is like removing half a cancer and hoping it will not grow back
https://www.panarchy.org/rozeff/panarchist.html
(2009)
Posted by M. C. on June 28, 2022
is like removing half a cancer and hoping it will not grow back
https://www.panarchy.org/rozeff/panarchist.html
(2009)
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: cancer, Government | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on April 26, 2022
Jim Powell points out that although white farmers were duly compensated by the Tennessee Valley Authority for the condemnation of their properties, black farmers were ignored:
The TVA flooded an estimated 730,000 acres of land behind its dams, and 15,654 people were forced out of their homes. Farm owners received cash settlements for their condemned property. But tenant farmers—a substantial number of whom were black—got nothing.
https://mises.org/wire/reparations-government-imposed-property-theft-are-justified-and-necessary
There was great euphoria earlier this year when Bruce’s Beach was returned to the descendants of Willa and Charles Bruce. The couple acquired the property in 1912, and it quickly became an oasis for black leisure. Unfortunately, the success of Bruce’s Beach incited the venom of racists, whose lobbying motivated public officials to use eminent domain as an excuse to capture the property. Journalist Courtney Lindwell gives the harrowing details of the injustice meted out to the Bruce family:
Bruce’s Beach thrived for more than a decade…. Then in 1924, bending to the racist outcry of aggrieved white residents, Manhattan Beach city officials condemned 30 lots, which included Bruce’s Beach and four lots owned by Black families, seizing them under the legal guise of eminent domain. The city claimed it needed to turn the land into a public park, then left it undeveloped for decades. The family sought legal recourse but was unsuccessful. Ultimately, they received just $14,500 from the city (equivalent to about $224,603 today) and left town.
The example of the Bruce clan has inspired African Americans who have been disadvantaged due to abusive eminent domain laws to reclaim ancestral lands. These unjust policies have made black Americans worse off by diminishing their capacity to create intergenerational wealth. Without laws motivated by racism, black families would have more resources to transmit to future generations that could be employed to expand business ventures. Getting an inheritance offers greater scope for beneficiaries to actualize entrepreneurial ambitions by pursuing risks; however, blacks are less likely to be recipients of substantial transfers. Therefore for many blacks, taking risks can prove to be quite expensive.
Unlike reparations for slavery, the cases highlighted by the Bruce family and other victims of eminent domain entail identifiable victims. People can show the adverse effects of abuses perpetrated by the state on the current generation. Although the rights of Africans were violated when they were forcibly taken to the United States, the people who were actually enslaved are deceased, and their descendants are better off than Africans. Hence reparations for slavery are less compelling.
Furthermore, since politicians are embracing claims for reparations based on the misuse of eminent domain laws, activists must expand the debate to include reparations for violations that occurred during the Civil War. Historian Loren Schweninger paints a picture of social immiseration for free people of color during the height of the Civil War:
Everywhere the Union Army advanced, free Negroes told of death and destruction…. Even in New Orleans, where some former free persons of color continued to maintain their profitable business enterprises during the Union occupation (1862–65), and in Charleston, with its rapid postwar economic recovery (1865–68), the trend was downward for a majority of the free black entrepreneurs who had established businesses before the war.
Meanwhile, researcher Thomas W. Mitchell and his collaborators estimate that the unjust appropriation of black properties has wiped out trillions in intergenerational wealth for black Americans. Some of these unjust programs were sponsored by the New Deal, which many black Americans today hold in high regard. Jim Powell points out that although white farmers were duly compensated by the Tennessee Valley Authority for the condemnation of their properties, black farmers were ignored:
The TVA flooded an estimated 730,000 acres of land behind its dams, and 15,654 people were forced out of their homes. Farm owners received cash settlements for their condemned property. But tenant farmers—a substantial number of whom were black—got nothing.
However, the argument for reparations transcends race and must include whites who have been disadvantaged as a result of exploitative policies. White Americans have a legitimate claim to reparations because their ancestors also lost properties during the Civil War and because they have suffered from eminent domain laws.
If the purpose of reparations is to correct historical wrongs, then we must confront atrocities that white people encountered as well. Doing otherwise suggests that paying reparations is another ploy to enrich minorities at the expense of white Americans who had nothing to do with slavery or with laws and policies that specifically harmed blacks.
Author:
Lipton Matthews is a researcher, business analyst, and contributor to Merion West, The Federalist, American Thinker, Intellectual Takeout, mises.org, and Imaginative Conservative. Visit his YouTube channel, with numerous interviews with a variety of scholars, here. He may be contacted at lo_matthews@yahoo.com or on Twitter (@matthewslipton).
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Bruce’s Beach, Government, Property Theft, Reparations | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on February 4, 2022
Indeed, when you think about it, these vehicle kill switches are a perfect metaphor for the government’s efforts to not only take control of our cars but also our freedoms and our lives.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/governments-kill-switch-your-car-your-freedoms-your-life
![]()
by Tyler Durden
Thursday, Feb 03, 2022 – 11:40 PM
Authored by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“A psychotic world we live in. The madmen are in power.”- Philip K. Dick, The Man in the High Castle
If we haven’t learned by now, we should beware of anything the government insists is for our own good.
Take the Biden Administration’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.Given the deteriorating state of the nation’s infrastructure (aging highways and bridges, outdated railways and airports, etc.), which have been neglected for years in order to fund America’s endless wars abroad, it would seem like an obvious and long overdue fix.Yet there’s a catch.There’s always a catch.Tucked into the whopping $1 trillion bipartisan spending bill is a provision requiring automakers to prescribe a “federal motor vehicle safety standard for advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology, and for other purposes.”As Jason Torchinksky writes for Jalopnik:
It’s pretty clear that the goals of this section of the law are to reduce drunk driving fatalities and crashes via still-undetermined technological tools that somehow are able to “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired,” and/or “passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code,” and if either or both of these conditions are proven to be positive — if the car thinks you’re drunk, then it may “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation.”
As expected, the details are disconcertingly vague, which leaves the government with a wide berth to sow the seeds of mischief and mayhem. For instance, nowhere does the legislation indicate how such a so-called “kill switch” would work, what constitutes a driver who is “impaired,” and what “other purposes” might warrant the government using such a backdoor kill switch.
As former Rep. Bob Barr explains:
Everything about this mandatory measure should set off red flares. First, use of the word “passively” suggests the system will always be on and constantly monitoring the vehicle. Secondly, the system must connect to the vehicle’s operational controls, so as to disable the vehicle either before driving or during, when impairment is detected. Thirdly, it will be an “open” system, or at least one with a backdoor, meaning authorized (or unauthorized) third-parties can remotely access the system’s data at any time.This is a privacy disaster in the making, and the fact that the provision made it through the Congress reveals — yet again — how little its members care about the privacy of their constituents… The lack of ultimate control over one’s vehicle presents numerous and extremely serious safety issues… If that is not reason enough for concern, there are serious legal issues with this mandate. Other vehicle-related enforcement methods used by the Nanny State, such as traffic cameras and license plate readers, have long presented constitutional problems; notably with the 5th Amendment’s right to not self-incriminate, and the 6th Amendment’s right to face one’s accuser.
Once again, the burden of proof is reversed, and “we the people” find ourselves no longer presumed innocent until proven guilty but suspects in a suspect society.These “vehicle kill switches” may be sold to the public as a safety measure aimed at keeping drunk drivers off the roads, but they will quickly become a convenient tool in the hands of government agents to put the government in the driver’s seat while rendering null and void the Constitution’s requirements of privacy and its prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: backdoor kill switch., burden of proof, Government, Kill Switch, Privacy, unreasonable searches and seizures | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on January 11, 2022
The only way to avoid this fate is by a revolution. I am not speaking of a violent revolution that replaces one form of authoritarianism with another, but a peaceful revolution of ideas. This revolution aims to replace the authoritarian interventionist ideology that dominates both the left and right wings of the ruling class with the ideas of liberty.
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2022/january/10/we-need-a-revolution/
Written by Ron Paul
A recent Washington Post/University of Maryland poll found that 34 percent of Americans think violent action against the government can be justifiable. This view is held by 40 percent of Republicans and 23 percent of Democrats. The result may seem surprising since leftists have been responsible for much of the recent politically-motivated violence, and many Democrats have called for violence against Trump supporters. However, the cultural Marxists appear to have (temporarily) ceased using violence as a tactic—although had President Trump won reelection, it may well have been ANTIFA members inside the Capitol on January 6 trying to “stop the steal.”
The rising support for violence against government is rooted in the growing (and justified) belief that the people’s liberties are being taken by a ruling class that is indifferent at best, and hostile at worst, to their values and concerns.
The devastation wrought by the lockdowns, as well as the conflict over the promotion of masks, vaccines, critical race theory, and transgenderism, heighten these social tensions.
Another major contributor to the social unrest is the economy. Rising prices combined with supply shortages and the increasing national debt are all signs that we may be witnessing the final days of the Keynesian welfare-warfare state. Unless Congress immediately begins to cut spending and transition to a free-market monetary system, America will soon face a major economic crisis. The crisis will likely be caused by a collapse of the dollar’s value. This will likely lead to increased violence. The violence will start when those who believe they are entitled to live off the stolen property of their fellow citizens decide to take matters into their own hands because the government can no longer do the looting for them.
