labs in Wuhan province before the pandemic outbreak, according to people familiar with the agency’s work.”

Related: Future Crime Scene: NIH Importing Bats From Asia For Viral Research in Colorado Lab

Let the historical record show:

Corporate state media lying, gaslighting, dismissing, denigrating, smearing lab leak and its proponents over and over and over

The CIA, obviously, knew from whence COVID sprang from the jump — and very likely had a hand in creating and disseminating it — which begs the question: why now?

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »