MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Can Elon Musk Stop World War III?

Posted by M. C. on October 13, 2022

There are a lot of people in the chattering classes demanding for more military assistance, more sanctions, and more threats who have never carried a weapon in their lives.

Speaking as someone who has worn the uniform of my country on a foreign battlefield, who has fought under the American flag, don’t let my brothers and sisters do the same in another conflict that isn’t worth their lives.

by Dan McKnight

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/can-elon-musk-stop-world-war-iii/

Elon Musk is a remarkable figure. We’re still waiting to see whether his purchase of Twitter will go through, and if the censorship and artificial suppression of the America First movement will stop under his management of the company.

I’m hopeful though; Musk appears to be giving more consideration to foreign policy, and with a businessman’s mind for efficiency is cutting through the media’s propaganda.

Last week he sent this tweet, asking his Twitter followers if they thought this would be an equitable solution to the Russia-Ukraine War.

06aac646 30a4 4155 aabe a963b2adde49
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Buffer

It gives priority to self-determination of local populations, and would place Ukraine as a permanently neutral power between Russia and the NATO alliance (similar to Austria during the Cold War).

2.75 million people responded, and whether through automated bots or too many people duped by DC, his proposal was rejected 59% to 41%.

Musk himself appeared confused by the results, and did a follow up poll simply asking whether the residents of Crimea and the Donbas ought to decide for themselves whether to be a part of Russia or Ukraine.

The reverse happened: 59% said yes, 41% said no.

In reality, Musk’s proposal would be a reasonable, diplomatic settlement to end the war. And it almost did.

Even Fiona Hill, the State Department bureaucrat who worked to impeach President Trump, admitted as much.

Last month, writing in Foreign Affairs, she said:

According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.

The same parameters that Elon Musk thought were so obvious! So why didn’t this terrible war end in April?

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Ben Bernanke’s Nobel Prize: The Committee Rewards an Arsonist for Claiming to Fight the Fire He Started

Posted by M. C. on October 13, 2022

Their work is highly suspect from the view of economic theory and is derived from the point of view of history and the social sciences. They neglect the overall situation they are trying to explain, the role of institutions, and the basics of government intervention. For example, Bernanke’s work does not explain why the “situation” occurred in the first place, what the government did from the outset, or how it could be prevented in the future, except for ever-increasing government and Fed intervention.

https://mises.org/wire/ben-bernankes-nobel-prize-committee-rewards-arsonist-claiming-fight-fire-he-started

Mark Thornton

Along with Douglas Diamond and Philip Dybvig, Ben Bernanke was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics today. The three have written extensively on the need to bail out the banks in times when the economy is in corrective mode, generally after a long period of monetary injections. Bernanke was Chairman of the Federal Reserve when he pushed for the latest round of bank bailouts in 2007-2009.

Bernanke’s research concentrated on the Great Depression and argued that the banks needed to be bailed out in the 1930s in response to the collapse of the stock market and the severe correction in the US economy. Diamond and Dybvig have also written on the implications of bank failures on the US economy. All three have latched onto the idea that banks take in deposits which are redeemable short term, but they make loans that are longer term and are thus susceptible to bank runs.

Their work is highly suspect from the view of economic theory and is derived from the point of view of history and the social sciences. They neglect the overall situation they are trying to explain, the role of institutions, and the basics of government intervention. For example, Bernanke’s work does not explain why the “situation” occurred in the first place, what the government did from the outset, or how it could be prevented in the future, except for ever-increasing government and Fed intervention.

Their research amounts to little more than an excuse to bail out the banks. Therefore, if you are a member of the privileged financial elites, the Housing Bubble and the ensuing Financial Crisis was an unmixed blessing. You made big money all throughout the housing and stock market bubbles and then your banks received several bailouts and special privileges during the bust, including borrowing at zero interest rates on loans, capital infusions, Quantitative Easing 1 & 2, and interest payments on “excess reserves.”

Of course, most importantly, you had your man in charge of the Federal Reserve, the man who literally “wrote the book” and dissertation, on how the Fed must bailout the banks in times of economic trouble. No matter how badly everyone else fared, you could depend on Bernanke to bailout the banks, whatever the costs to others.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

On Secession and Small States

Posted by M. C. on October 13, 2022

if you give up one of the two principles [i.e., universal rights and local control] you risk giving up liberty. Both are important. Neither should prevail over the other. A local government that violates rights is intolerable. A central government that rules in the name of universal rights is similarly intolerable.

https://mises.org/wire/secession-and-small-states

Ryan McMaken

[This article was adapted from a talk delivered at the 2022 Supporters Summit in Phoenix, Arizona.]

