MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Libertarian’

We Will Dig Down to the Root of This Thing That Ravages This Land and Pluck It Out – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 20, 2021

Public enemy number one was impeached on his last week of office — a citizen politician who thought he could lead a populist revolt in DC. Spoiler Alert: he did, only it didn’t start on January 6, 2021, but June 16, 2015 when we began to see what was possible. It was never about him.  It was about me. About you. About us. It was about us seeing what was possible. And that’s truly scary to them.

Public enemy number two is a citizen journalist imprisoned for showing how criminal our “trusted” sources were. He rots in Belmarsh Prison. Long live Julian Assange!

They can only hope that they can stem the tide there. By putting a few people in prison.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/02/allan-stevo/we-will-dig-down-to-the-root-of-this-thing-that-ravages-this-land-and-pluck-it-out/

By Allan Stevo

It starts with the face masks.

It starts with one set of lockdown rules for us, another for them.

It starts with one set of election rules for us another for them

It starts with one set of investment rules for us, another for them

In December 2007, a doctor from Lake Jackson, Texas found himself bolstered by a movement he didn’t really know existed.

Because he ran for the highest office that cycle and spoke truthfully, unceasingly, American politics was never the same again.

Fast-forward three years to the Tea Party. Those running to be congressmen and senators galvanized that movement, and then it shattered into pieces, distracted pieces.

Fast-forward five years to the Trump candidacy. Renewed focus was given to that movement.

We stand here, with a genie that won’t be put back in the bottle, has no concept of how powerful it is, and has no leader.

Heck. It doesn’t need a leader. That’s the nature of libertarian and conservative politics. It has people as aggressive and dedicated as honey badgers, each doing their own thing. Step by step amazing things get done.

It’s not the most organized. But that’s an advantage for many reasons. One advantage is: There’s no snake to chop the head off of. That energy turns into a whackamole game for the establishment. Not only can they not stem the tide, they can’t even make sense of the randomness of it all.

They can’t see how Game Stop and the new American homeschooling revival and vaccine hesitancy — culture-wide unlike anything seen for decades — and Elon Musk and yes even, to a degree, the popularity of AOC are all part of the same thing. It’s not random. The American people are done being ruled by you. As we speak, dear establishment drone, you are overplaying your hand. And you are the only person at the table who can’t see that.

From Andrew Ross Sorkin commenting on how buying Game Stop stock is an “attack” on the company, to Gavin Newsom whining about people not following lockdown orders, the common denominator of the figureheads is a tone of whininess unlike anything ever seen from them. It’s become so normal that they even chose a whiner to be the fake Vice President in their sham election charade.

And the more they all whine, the more happily the recall signatures pile up for the California Governor who desires to be President of the United States, who desires to devastate his country the way he devastated his state. It wasn’t the Chinese Communist Party who destroyed California. It wasn’t Beijing that destroyed Main Street America. It was the American communists and the corona communism they placed upon us when they closed our businesses, closed our churches, and declared our lives unessential and illegal.

We need to remove these voices from their positions of any authority in our lives by tuning them out and raising up better to replace them.

But that’s the surface. Those are symptoms.

The slaves are rising up. They won’t take your vaccine. They won’t take your mask. They won’t stay inside.

Those battles are being won. Others are ahead of us.

Will the slaves take your false flag attacks?

Will the slaves take your massive deep state?

Will the slaves take your slave money?

We’ve had a comfortable two decades since 9/11 leaving government in control. We need to get back to our roots and remind ourselves that government is never to be left in control: least of all in a crisis.

Because then all they have to do is call a crisis to regain control. If we can move beyond that then we are home free.

Daily, people are moving beyond that. Daily, people are coming to realize 2020 is not what they said it was. 9/11 is not what they said it was. JFK was not what they said it was. If they will lie about that, what else will they lie about? 

A lot.

Public enemy number one was impeached on his last week of office — a citizen politician who thought he could lead a populist revolt in DC. Spoiler Alert: he did, only it didn’t start on January 6, 2021, but June 16, 2015 when we began to see what was possible. It was never about him.  It was about me. About you. About us. It was about us seeing what was possible. And that’s truly scary to them.

Public enemy number two is a citizen journalist imprisoned for showing how criminal our “trusted” sources were. He rots in Belmarsh Prison. Long live Julian Assange!

They can only hope that they can stem the tide there. By putting a few people in prison.

They can’t. Dr. Simone Gold was arrested for being at the Capitol January 6. Brandon Straka was arrested for being at the Capitol January 6. Baked Alaska was arrested for being at the Capitol January 6. These are plantation Democrats who are done supporting the insiders of either party.

The now deceased Rush Limbaugh, as he prepared to look his maker in the eye, was practically the only voice in the media who recognized what was happening January 6 and did not apologize.

And it’s not about party. Trump is a third party coup of the establishment uniparty. He is Ron Paul 2020, Pat Buchanan 2020, Ross Perot 2020, Pat Robertson 2020, Aaron Russo 2020, Irwin Schiff 2020, what the Libertarian Party might have been under Murray Rothbard’s leadership instead of enfeebling distraction 2020, Larry McDonnell 2020, my aunt 2020, my cousin 2020, my daughter 2020. The American dinner table 2020. American entrepreneurs 2020, Working class Hispanics who live along the southern border 2020, every European who doesn’t trust Brussels 2020, Baltimore, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Chicago is in pain 2020, traditional Catholics 2020, free speech 2020, Howard Beale 2020, the church that didn’t close down 2020, the four years of babies who lived because of the Mexico City Policy 2020, Fill in the blank 2020, the end of Lincoln Project pedophiles 2020, Dick Cheney is a war criminal 2020, and so is Madeline Albright a war criminal 2020, Ruby Ridge, Bundy Ranch, Waco, Texas 2020, American energy independence 2020, American energy 2020, American chutzpah 2020, American vigor 2020, American potency 2020. You can shove your cultural Marxism back into your closed down and triple face masked sociology department cuz you ain’t controlling my speech with your guilt riddled and bullying political correctness 2020.

Once loyal democrats stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Can they possibly realize what a mess they have on their hands? This uniparty.

It will be a badge of courage to stand trial, a rallying cry for hundreds and thousands who support each of them.

It’s emblematic of their disconnection that they think arrests like these matter. It’s emblematic of their disconnection that they think deplatforming like this matters. We aren’t a machine to be controlled by the proper dials. We aren’t a thing. We aren’t an object. We aren’t a hydra. We aren’t a many headed beast. We are 300 million individuals. You are the 30 million strong political class, if I am to be generous in the estimate of those who believe the American political class operates in their best interest.

You cut down a general, you silence a voice, you make an example of another. These are trifling efforts. The energy will come out of somewhere. And with every attempt of yours to contain the energy, you only embolden us further.

The Great Awakening is here. The Second American Revolution is here.

Make no mistake, I do not advocate for a kinetic war.

Murray Rothbard in his four volume collection on the Revolutionary War period, Conceived in Liberty, (https://mises.org/library/conceived-liberty-2) writes of a people who from the early 1760s to the mid 1770s had undergone a revolution of mind and spirit. This was the true revolution. What followed was a bloody rebellion in response to a ruling class in denial that they had lost control of the minds of the people and who were obstinate to maintain a semblance of control.

“Perception is reality,” King George said to himself as the first shot rang across Lexington.

“Perception is reality,” the greatest military on earth assured themselves as they chased a bunch of shoeless hillbillies across the frozen Christmas terrain of New York.

“Perception is reality,” they claimed to themselves to their dying day, those who could never understand how such pitiful and lowly creatures as common humans could ever defeat a group so certain of their own superiority in oppressing another.

Perception is not reality. Reality is reality.

Such blinding hubris comes from being the establishment class of the greatest empire on the planet. The British Parliament and the old blind King George could barely see far enough to glimpse that of themselves in the mirror. And the ruling class of the greatest empire on earth today lacks that same vision. How reliably pride precedes the fall.

The Second American Revolution is here. Does a bloody rebellion also take place? That all depends on how willing the masters are to acknowledge that they aren’t masters any more and to voluntarily be rooted out of our lives.

We don’t need them.

We don’t want them.

They have to go.

Hopefully, it’s all very peaceful.

But boy, do they seem dedicated to living in such a state of denial that history will look back upon as the great folly that so powerfully brought the once powerful to their knees.

How good it feels to win. How good it feels to see their outrage. How good it feels to see their grasp on power slip. How good it feels to hear their whining. It feels wonderful to see their moral turpitude on full display. I’m not outraged at their hubris either. I’m elated. They can’t hide it anymore the way they once were able to.

Here’s how burdened and stressed their system is: The slightest out of the ordinary behavior by a citizen activist today generates such immediate response from those in office. There has never been a more wonderful time than now to be an activist. Every unpredictable act reveals how entirely out of touch and out of control they really are. Use the FOIA uncomfortably, hang posters uncomfortably, make the phones ring uncomfortably, post a website uncomfortably — such as the wonderful “Brad Little Is A Disgrace”. Their slightest discomfort is brilliant to watch. If you aren’t already being as active as you can be, you are missing out on the fun.

And by that I mean, if you are spending even one hour a week on Netflix, instead of ending mask mandates today by sitting down  at your local “masks mandatory” store, hosting mask burning events, FOIAing everything from your local officials, and getting together with your fellow slaves through groups such as PeoplesRights and WAPF you are just missing out on the real fun of this moment.

But it doesn’t stop there. Not only are they a bunch of fainting violets on high alert and totally unable to make sense of what is happening around them, they are just revealing their total moral turpitude and what a sham it all is.

The economy was decimated based on lies. Life-saving medicine was denied based on lies. Communities, families, and institutions were devastated based on lies. A puttering, unpopular, controlled, old man is shuffling around the Oval Office based on lies. The stock markets were closed down based on lies. People were pulled off of social media based on lies. The US capital was turned into an occupied green zone based on lies. This list is endless.

2020 was the year corona communism came to the United States. It was also the year that the American political class guaranteed their total removal from American politics.

This isn’t a ruling class. This is a bunch of weeds with very deep roots.

We just have to be sure to get down to those deep, deep roots.

How violent will that process be? That’s up to them. We come in peace, but if they are the dummies who can’t count how vastly outnumbered they are, then they are in for a rude awakening.

Because 300 million pissed off people aren’t gonna be led by you anymore, and all of your whining shows how intimately you know that.

American political class, welcome to the begginning of your end. Step aside like generations of your fellow communists did around the world, and we’ll make this easy for you. Persevere, and you will feel a pain you never imagining possible in a civilized land.

You’re winning. We’re winning. Now act like it. Stop obeying their lockdowns. Stop humoring their mask mandates. Disobey their every psychologically obstructive request. If you don’t know how do that then read Allan Stevo’s best selling “Face Masks in One Lesson” it’s a “how to” guide on never wearing the mask again, but more importantly a book that will passionately inspire courage, leadership, and liberty. Read his Lew Rockwell writing, sign up at RealStevo.com, or write him. But you don’t need any of that. Just be real with yourself. All you need is to resolve to live life by a higher standard and that starts by never wearing that mask again. 

Allan Stevo [send him mail] writes about international politics and culture from a free market perspective at 52 Weeks in Slovakia (www.52inSk.com). He is the author of How to Win America, The Bitcoin Manifesto, and numerous other books.

Be seeing you

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

Libertarian Silence on the Kennedy Assassination – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on February 10, 2021

This is the same conservative mindset that has led reform-oriented libertarians to maintain a strict silence in the Kennedy assassination. If the U.S. national-security establishment determined that Kennedy’s policies posed a grave threat to national security, then that it is the end of the matter for conservative-oriented libertarians, just as it was when the Chilean national-security establishment determined that Allende’s policies posed a grave threat to national security in Chile.

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/08/libertarian-silence-on-the-kennedy-assassination/

by Jacob G. Hornberger

One of the most noteworthy aspects of the Kennedy assassination is the silence among conservative, reform-oriented libertarians on the national-security state’s assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

What’s up with that?

After all, wouldn’t you think that a domestic regime-change operation against a U.S. president would be something every libertarian would be condemning, even if it did happen more than 50 years ago? Libertarians, after all, condemn U.S. regime-change operations against foreign rulers that preceded the Kennedy assassination. Why the silence on a domestic regime-change operation?

The reason for this deafening silence lies with the conservative baggage that reform-oriented libertarians brought with them when they joined the libertarian movement. We’ve seen this baggage, of course, with respect to such conservative-oriented reform proposals as school vouchers, health-savings accounts, Social Security “privatization,” immigration-control reform, and much more.

Perhaps the biggest and heaviest baggage that conservative-oriented libertarians have brought with them into the libertarian movement is with respect to their support for the national-security establishment or for what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” or for what the Founding Fathers called “standing armies.”