The only way to avoid this fate is by a revolution. I am not speaking of a violent revolution that replaces one form of authoritarianism with another, but a peaceful revolution of ideas. This revolution aims to replace the authoritarian interventionist ideology that dominates both the left and right wings of the ruling class with the ideas of liberty. Such a revolution would restore respect for individual liberty, constitutional government, free markets, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and sound money.
The revolution of ideas would resolve social conflicts by getting the government out of social issues and instead allowing private property owners to, for example, decide who can and cannot use which restroom on their property. It would also restore control over education to parents. The goal is to respect the rights of each individual to live their lives as they choose as long as they do not violate the rights of others to do the same.
A free market with a sound currency would release lower-income Americans from the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax as well as provide them with expanded economic opportunities. The growing economy would reduce tensions between races and lead Americans to view immigrants as an asset rather than a burden.
A free and peaceful society cannot be brought about by a violent revolution. Instead, it must occur via peaceful conversation of a critical mass of citizens. When that critical mass is reached, even many authoritarian politicians will endorse liberty and limited government out of fear of losing reelection if they do not. Therefore, the best thing those of us who know the truth can do to restore a free society is to convert as many people as possible to the movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity.
Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Government, peaceful revolution | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on December 24, 2021
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/12/lew-rockwell/the-businessman-and-the-holy-family/
At the heart of the Christmas story rests some important lessons concerning free enterprise, government, and the role of wealth in society.
Let’s begin with one of the most famous phrases: “There’s no room at the inn.” This phrase is often invoked as if it were a cruel and heartless dismissal of the tired travelers Joseph and Mary. Many renditions of the story conjure up images of the couple going from inn to inn only to have the owner barking at them to go away and slamming the door.
In fact, the inns were full to overflowing in the entire Holy Land because of the Roman emperor’s decree that everyone be counted and taxed. Inns are private businesses, and customers are their lifeblood. There would have been no reason to turn away this man of royal lineage and his beautiful, expectant bride.
In any case, the second chapter of St. Luke doesn’t say that they were continually rejected at place after place. It tells of the charity of a single inn owner, perhaps the first person they encountered, who, after all, was a businessman. His inn was full, but he offered them what he had: the stable. There is no mention that the innkeeper charged the couple even one copper coin, though given his rights as a property owner, he certainly could have.
And yet we don’t even know the innkeeper’s name. In two thousand years of celebrating Christmas, tributes today to the owner of the inn are absent. Such is the fate of the merchant throughout all history: doing well, doing good, and forgotten for his service to humanity. It’s remarkable, then, to think that when the Word was made flesh with the birth of Jesus, it was through the intercessory work of a private businessman. Without his assistance, the story would have been very different indeed. People complain about the “commercialization” of Christmas, but clearly commerce was there from the beginning, playing an essential and laudable role.
Clearly, if there was a room shortage, it was an unusual event and brought about through some sort of market distortion. After all, if there had been frequent shortages of rooms in Bethlehem, entrepreneurs would have noticed that there were profits to be made by addressing this systematic problem, and built more inns.
Moving on in the story, we come to Three Kings, also called Wise Men. Talk about a historical anomaly for both to go together! Most kings behaved like the Roman Emperor’s local enforcer, Herod. Not only did he order people to leave their homes and foot the bill for travel so that they could be taxed. Herod was also a liar: he told the Wise Men that he wanted to find Jesus so that he could “come and adore Him.” In fact, Herod wanted to kill Him. Hence, another lesson: you can’t trust a political hack to tell the truth. It was because of a government decree that Mary and Joseph, and so many others like them, were traveling in the first place. They had to be uprooted for fear of the emperor’s census workers and tax collectors. And consider the costs of slogging all the way “from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David,” not to speak of the opportunity costs Joseph endured having to leave his own business. Thus we have another lesson: government’s use of coercive dictates distort the market.
Once having found the Holy Family, what gifts did the Wise Men bring? Not soup and sandwiches, but “gold, frankincense, and myrrh.” These were the most rare items obtainable in that world in those times, and they must have commanded a very high market price.
Far from rejecting them as extravagant, the Holy Family accepted them as gifts worthy of the Divine Messiah. Neither is there a record that suggests that the Holy Family paid any capital gains tax on them, though such gifts vastly increased their net wealth. Hence, another lesson: there is nothing immoral about wealth; wealth is something to be valued, owned privately, given and exchanged.