The international system we live in today is a system composed of numerous states. There are, in fact, about 200 of them, most of which exercise a substantial amount of autonomy and sovereignty. They are functionally independent states. Moreover, the number of sovereign states in the world has nearly tripled since 1945.  Because of this, the international order has become much more decentralized over the past 80 years, and this is largely due to the success of many secession movements. 

The new states are smaller than the ones that came before them, however, and this all reminds us that there is a basic arithmetic to secession and decentralization in the world. Since the entire surface of the world—outside of Antarctica, of course—is already claimed by states, that means that when we split one political jurisdiction up into pieces, those new pieces will necessarily be smaller than the old state from which they came. 

During the decolonization period following the Second World War. Dozens of new states were formed out of the territories of the old empires they left. This meant the new status quo had a larger number of smaller states. The same thing occurred after the end of the Cold War. As the Soviet Union collapsed, it left 15 new smaller states in its wake. 

So in the current world, secession—when successful—is an event that reduces the size and scope of states. It reduces the territory and the populations over which a single central institution exercises monopoly power. 

Secession and State Size as Two Sides of One Coin

So, if we’re going to talk about secession, then, it’s also important to explicitly to address the issue of “what is the correct size of states.” Is smaller better? 

Now before we go further, I know my audience here, so there’s no need to come up to me afterward and say “well, states are bad so the correct size of states is that they don’t exist at all.” I get it. I agree that’s the end goal. Moreover political communities don’t have to be states at all. They could be other types of non-state polities. But that’s all for another speech.  

For now, we’ll stick to talking about states, as we are already saddled with living in a world composed of states right now.  Until the day comes that a majority of the population wants to abolish all states, it makes sense in the meantime to look to ways that will reduce the power of states, localize that power, and take at least some of it out of the hands of some of the most powerful ruling state elites. 

And the reason we have to address the issue of the size of states, is because many people do believe that bigger is better. They believe that larger states are essential for economic success, for peace, and for trade. Also, many people think that state size doesn’t matter at all. They think every problem of conflict within a political jurisdiction can be solved with democracy. Just let people vote, and there is no need for people to have political independence or a separate polity of their own. People who believe that are going to heartily oppose secession. 

And, of course, states’ agents themselves will oppose it because states want to be big. Being big and getting bigger is an important goal of every state. It’s a major part of what we call state building. States want to consolidate power, annex territories, increase their taxable population. What we want is the opposite of that. We want state unbuilding. State demolition. 

For many in the public, however the idea that bigger is good, or at least that size doesn’t matter, has its limits. For example, most people already have in their minds some upper limit as to the “correct” size of states. To see this, simply ask a person if he or she wants to live under a single global state.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Killing With Near Certainty

Posted by M. C. on October 13, 2022

Abraham Lincoln was the first head of state in world history to target civilians militarily and the first to kill civilians of his own country. Franklin D. Roosevelt slaughtered thousands of innocent helpless German civilians at the end of World War II by carpet-bombing German cities, rather than targeting the German military.

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Last week, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. secretly reaffirmed his own self-willed authority to kill persons in other countries, so long as the CIA and its military counterparts have “near certainty” that the target of the homicide is a member of a terrorist organization. That standard was concocted by the Biden administration.

There is no “near certainty” standard in the law, as the phrase is oxymoronic and defies a rational definition; like nearly pregnant. One is either pregnant or not. One is either certain or not. There is no “near” there.

Yet, the creation of this standard underscores the lamentable absence of the rule of law in the Biden administration, and in the administrations of its three immediate predecessors, each of which deployed drones to kill persons who were not engaged in acts of violence at the time of their killing, irrespective of the near certainty of their membership in any organizations.

“Terrorist” cannot be a standard for murder because it is subjective. To King George III, George Washington was a terrorist. To the poor folks in Libya and Syria, to the popularly elected governments toppled by CIA-inspired violence, to the innocents tortured at black sites around the world, the CIA is a terrorist organization.