Ever since World War II, conservatives have been unabashed supporters of the national-security state way of life. They were convinced that it was necessary to convert the federal government from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, which is a totalitarian form of governmental structure. They were convinced and remain convinced that the conversion was necessary to protect us from a communist takeover during the Cold War.

Conservatives also favor the omnipotent powers that are wielded by the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, including the power of assassination. They are convinced that omnipotent government is necessary to keep us safe and secure, not only from communists but also from terrorists and other dangerous creatures in the world.

It’s that conservative baggage that the reform-oriented libertarians have imported into the libertarian movement.

Now, there is one difference between conservatives and conservative-oriented libertarians. The former support unconditionally whatever the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA determine is necessary to keep us safe or what is in the interests of “national security.” The latter objects to abuses that these agencies commit and call for reforming them.

But there is one overriding commonality between conservatives and conservative-oriented libertarians: their joint devotion to the very existence of the national-security state. Search the articles, books, blog posts, speeches, and conferences of the conservative-oriented libertarians and you will hardly ever find any call for the dismantling of America’s national-security establishment and the restoration of America’s founding governmental system of a limited-government republic.

At most, you’ll find a call for repealing the Patriot Act, or for some sort of reform proposal on NSA surveillance, or maybe for more oversight of the FISA court, or for more judicious intervention in foreign affairs, or for a call to end America’s “forever wars.” But what you won’t see is a call to dismantle the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA and restore a limited-government republic to our land.

What does this conservative baggage have to do with the Kennedy assassination?

Conservatives and conservative-oriented libertarians have long extolled the Chilean regime of conservative military General Augusto Pinochet. They love the guy because he was a conservative — a Thatcher-like conservative — who brought the “Chicago Boys” and their “free enterprise” proposals to Chile, including Social Security “privatization.”

When you remind such libertarians that Pinochet gained power through a domestic regime-change operation against a democratically elected president, their answer is an revealing one — they say that the operation was necessary to save Chile from a president whose policies posed a grave threat to Chile’s national security.

When you point out to them that the Chilean constitution did not provide for a coup as a way to save the nation from a president whose policies ostensibly posed a grave threat to national security, their response is predictable: The constitution is not a “suicide pact,” they say. If it’s necessary for the national-security establishment to violate it to save the nation, then so be it.

When you point out that Pinochet’s goons rounded, incarcerated, tortured, raped, abused, executed, or disappeared more than 50,000 innocent people, including two Americans, they respond that that was unfortunate but that it must be weighed against Pinochet’s ostensible saving of the nation from a democratically elected president whose policies were supposedly leading the nation to destruction.

This is the same conservative mindset that has led reform-oriented libertarians to maintain a strict silence in the Kennedy assassination. If the U.S. national-security establishment determined that Kennedy’s policies posed a grave threat to national security, then that it is the end of the matter for conservative-oriented libertarians, just as it was when the Chilean national-security establishment determined that Allende’s policies posed a grave threat to national security in Chile.

Equally important, if the U.S. national-security establishment wants to keep its role in the Kennedy regime-change operation covert, just as it has in many of its foreign regime-change operations, then that too is the end of the matter for conservative-oriented libertarians. Our national-security officials know what’s best to protect us and keep us safe, they believe, and we must defer to their judgment.

Fortunately, however, there are many libertarians who reject this conservative national-security state mindset. They are skeptical of the official narrative in the Kennedy assassination but have not delved deeply into the matter. They continue to seek understanding about this pivotal event in the history of the U.S. national-security state.

That’s the purpose of our upcoming conference — “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination” — to provide an easy-to-understand synopsis of the JFK assassination — why he was assassinated and the adverse consequences the assassination has had on the nation — and why it is imperative that we restore a limited-government republic to our land if we want a genuinely free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society.

Our conference website is forthcoming. Mark your calendar: Wednesday, March 3, at 7 p.m. for the first presentation and continuing weekly every Wednesday evening after that through April 21. Registration will be required but admission will be free.EMAIL


This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

Be seeing you

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

‘The Enemy Within’ – RPI 1 Feb Update

Posted by M. C. on February 1, 2021

Like a Third World Country the capitol is occupied by the military. The Department of Homeland Security has released an unprecedented warning: if you question the oppressive role of the government, you are a domestic terrorist.

Even if you are a libertarian, who rejects violence in any form, you are subject to the new view that any opposition to the state and its dominant ideology is a form of terrorism.

In these dark days thousands of US military troops occupying Washington DC seem normal. But it is totally insane

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

Dear Friends:

There was an old saying in communist Hungary, a favorite to recite on May Day, where the communist party provided free beer and hot dogs: “The workers’ fist is an iron fist; it strikes where it is needed.”

I spent seven years living in barely post-communist Hungary and – sorry to shock you – some of my great friends and co-workers had been ardent communists who somehow managed to find a golden parachute as the old regime fell and the new “democracy” had settled as the dust after an explosion. 

As I wrote on Lew Rockwell earlier this week, the 1989 “fall of communism” was no democratic revolution but a move by the communist nomenklatura (in the case of Hungary the offspring of the communist leadership from 1948, 1956, and even 1918) to ride the zeitgeist to a profitable Hegelian synthesis where they would still hold the reins but be recognized by the “West” (Clinton at the time) as the harbingers of a great pro-West revolution in formerly East Europe. 

Christian and anti-communist victims of a half century of US-allied communism in Hungary had no place in the new “anti-communist” Hungary of post-1989. People like my good friend Count István Csáky, whose thousand year old Christian family lost everything when the communist rabble took over in 1948, were no better off after the end of 50 years of official satanism. There was no restoration of the status quo after the end of the anomaly called Marxism-Leninism. But the media never reported this fact so it did not exist. History was whig, it was unending progress toward perfection.

So there was no place in a world that had destroyed Csáky to allow Csáky to exist once the tyranny that had destroyed Csáky had ceased to exist.

“Justice.”

It’s perhaps a downer for those who love mythology, but reality seldom lends itself to the tidy pronouncements of the mainstream media and the current vapid authors of popular history.

Cut to the present:

House Speaker Pelosi has in the fashion of Mátyás Rákosi decided that the other political party is not just an ideological or philosophical competitor, but the epitome of the “enemy within,” that must be vanquished and sent to the gulag. 

Like a Third World Country the capitol is occupied by the military. The Department of Homeland Security has released an unprecedented warning: if you question the oppressive role of the government, you are a domestic terrorist.

If you oppose the Biden/Pelosi regime you are an insurrectionist who needs prison time.