When the Wise Men and the Holy Family got word of Herod’s plans to kill the newborn Son of God, did they submit? Not at all. The Wise Men, being wise, snubbed Herod and “went back another way” – taking their lives in their hands (Herod conducted a furious search for them later). As for Mary and Joseph, an angel advised Joseph to “take the child and his mother, and fly into Egypt.” In short, they resisted. Lesson number four: the angels are on the side of those who resist government.
In the Gospel narratives, the role of private enterprise, and the evil of government power, only begin there. Jesus used commercial examples in his parables (e.g., laborers in the vineyard, the parable of the talents) and made it clear that he had come to save even such reviled sinners as tax collectors.
And just as His birth was facilitated by the owner of an “inn,” the same Greek word “kataluma” is employed to describe the location of the Last Supper before Jesus was crucified by the government. Thus, private enterprise was there from birth, through life, and to death, providing a refuge of safety and productivity, just as it has in our time.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Against the State and Against the Left. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Christmas story, free enterprise, Government, St. Luke | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on December 21, 2021

Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: CDC, Fear, Government | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on December 18, 2021
https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/when-your-government-ends-a-war-but
The US Senate has passed its National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) military spending bill for the fiscal year of 2022, setting the budget at an astronomical $778 billion by a vote of 89 to 10. The bill has already been passed by the House, now requiring only the president’s signature. An amendment to cease facilitating Saudi Arabia’s atrocities in Yemen was stripped from the bill.
“The most controversial parts of the 2,100-page military spending bill were negotiated behind closed doors and passed the House mere hours after it was made public, meaning members of Congress couldn’t possibly have read the whole thing before casting their votes,” reads a Politico article on the bill’s passage by Lindsay Koshgarian, William Barber II and Liz Theoharis.
The US military had a budget of $14 billion for its scaled-down Afghanistan operations in the fiscal year of 2021, down from $17 billion in 2020. If the US military budget behaved normally, you’d expect it to come down by at least $14 billion in 2022 following the withdrawal of US troops and official end of the war in Afghanistan. Instead, this new $778 billion total budget is a five percent increase from the previous year.
“Months after US President Joe Biden’s administration pulled the last American troops out of Afghanistan as part of his promise to end the country’s ‘forever wars’, the United States Congress approved a $777.7bn defence budget, a five percent increase from last year,” Al Jazeera reports.
“For the last 20 years, we heard that the terrorist threat justified an ever-expanding budget for the Pentagon,” Win Without War executive director Stephen Miles told Al Jazeera. “As the war in Afghanistan has ended and attention has shifted towards China, we’re now hearing that that threat justifies it.”Ali Harb @Harbpeace”For the last 20 years, we heard that the terrorist threat justified an ever-expanding budget for the Pentagon. As the war in Afghanistan has ended and attention has shifted towards China, we’re now hearing that that threat justifies it.” aje.io/f9d44e via @AJEnglishUS military spending grows as policy shifts to ‘prioritise China’Progressive legislators question massive US defence budget, which officials say is necessary amid China competition.aje.ioDecember 16th 202116 Retweets46 Likes
Upon the removal of US troops from Afghanistan, President Biden said the following in August:
“After more than $2 trillion spent in Afghanistan — a cost that researchers at Brown University estimated would be over $300 million a day for 20 years in Afghanistan — for two decades — yes, the American people should hear this: $300 million a day for two decades. If you take the number of $1 trillion, as many say, that’s still $150 million a day for two decades. And what have we lost as a consequence in terms of opportunities? I refused to continue in a war that was no longer in the service of the vital national interest of our people.”
You would think a government so grieved over the loss of “opportunities” for the American people due to Afghanistan war spending would be eager to begin allocating that wealth toward providing opportunities to Americans at the end of that war. Instead, more wealth has been diverted to the US war machine.
Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp reports:
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Afghanistan, Government, military budget, NDAA, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on December 9, 2021
Government is simply the biggest corporation, with the sole monopoly on violence… and where you have no recourse…”
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/elon-musk-explains-government-43-seconds
by Tyler DurdenThursday, Dec 09, 2021 – 05:45 AM
Presented with little comment… just listen.
“Government is simply the biggest corporation, with the sole monopoly on violence… and where you have no recourse…”
“Government is simply the biggest corporation, with the sole monopoly on violence.”-@elonmusk
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🎯 pic.twitter.com/IjH26ZdXEg — Natalie F Danelishen (@Chesschick01) December 7, 2021
“…so how much more money to do want to give that entity!?”
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Elon Musk, Government, monopoly on violence | 1 Comment »
Posted by M. C. on December 7, 2021

Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Government | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on December 5, 2021

Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Constitution, Government | 1 Comment »