The presidential use of drones to kill persons overseas began in 2002 with targeted killings ordered by President George W. Bush. It continued under President Barack Obama — who even killed Americans overseas. The rules for killing were made up by each president. They were relaxed under President Donald Trump, who gave CIA senior personnel and military commanders the authority to kill without his express approval for each killing.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Pfizer Exec Admits Under Oath: ‘We Never Tested COVID Vaccine Against Transmission’

Posted by M. C. on October 13, 2022

Tyler Durden's Photo

BY TYLER DURDEN

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/pfizer-exec-admits-under-oath-we-never-tested-covid-vaccine-against-transmission

As Jack Phillips reports via The Epoch Times, member of the European Parliament, Rob Roos, asked during a session: 

“Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market? Did we know about stopping immunization before it entered the market?”

Pfizer’s Janine Small, president of international developed markets, said in response:

“No … You know, we had to … really move at the speed of science to know what is taking place in the market.”

Roos, of the Netherlands, argued in a Twitter video Monday that following Small’s comments to him, millions of people around the world were duped by pharmaceutical companies and governments.

“Millions of people worldwide felt forced to get vaccinated because of the myth that ‘you do it for others,’” Roos said.

“Now, this turned out to be a cheap lie” and “should be exposed,” he added.

“If you don’t get vaccinated, you’re anti-social. This is what the Dutch Prime Minister and Health Minister told us,” Roos said.

“You don’t get vaccinated just for yourself, but also for others—you do it for all of society. That’s what they said.”

But that argument no longer holds, Roos explained.

“Today, this turns out to be complete nonsense. In a COVID hearing in the European Parliament, one of the Pfizer directors just admitted to me—at the time of introduction, the vaccine had never been tested on stopping the transmission of the virus.”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Liberty, the Reason for Tolerance

Posted by M. C. on October 13, 2022

Tolerance itself thus needs to appeal to a greater and more fundamental value that answers the question of why be tolerant. Liberty seems to be the most likely and best candidate for being that fundamental value. An imbalance of power, in and of itself, does not imply either tolerance or intolerance. Liberty guarantees it.

lawliberty.org

Michael Thomas definitely points to an important political virtue when he suggests that tolerance is “the primary political virtue.” In this connection, it is interesting to reflect on how absent this virtue seems to be from the present-day consciousness. Instead of toleration, we have adopted acceptance or ostracism as our model. Toleration supposes that you can disagree with a moral or political stance of some sort, but nevertheless allow it to be practiced. By contrast, one cannot vocalize disagreement with certain practices today without facing immense pressure to conform to acceptance of them. The key to the presence of tolerance is non-acceptance. People must be willing to allow the rejection of some beliefs and practices for there to be tolerance. That is what it means to tolerate something: to allow some belief or practice to continue despite one’s own view that the belief or practice is mistaken, wrong, or immoral. Pushing for acceptance is an entirely different approach by having conformity at its essence.

We thus have two models that, in the abstract at least, do not necessarily violate liberty: one is the model of tolerance and the other the model of pressure towards acceptance. We could point to other views, such as Herbert Marcuse’s, which hold that tolerance is essentially repressive in that it maintains a majoritarian status quo. But the two models are enough to make our point: Thomas’ tolerant society faces self-referential problems. This ideal society must be intolerant of intolerance. This alone forces us to ask ourselves why we even care about tolerance. The answer is one that Thomas himself presupposes and employs in his defenses of tolerance, namely liberty. The value of tolerance is measured against that—making the primary purpose of the state to protect liberty.

Liberty is not, however, merely the lack of external impediments or simply the ability to do whatever one wants to do. 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

An-Cap Mennonites

Posted by M. C. on October 13, 2022

You may think that these friendly people may be vulnerable to tyrants, but surprisingly, they mostly get left alone because the state parasite always seeks philosophical support from the host. These people will never lend their moral support to the state.

By David Hathaway

Many wonder if voluntarist communities that avoid state entanglements are workable. Critics of anarcho-capitalism ponder whether this idea is a pipe dream and a libertarian utopian fantasy. Voluntarists might try to refute this line of thinking by looking for concrete examples of such communities throughout history or in the present day. Few possibilities are usually mentioned from the present day, but many a podcast or an article has explored this topic citing such places as the Republic of Cospaia, the free cities of medieval Europe, medieval Iceland, the American Old West, and Gaelic Ireland.