Even if you are a libertarian, who rejects violence in any form, you are subject to the new view that any opposition to the state and its dominant ideology is a form of terrorism.

In these dark days thousands of US military troops occupying Washington DC seem normal. But it is totally insane

What will we do when everything we believe has become outlawed? When peaceful and intellectual opposition to the tyranny of the current regime is punishable by total cancellation, which technology has guaranteed we are nullified? Like Csáky will we just cease to exist for a half century, or will we start to assert our truths as the system implodes? Please Donate Now!
Thank you for your support!
Sincerely yours,

Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Be seeing you

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

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: California Is Worse Than You Think

Posted by M. C. on January 14, 2021

For example, the California legislature in its progressive wisdom effectively decriminalized theft as long as thieves take less than $950 worth of merchandise, officially reducing such theft to a misdemeanor but in effect making it legal, since progressive California prosecutors don’t like to be bothered by petty criminals.

Democrats also have the immigrant vote in their back pockets, and California has seen a wave of immigrants help turn it into a one-party state. For now, the numbers are just overwhelming, and we can expect California to move even further to the left as its housing and poverty problems become worse and Democrats successfully convince voters that free markets are cause.

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2021/01/california-is-worse-than-you-think.html

By William L. Anderson

My colleague from the philosophy department was becoming increasingly angry. He was trying to be polite, but it was clear that he was raging inside. After a few minutes, he smiled a very strained smile and excused himself.

Our conversation was about California, or to be more specific, California governance. As readers can imagine, he was bullish on how the Democratic Party governs the state, California being perhaps the most one-party state in the USA. Every statewide election has gone to a Democrat in the last decade, and Democrats have a supermajority in the state legislature, which means that there is no meaningful Republican opposition and whatever the Democrats want, they get.

Not surprisingly, California governance is squarely progressive. The unions representing government employees effectively run the legislature, and as a result, pay, benefits, and pensions for those workers increasingly are straining the state budgets. (Steven Greenhut, a libertarian journalist based in California has documented the unsustainable growth of government in that state for nearly two decades.) Yet, the state continues to march politically and economically in the progressive direction as though the laws of economics didn’t matter.

For the most part, I have observed progressive California from far away, but my life took a different turn a few years ago, and the state is becoming my new home. I married a retired nurse from Sacramento in 2018, and because of health issues with her adult daughter, she has had to remain in that city, something not in our original plans. Because our campus either has been closed or severely restricted during the covid-19 lockdowns, I have spent most of the past year working from my wife’s home.

Living and working in California has offered me the opportunity to observe California progressivism up close, and it has been an interesting experience. Yes, the state where I officially reside, Maryland, is famously one-party and progressive, but the progressivism of California makes Maryland’s legislature look almost red state by comparison and surreally so in some ways.

For example, the California legislature in its progressive wisdom effectively decriminalized theft as long as thieves take less than $950 worth of merchandise, officially reducing such theft to a misdemeanor but in effect making it legal, since progressive California prosecutors don’t like to be bothered by petty criminals. In practice, that means consumer goods are much harder to find in California stores than one might experience elsewhere. For me, the difference was quite revealing, as I recently returned to Maryland after spending close to nine months in Sacramento.

When I go to the Walmart near my wife’s home, I find that many things that openly are on display in Maryland are behind locked cases in California. Furthermore, California’s draconian labor laws mean Walmart has fewer employees, so if I wish to purchase something I easily could buy in Maryland, I have to wait for a long time and often I just walk away because no one is available to open the glass case. Yet, even with these provisions, shoplifting losses for California retailers are enormous, and the state’s protheft laws have encouraged organized grab-and-run rings.

My progressive colleagues, like my philosophy professor friend, see no problem with such developments. To them, the real thieves are the capitalists, the retailers like Walmart that refuse to pay “living wages” to their employees, and, according to Senator Bernie Sanders, the capitalists have “been looting” Americans for years. Thus, the wave of theft in that state is a positive development, according to progressives.

I can go on, but it isn’t difficult to expose the vast array of sins (economic and otherwise) committed by the California political classes, and I liken this kind of punditry to swinging a bat in a room full of pinatas—one simply cannot miss. Steven Greenhut has been exposing California’s follies for years. However, perhaps the best recent commentary I have read on the progressive mentality that governs the state comes from blogger Mike Solana, who deftly skewers progressive politicians from the Golden State who now are accusing the tech industry of having “extracted wealth” from California and then left for the greener pastures of lower-tax havens such as Texas and Florida.

Solana’s rip is worth the read if for no other reason than that he exposes the cluelessness of progressive politicians and pundits, and one can be assured that progressive politicians will fit Tallyrand’s description of the Bourbons: “They had learned nothing, and had forgotten nothing.” Yet, Solana also is puzzled as to why Bay Area politicians who fail spectacularly also win landslide elections:

Nothing in San Francisco can be set on a path to slow correction until at least six of the eleven district board seats along with the mayorship belong to sane, goal-oriented leaders cognizant of our city’s many problems, and single-mindedly focused on solving them. These politicians will likewise need to be extremely well-funded. This is to say we need a political class, funded by a political machine, neither of which currently exist. Even were both the class and the funding apparatus to rapidly emerge, and even were the new political coalition to win an undefeated string of miracle elections, it would take four years to seize meaningful political power from the resident psychotics in charge, who, as per the last election, appear to be very popular among close to ninety percent of voters (a curiosity for another wire). This is to say nothing of the broader Bay Area political toxicity, nor the state political dynamics, which are poised to exacerbate every one of our problems. It is a multi-front political catastrophe.

During the covid-19 pandemic, which California politicians—and especially Governor Gavin Newsom—mismanaged spectacularly, California voters overwhelmingly chose the progressive status quo. While writers go on and on about the mind-boggling politics of California, the voters continue to send the left-wing progressives into office at all levels of government. While some might believe that “education” is the key to the so-called self-governance of democracy, voters in California clearly are choosing their candidates for reasons other than demonstrating wisdom in office. Indeed, why voters insist on putting the worst on top is perhaps the most intriguing question one asks about California politics.

Typical wisdom says that voters “vote for their pocketbooks,” but the progressives whom the lower-income voters overwhelmingly choose to elect are responsible for California having the nation’s highest poverty rates. Furthermore, for all the antiwealth rhetoric that California’s progressive candidates spew out, the very poor and the very rich voters in California tend to choose and support the same candidates, and the Democratic Party is the party of choice of the state’s large number of billionaires.

There is little or nothing that the current progressive state government has done that promotes the promotion of real wealth in California, yet even as state authorities actively destroy economic opportunities, the voters respond by demanding more of the same. That would seem to be a mystery, but maybe not. Let me explain.

In the past few years, wildfires have ravaged huge tracts of mostly public land in California (and in much of the West, although California has been hit the hardest). There are many reasons for the fires, the most obvious being that most of California receives little rainfall and many fires occur in mountainous terrain, where it is difficult to fight them. But there is much more, and most of it has to do with progressive policies. Even the George Soros–funded Pro Publica recognizes the role of fire suppression-based land management practices in making the fires worse:

The pattern is a form of insanity: We keep doing overzealous fire suppression across California landscapes where the fire poses little risk to people and structures. As a result, wildland fuels keep building up. At the same time, the climate grows hotter and drier. Then, boom: the inevitable. The wind blows down a power line, or lightning strikes dry grass, and an inferno ensues. This week we’ve seen both the second- and third-largest fires in California history. “The fire community, the progressives, are almost in a state of panic,” (Tim) Ingalsbee said. There’s only one solution, the one we know yet still avoid. “We need to get good fire on the ground and whittle down some of that fuel load.”

Yet, the progressivist religion that defines the Democratic Party in California cannot acknowledge that the leave-nature-alone policies could have anything to do with the scope and intensity of the wildfires. Instead, the powers that be have decided that climate change—and only climate change—is responsible, and the way to deal with the problem is to impose draconian rules that make life difficult for most people living there, from outlawing new natural gas residential hookups to its infamous “road diets” imposed to discourage people from driving cars. Despite the fact that California politicians, such as Gov. Gavin Newsom, claim that these policies will significantly reduce global temperatures and make wildfires less intense, the reality is quite different, as California accounts for less than 1 percent of so-called greenhouse gases in the world.

Perhaps the most symbolic action by California’s government of progressive arrogance is the continued development of the “bullet train,” an ambitious (to be charitable) project to build high-speed rail from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Under urging from then governor Jerry Brown, voters in the Golden State in 2008 agreed to permit a bond issue to begin funding what Brown claimed would require a maximum of $33 billion. California’s mountainous terrain forced design and route changes, turning the LA-SF “dream” into a train that would run between Bakersfield and Merced, two cities in the flat Central Valley. To make matters even worse, passenger rail service via Amtrak already exists in the valley, and even if everything were to go to plan (a heroic assumption, one might add), the bullet train would save only forty-five minutes in travel from the existing route.

As the proposed length of the bullet train becomes shorter, the costs continue to skyrocket. The original $33 billion estimate now has ballooned to more than $100 billion—if the project even is completed. Yet the project continues to live. Last year I spoke to a former coworker of my wife who enthusiastically supports the rail project. When I asked her about the cost and the fact that there really is no demand for this service, her response was instructive: “But we NEED trains!” Never mind that this is a boondoggle that dwarfs almost anything else we know as government waste; never mind that California taxpayers are being forced to fund a massive wealth transfer to politically connected contractors in which there are all costs and no benefits. The state “needs” trains.

My faculty colleague also became angry at my panning the California bullet train, and I have wondered why progressives are so defensive about this project. There is no doubt that it is a huge waste of money and that the passenger-mile costs are well above anything else that exists in public transportation, but that doesn’t seem to matter. One would think that “good government” progressives would see the disconnect here.

One possible explanation comes from Murray Rothbard, who recognized that progressives ultimately are at “war with nature.” While Rothbard was writing about egalitarianism, nonetheless one can argue that progressive policies are aimed at producing very different outcomes than what would happen if people were free to make their own choices, and especially choices with their own money.

Because of the rise of the tech industry, California has seen an increase in wealth that probably is unprecedented in the history of this country—and maybe the world. Not surprisingly, the state’s tax take has massively increased in the past two decades, with the percentage of income tax revenues rising dramatically as tech entrepreneurship has created a new billionaire class. While one can think of these new billionaires as a new class of wealthy, in many ways their outlooks (at least after they become wealthy) often reflect the outlooks of the wave of entrepreneurs such as Andrew Carnegie who developed new technologies, put them to economic use, created vast amounts of wealth, and then created the foundations that ultimately would be governed by a wealth-destroying philosophy of progressivism.

In part, the wealth created permits foundation-financed “visionaries” to demand that resources be directed in a different way than would be done in a market economy, with “serve the people” and “make a difference” as mantras. We see that time and again in California, where tax-engorged “visionary” progressive politicians seize wealth created by private enterprise in order to pursue their own causes such as environmentalism.

Of course, as we already have pointed out, progressive policies tend to make the original problems worse. Not only have progressives made mass wildfires more likely, but they also have been behind the rise in homelessness in California. In the late 1970s, the San Francisco city government instituted rent controls. Not surprisingly, housing shortages followed, and the real price of housing skyrocketed. As shortages became worse, progressive politicians doubled down on the controls. Today, more than five thousand people live on the streets in San Francisco, and the government—bound by its own progressive ideals—is helpless to do anything but hand out money and defend its policies. And this in the city with the most billionaires per capita in the world.

There are three reasons why California governance will not change even as it heads toward a fiscal cliff. First, and most important, progressive ideology is intractable and does not yield to the laws of economics. Progressive politicians are feted in the mainstream media and in California’s left-wing education institutions, and voters don’t seem to want any alternatives. (After all, California “needs” trains.) Politicians who raise questions as to this model of governance can expect to be demonized in the media and will face violent protests if they show up in public venues—and especially on college campuses.

The second reason is that California voters are drawn to progressive Democrats no matter what disasters these politicians might inflict. The highly educated voters do not support progressive Democrats just on economic issues, but also on the highly contentious social issues, and with the 2020 “revolt of the rich” dominating Democratic Party politics at the present, it is doubtful that this current wave of progressive-favoring voters will change direction.

Democrats also have the immigrant vote in their back pockets, and California has seen a wave of immigrants help turn it into a one-party state. For now, the numbers are just overwhelming, and we can expect California to move even further to the left as its housing and poverty problems become worse and Democrats successfully convince voters that free markets are cause.

The third reason things won’t change in California is that progressive government creates its own sets of monopoly rents that are distributed to politically connected interest groups. In the case of the Golden State, state-employee and municipal labor unions are by far the most powerful political entity, and they control vast blocs of voters. Their power was recently demonstrated by their support of the covid-19 lockdowns in the state—during which public employees continued to draw full pay even as the lockdown policies ravaged the state’s tax base.