There are, however, right here in the U.S., many Conservative Mennonite and Amish communities in our midst that won’t join the military, won’t accept social security, won’t accept Obamacare or Medicare, send back stimulus checks, won’t vote, won’t sit on a jury, won’t sue anybody, won’t run for office, don’t watch TV, won’t put their children in state schools, and don’t use internet connections except for mapping, weather, and email, etc. so that they don’t get affected by the lies perpetrated in the mass media.  They want nothing from the state. Their motto could be described simply as “No King but Christ.” They will not worship the principalities and powers of this world or promote their centrally-planned theft schemes or wars or salute the flags of the various regimes.

Parents teach their children to be friendly and hard-working. Their elders will not take payment for their services in the church congregations so as to avoid distortion of the scriptural message for gain and to avoid cults of personality. The ones that live the most like regular Americans are the Conservative Mennonites (as opposed to the Amish). They drive cars, have electricity, have cell phones, use power tools, etc. They aspire to be self-employed entrepreneurs and often run very successful family businesses. I have lived around and associated with this type of people for decades in the Southwest, Midwest, and in Latin America. They are not boobs. They are learned articulate people and know history and can speak about the separation of church and state and can give historical examples of the state co-opting churches / religion and society. Children attend home school or a private church school. Many people in these communities have German and Northern European roots, so they also display a low time preference and a vision towards the future for their families that is typical of traditional peoples from Northern cold climates as Hans Hermann Hoppe has pointed out. They also have large families which helps to perpetuate their anti-state ideas over the generations in these days of waning family size. The viability of these voluntarist communities would probably be appealing to many who are considering homestead living and want to avoid state entanglements. To obtain a directory of these congregations across the U.S., go to this link.

These communities present a strong example of what has come to be known as “opting out.” Opting out doesn’t end state plunder, but it is a means by which individuals or whole communities undermine the authority of the state peacefully and voluntarily. A little bit like a Free State Project, but with no focus on politics. Within these voluntary communities, there are zero public school students, zero military members, zero support for wars, and zero state-run courts. Disputes are handled privately by appealing to other brethren in the Church—not a state court, to wit:

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Pfizer Shock Admission: Covid Shot Never Tested For Stopping Transmission

Posted by M. C. on October 12, 2022

A Dutch Member of the European Parliament appeared to score a bombshell admission when he asked a representative of Pfizer whether their Covid “vaccine” was ever tested to see if it stopped transmission – the whole rationale behind vax mandates and passports. Pfizer representative said, “no.” Also today, the Moderna shot actually has a NEGATIVE effectiveness after a few months. And…why won’t Sweden share the results of its Nordstream sabotage investigation with Russia? Hiding something?

Be seeing you

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

It’s Time To Tell Biden We Say ‘NO!’ To Nuclear War!

Posted by M. C. on October 12, 2022

Surely the established narrative that Ukraine is a model western democracy standing strong for our shared values against an aggressive Russian invader is damaged with reporting that Kiev conducted an al-Qaeda style attack on an innocent civilian inside Russia. The murder of Dugina was a textbook definition of terrorism, which is, “the use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.”

https://mailchi.mp/ronpaulinstitute/nonukewar?e=4e0de347c8

Ron Paul

Oct. 10 – Last week the New York Times ran a shocking article claiming that the US intelligence community believes the Ukrainian government to be responsible for the August attack that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of a prominent Russian philosopher.

Surely the established narrative that Ukraine is a model western democracy standing strong for our shared values against an aggressive Russian invader is damaged with reporting that Kiev conducted an al-Qaeda style attack on an innocent civilian inside Russia. The murder of Dugina was a textbook definition of terrorism, which is, “the use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.”

Just over a month later, the Nordstream pipelines were blown up, seemingly ending at least in the near term the possibility that Germany may find a way to save its economy by mending fences with its main energy supplier. A leading Polish politician thanked the US for doing the job.

Then over the weekend, the bridge connecting mainland Russia to Crimea was bombed, killing at least six civilians and leaving part of the bridge under water. Traffic was restored hours after the attack, but Russian President Vladimir Putin placed the blame on Ukraine’s intelligence service. We all know that Ukraine relies on its US masters, so we can assume the US provided the intelligence allowing the targeting of the bridge.

There is a pattern here. More and more brazen attacks are being launched against Russia and Washington is doing little to hide US fingerprints. Why?