Should one doubt the power of California’s government-employee unions, witness the “success” of what was called AB 5, the law that almost killed the “gig” industries in the state, putting thousands of freelance writers and musicians out of work. Written by the AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations) as a means of ending the Uber and Lyft rideshare services (and protect unionized taxi and public transportation workers), the fallout was so bad that even the legislature had to back off some of the restrictions. Voters did the rest last November when they beat back most of the most onerous provisions of the law. (One doubts that the musicians and writers that lost their jobs changed their progressive voting patterns in the most recent election. Such is the staying power of progressive ideology.)

If one believes that perhaps the wave of progressive voters will become “converted” to a “free minds and free markets” approach (the “left libertarian” position), the experience of New York City should be instructive. In 1975, the economy was in recession, businesses were fleeing the city’s onerous tax rates and antibusiness climate, and city officials were fraudulently selling capital bonds to pay for previously issued capital bonds. (William E. Simon, the US secretary of the Treasury in 1975, laid out the entire scenario in his blockbuster A Time for Truth.)

New York’s problem was obvious—except in the minds of progressives. Where most of us would understand that having unions running away with the budgets while suppressing productive private enterprises is a losing proposition, progressives see a nefarious capitalist plot. That New York City had a relatively brief renaissance in large part because of the deregulation of banking and finance (which was begun by President Jimmy Carter) plays no role in progressive thinking at all.

Unlike New York City, California does not have an economic ace in its pocket. Even though much of the tech industry has prospered during the state’s draconian pandemic shutdowns, the state government (not to mention cities and counties) is facing the worst financial crisis perhaps in its history. Not surprisingly, the progressive response is to increase incendiary rhetoric toward wealth creators and demand even higher taxes and more business regulations.

Progressivism is a utopian philosophy of governance that will never find nor create its utopia. If California voters and politicians do not understand the current crisis and how it came about, they probably never will understand. Instead, we will see the continuous march to perdition as California politicians refuse to acknowledge that they are killing the geese laying the golden eggs.

William L. Anderson is a professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland.

The above originally appeared at Mises.org

Be seeing you

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

End the Great American Myth: Secession, Not Revolution

Posted by M. C. on December 24, 2020

Nothing would give Klaus Schwab and The Davos Crowd more pleasure than turning us into them — willing to use indiscriminate violence to push otherwise humble and decent people into crazed killers and repudiate their inherent meekness, their inherent desire to pursue their bliss, allowing everyone else that same courtesy.

But, leftism as practiced today, is aggressive. It is rapacious and rests on the idea that no one can exist outside their preferred outcome lest anyone see their world for the nightmare it truly is.

Secession is not only not an option, it is expressly verboten.

https://tomluongo.me/2020/12/22/end-american-myth-secession-not-revolution/

Author: Tom Luongo

I remember the 1970’s driving around New York City with my family during the holidays like they were yesterday.

Back then the talk in the front seat of the car between my parents was New York City’s bankruptcy. My dad, NYPD at the time, was as much a part of this as anyone since the Police pension fund helped bail out the city government back then.

The West Side Highway fell down and because of that I grew up with a fear of heights and, especially bridges. I really hated taking the back way (New Jersey) into Staten Island. The mere mention of the Outer Bridge crossing would nearly put me into a panic attack.

I remember thinking then, “If these people can’t pay the bills now, what’s it going to be in ten or twenty years?” Sure, I was a naive ten or eleven at the time and had no idea about capital flight, but the sentiment was sound.

Even then the Emperor was naked to this child’s eyes. This was Rome near the end and the Sword of Damocles hung over the heads of my generation in ways we could barely articulate.

So, for me, the idea of the U.S. breaking up into its component parts has been a constant companion most of my adult life. And, as a libertarian, I always think in terms of secession first, rather than revolution. It sits on my shoulder whispering in my ear the truth of what’s in front of us.

We’ve reached a very important moment in world history. It is that moment where the promises of classical liberalism are failing in the face of a creeping totalitarian nightmare.

America as mythology has always stood as the ‘shining house on the hill’ for this enlightened idea that the wishes of the individual pursuing his bliss creates the community and culture which lifts the world out of a Hobbesian State of Nature.

The war of all against all, (bellum omnium contra omnes).

But America as Mythology and America as Reality are two vastly different rough beasts. And it is that difference between them that is being exploited today by The Davos Crowd to set the process in motion for their next victory.

Brandon Smith at Alt-Market brought up the trap conservatives are being led into today in his recent article. He argues, quite persuasively, that the ‘right’ is being radicalized into thinking about an armed civil war to fight the corporatist left-wing useful idiots in an orgy of violence.

To be clear, what I believe is happening is that conservatives are being prodded and provoked, not to separate and organize but to centralize. I think they want us to support actions like martial law which would be considered totalitarian. Conservatives, the only stalwart defenders of civil liberties, using military suppression and abandoning the Bill of Rights to maintain political power? That is a dream come true for the globalists in the long term. And despite people’s faith in Trump, there are far too many banking elites and globalists within his cabinet to ensure that such power will not be abused or used against us later.

Nothing would give Klaus Schwab and The Davos Crowd more pleasure than turning us into them — willing to use indiscriminate violence to push otherwise humble and decent people into crazed killers and repudiate their inherent meekness, their inherent desire to pursue their bliss, allowing everyone else that same courtesy.

But, leftism as practiced today, is aggressive. It is rapacious and rests on the idea that no one can exist outside their preferred outcome lest anyone see their world for the nightmare it truly is.

Secession is not only not an option, it is expressly verboten.

I’ve made the argument that violence, not secession, is one very possible outcome of where the current political divide is taking us. Brandon uses the situation in Germany in the 1920s/30s as his historical guide. In short, Fascism rose to meet the violence of the Communists with the old monied elite providing the means for the conflict.

The parallels to today are striking. In November’s issue of Gold Goats ‘n Guns I likened the rising frustration of the American right to that of the Fremen Jihad of Frank Herbert’s classic Dune.

When you marginalize the tens of millions of people who produce the goods which sustain their false reality, when you remove their ability to speak their mind and make their voices heard, when you insult them, berate them, hector them and beat them then you will bear the consequences when the sleeper awakens, in Herbert’s words.

This isn’t a threat or an open letter of defiance. This is an observation of what always comes next. These people know that they have been lied to, their children spiritually separated from them. The election was a cruel joke meant to rub our noses in their complete power over us. You can
see it every day on Twitter.

What comes next will benothing short of a Fremenesque jihad by the 70+ million people who voted for Donald Trump. If his allies prove the systematic thievery of the election it will fuel a simmering anger to boiling over into a near-religious frenzy.

Because these are people who still believe in the Mythology of America, they are very susceptible to this programming. That mythology is worth fighting for in their minds.

Brandon Smith, however, is making a finer point which I tend to agree with. And that is that secession, not revolution, is always the better option rather than the pre-packaged violent one which the oligarchs always seem to prepare for us.

To broaden Brandon’s point, I want to challenge the precepts of that American mythology in the hope we can avoid the kind of religious war that is brewing.

There are two wars which bear most of the weight of that mythology — The American Revolution and the U.S. Civil War.

The first one is the good war. It is the foundation of the mythology. We know the narrative: brave colonials fought a war of independence, a war of secession, from the evil English. It brought forth the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence and all the symbology of our shared American identity.

That mythology, while simplistic, held a core truth, that there are some things worth fighting for, when pushed to an extreme.

However, was 1770’s America that extreme a place? Was war the only practical outcome? Or was it the dream of those men whose tolerance for tyranny shallower than the norm. In other words, could America have seceded more peacefully in ten or twenty years’ time?

Viewed that way, this was a war of secession that the English and the Colonies didn’t have to fight. There may have been an equitable way out of conflict. But the colonies chose war just as much as the Crown did if we’re being honest with ourselves.

The Civil War, on the other hand, is supposed to be the shameful one. And from the Mythology side it truly is. Lincoln’s war can only be characterized as a war to prevent secession in the same way that Crown fought to prevent the colonies from seceding.

The mythology states this was the war we had to fight to prevent slavery’s survival into the 20th century. But, was it that? Slavery may have been a dividing line to stoke the passions but it wasn’t the big factor driving the states apart, the Tariff of Abomination was.

Again, if we’re being honest with ourselves wasn’t Lincoln’s war where the ideals of the American Revolution – a compact between the sovereign states – were finally betrayed?

Aren’t we reaping the whirlwind of that war today with a Supreme Court who believes it has the power to ignore interstate grievances because none of the justices, even Thomas and Alito, believe in the compact of equals today?

Remember, the South was more than willing to leave in peace. And any reasons Lincoln had for fighting the war over the seizure of Federal property, i.e. the proximate cause for the events at Fort Sumter, could have been worked out, again, equitably as gentlemen, rather than through the butchering of 600,000 Americans over four years.

From the Mythology Lincoln is the Great Uniter and Buchanan, his predecessor, the Worst President in History simply because he refused to either bail out the railroad banks in 1857 or prevent the South’s secession in 1860.

What if the mythology of America today has these two wars backwards? What if all the conservatives mourning the Constitution today thanks to a feckless Supreme Court and treasonous Congress have it all wrong? What if the America they mourn the death of today died in 1865 not 2020?

Would that America still be worth finally fighting a bloody civil war for? Because that’s what The Davos Crowd is daring Donald Trump to do.

What if the better response is to do what the South tried to do and failed.

Simply walk away and say, “No more.”

Because fighting the bloody war of all against all, becoming raving fascists rising up to stop the rapacious (and economically backwards) communists in the process is always the wrong option.

Secession is always an option. Opting out of the hyper-collectivizing impulses of in-group/out-group bias is always the right choice. They want us to throw the first punch, to lash out, fire first out of fear, c.f. Fort Sumter, to justify their brutality afterwards.

But, as I said in the quote above, the states with the grievances today are the ones that produce the wealth of this fiction known as the U.S. It’s where the food is grown, the electricity generated, the goods produced and people aren’t shitting in the streets.

The food lines may be long in Texas but there’s still food to distribute.

The balance of power in the U.S. today in real terms is reverse of what existed in 1860. Post-Trump America looks a lot different than pre-Lincoln.

Because of that and the reality that the people pulling off this great coup against sanity are some of the most unimpressive leaders in history, the potential for a successful secession is far higher than it was for the Confederacy.

Brandon Smith is right that they invoke the Confederacy to shame conservatives as racists, conflating issues separated by more than 150 years of history. This is why the all-out assault on the history of the war, whitewashing it of any nuance.

Theirs is a mind-virus that grows beyond the ability of the oligarchy to control. And it is truly best to not just walk but run away from such people. Better to let them sink into their own cesspit of ideological rabbit holes while keeping the lines of trade open, if they have anything worth selling, of course.

They will turn on themselves soon enough.

Having grown up a Yankee and matured as a Southerner I’ve seen this descent of the American mythology from both perspectives. The eleven year-old me knew this day would come.

The Mythology of America is just that, mythology, worth using as the basis for the new story rather than a shackle keeping us chained down, staring at the Abyss and despairing at what was lost.

New York was a dream not a fixture in the night sky. God didn’t put his finger on the Empire State Building and spin the world.

Because Texas was too big for it to ever stay in balance, even if he did. And California is one bad day away from Big One which washes it from our memory.


Be seeing you

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

How Decades of Media and Faculty Bias Have Pushed America to the Left | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on October 24, 2020

A third example comes from the editors at Merriam-Webster(continually updated online). After US Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett used the phrase “sexual preference,” she was denounced for using “offensive” language by US senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. This was confusing to many observers, since the term has long been used as a nonpejorative term and has even been used in recent years by both Joe Biden and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

https://mises.org/wire/how-decades-media-and-faculty-bias-have-pushed-america-left?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=74bfb9f742-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-74bfb9f742-228343965

Ryan McMaken

It’s been clear for decades that national news organizations such as CNN and the New York Times tend to be biased in favor of social democracy (i.e., “progressivism”) and what we would generally call a “left-wing” ideology. Journalists, for instance, identify as Democrats in far higher numbers than any other partisan group. And political donations by members of the media overwhelmingly go to Democratic candidates.

This is why even as far back as the 1940s, libertarian and conservative groups felt the need to found their own news sources, publishing houses, and other outlets for the distribution of information.

Similarly, in recent decades, higher education faculty have been shown to be overwhelmingly in favor of the Democratic Party, both in affiliation and in donations. In addition to providing instruction at colleges and universities, these people are the ones who write textbooks, history books, and the scholarly publications that influence other faculty members, secondary school teachers, and current students.

It would be shocking if the net effect of this clear bias were not to push the public—at least those members of the public who view news media broadcasts, read textbooks, and attend college classes—in the direction of the ideology favored by the journalists and professors.