The Biden Administration seems to be moving us closer to nuclear war over Ukraine and Biden himself seems to know it. Last week he said, Putin “is not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons…” For the “first time since the Cuban missile crisis, we have a direct threat of the use [of nuclear weapons] if in fact things continue down the path they are going.”

So the question is if he knows that his proxy war against Russia is moving us closer to the unthinkable – nuclear annihilation – why does his Administration persist in crossing red line after red line? Apparently, Biden’s “experts” believe that Putin is bluffing and will do nothing about the Dugina assassination, the Nordstream pipeline sabotage, and the Kerch Bridge attack.

But what if they’re wrong?

Normally foreign policy action should be weighed on a cost/benefit basis. Will adopting one particular policy benefit the United States more than the risks involved? In this case there is absolutely nothing on the positive side of the ledger. Will the security and prosperity of the United States benefit more from regime change in Russia than it would suffer should nuclear war break out?

It doesn’t seem all that hard. No.

So what’s going on here? Why does the US Administration – with the support of most Republicans in Congress – continue to send tens of billions of dollars in military aid and move us toward nuclear war over a conflict that has nothing at all to do with the United States?

The time to end US participation in this war is yesterday. And if it takes millions of Americans in the streets peacefully protesting while demanding that their representatives stop this madness, then bring it on. Tomorrow may be too late.



Read more great articles on the Ron Paul Institute website.
Subscribe to free updates from the Ron Paul Institute.

Copyright © 2022 by Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

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

The Case for Dismantling the FBI

Posted by M. C. on October 12, 2022

This, you may recall, is the same agency that tried to persuade Martin Luther King Jr. to kill himself. It’s the same agency that compiled a list of 12,000 Americans, and, upon the outbreak of the Korean War, urged President Truman to jail them without trial. It’s the same agency whose response to the KKK’s murder of civil-rights worker Viola Liuzzo — a murder that may have been abetted by an undercover FBI agent — was to spread rumors that Liuzzo was a heroin-addicted communist and a deadbeat mom.

https://archive.ph/P8v3s#selection-495.0-495.32

By CHARLES C. W. COOKE

The bureau is a violent, expansionist, self-aggrandizing, and careless outfit that sits awkwardly within the American constitutional order.

All Our Opinion in Your Inbox

NR Daily is delivered right to you every afternoon. No charge.SUBSCRIBE

In the New York Times this week, Bret Stephens complained that, in unholy conjunction with the Department of Justice, the FBI had disgraced itself yet again with its public smear of Representative Matt Gaetz. “I don’t like Gaetz’s politics or persona any more than you do,” Stephens told a characteristically bewildered Gail Collins. “But what we seem to have here is a high-profile politician being convicted in the court of public opinion of some of the most heinous behavior imaginable—trafficking a minor for sex—until the Justice Department realizes two years late that its case has fallen apart.”

Which . . . well, yeah. That’s what the FBI is for. Last week, a whistleblower named Kyle Seraphin told the Washington Times that the FBI had adopted “an entirely ridiculous internal process for determining every single national priority.” One must ask: “ridiculous” from whose perspective? Relative to the FBI’s stated mission, its behavior does indeed look “ridiculous.” Relative to its historical conduct, its behavior seems pretty standard. What the FBI did to Matt Gaetz is precisely what it did to Donald Trump. And what it did to Donald Trump is what it’s been doing since it was founded: namely, spying on, or attempting to discredit, anyone who irritates the powers that be.

This, you may recall, is the same agency that tried to persuade Martin Luther King Jr. to kill himself. It’s the same agency that compiled a list of 12,000 Americans, and, upon the outbreak of the Korean War, urged President Truman to jail them without trial. It’s the same agency whose response to the KKK’s murder of civil-rights worker Viola Liuzzo — a murder that may have been abetted by an undercover FBI agent — was to spread rumors that Liuzzo was a heroin-addicted communist and a deadbeat mom. It’s the same agency that kept a file on John Denver — the author of such subversive works as “Take Me Home, Country Roads” — because he was opposed to the Vietnam War. When, in 1974, Deputy Attorney General Laurence Silberman was tasked with reviewing J. Edgar Hoover’s secret papers, he was horrified by what he found. Hoover, Silberman wrote, had allowed his FBI to “be used by presidents for nakedly political purposes” and engaged in “subtle blackmail to ensure his and the bureau’s power.” Matt Gaetz is merely the latest in a long line of victims.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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