But the means for manufacturing an ideological bias don’t end there. In recent years we have increasingly been seeing other institutions—outside newsrooms and universities—that are taking an active role in shaping the public’s ideology. These include social media firms, and even online sources of information once considered relatively outside the reach of political controversies.

This is what is to be expected when a single ideological group controls educational institutions and major media outlets over a period of several decades. Under these conditions—and unless other institutions provide an effective alternative—the ideology that is dominant within schools and newsrooms will spread to become the ideology of the larger general public. Thus, we should expect to see more and more doctrinaire ideological activism in the larger society, in Silicon Valley and beyond.

Controlling the Message outside the Media and Academia

We’ve seen a few examples of this over the past week. The first example is Twitter’s concerted and admitted effort to hide the NY Post’s exposé on potentially damaging emails from Joe Biden’s son. Twitter’s CEO, Jack Dorsey, first claimed that the company’s efforts to prevent Twitter users from sharing the story were a “mistake” and offered some rather implausible explanations. After the Post and a variety of right-leaning groups expressed outrage over the affair, the company backed down. This is just the latest of many cases of media companies making efforts to edit, curate, and control the information being communicated on their websites.

Another example comes from Wikipedia, where—in spite of the apparent veracity of the Post’s story on Hunter Biden—the claims against Hunter Biden are casually dismissed as “debunked.” No evidence has been presented to support this claim, and the Biden campaign has not denied the claims made in the Post’s story.

A third example comes from the editors at Merriam-Webster(continually updated online). After US Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett used the phrase “sexual preference,” she was denounced for using “offensive” language by US senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. This was confusing to many observers, since the term has long been used as a nonpejorative term and has even been used in recent years by both Joe Biden and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

However, by a startling “coincidence,” editors at Merriam-Webster apparently modified the definition of the phrase “sexual preference,” adding the word “offensive” in reference to use of the term following the spat between Barrett and Hirono. Use of the Wayback Machine shows that two weeks earlier the word “offensive” had not been included in the definition.

These examples likely illustrate a growing role for left-wing ideologues outside official news media in shaping and manipulating public opinion for purposes of promoting one political faction over another.

These examples are certainly not the only evidence that companies that deal in internet-delivered data have very clear political preferences. Studies have shown that political donations coming out of Silicon Valley overwhelmingly favor Democrats. At Twitter, from the company’s founding to 2012, 100 percent of political donations made by company employees were to Democrats. In 2016, 90 percent of political donations coming out of Google went to Democrats.

The Natural Outcome of Years of Educational Bias

None of this should surprise us. For decades, the public’s predominant source of information about the nation’s history and political institutions has been the establishment “mainstream” media, public schools, and America’s higher education system.

This has a sizable effect on the public’s views and ideology. Staffers at tech companies, dictionary editors, and managers at Google are all part of this public.

Moreover, the sorts of people who work at Silicon Valley companies, and who work as editors and website designers, tend to have degrees obtained from colleges and universities. These are the same colleges and universities that today’s journalists and pundits attended. They’re the same colleges and universities that public school teachers attended, and which today’s attorneys, corporate CEOs, and high-level managers attended.

Moreover, over time, the share of the public attending these colleges and universities has grown. Fifty years ago, only around 10 percent of Americans completed college. Today, the total is around one-third.

Also not surprising: more schooling apparently tends to translate into more left-wing political views. Data from a wide variety of sources has shown that Americans with more schooling tend to self-identify as “liberal” more often. According to the Pew Research Center, from 1994 to 2015, the percentage of college graduates who were “mostly liberal” or “consistently liberal” increased from 25 percent to 44 percent. At the same time, those who were “mostly conservative” or “consistently conservative” remained almost unmoved, from 30 percent to 29 percent. In other words, the number of college graduates with ”mixed” views has shifted overwhelmingly to the left. This trend is even stronger among Americans who have attended graduate school.

This would seem to be only natural. After all, the faculty has shifted to the left in recent decades. In 1990, according to survey data by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA, 42 percent of professors identified as ”liberal” or ”far-left.” By 2014, that number had jumped to 60 percent. Journalists have moved in the same direction.

So if it seems to you that corporate employees, college grads, and the media-consuming public is moving to the left, you’re probably not imagining things.

Why It’s So Important to Build Institutions That Offer an Alternative

More astute observers of the current scene have long recognized that ”politics is downstream from culture.” In other words, if we want to change politics, we have to change the worldviews of political actors first. For example, if we want a world which reflects a Christian worldview, we need a large portion of the population to actually believe in that worldview. If we want a world where voters and legislators support private property rights, we need a world where a sizable portion of the population was raised and educated to believe private property is a good thing. There are no shortcuts around this.

Unfortunately, the activists who often get the most traction are those who take exactly the opposite position. They offer a ”solution” that involves nothing more than closing the barn door long after the horse has escaped. Yet this position is nonetheless often popular because it offers a quick fix. This position takes this basic form: ”If we can get the right people into political office for the next couple of elections, then everything will be fixed.” Never mind the fact that the ”wrong” people got into office precisely because the voting public had been educated in such a way that they find those politicians’ ideas and positions attractive.

Perhaps the most recent purveyor of this futile and shortsighted view is one-time Trump advisor Steve Bannon. Bannon embraced the idea that ”culture is downstream from politics,” insisting he could deliver a ”permanent majority” in political institutions in opposition to the Left-controlled zeitgeist. All that was necessary, we were told, was to vote for Bannon’s favorite politicians for a few years. Then the public would magically start adopting Bannon’s preferred conservative views. Bannon, however, never offered a strategy any more sophisticated than buying off voters with even bigger welfare programs and crushing government debt. Bannon apparently missed the fact that the votes he needed for this vision had to come from millions of Americans who have already imbibed decades’ worth of major media content and left-wing faculty lectures.

It’s easy to see how Bannon might have thought the message could resonate. After all, we live in a country where millions of self-described ”conservatives” willingly send their children to sixteen years of public schooling and then are mystified when little Johnny comes home and announces he’s a Marxist. Apparently these people are very slow learners.

But Bannon’s more insightful colleague Andrew Breitbart knew better. As noted in a profile of Breitbart for TIME magazine in 2010:

As [Breitbart] sees it, the left exercises its power not via mastery of the issues but through control of the entertainment industry, print and television journalism and government agencies that set social policy. “Politics,” he often says, “is downstream from culture. I want to change the cultural narrative.” Thus the Big sites devote their energy less to trying to influence the legislative process in Washington than to attacking the institutions and people Breitbart believes dictate the American conversation.

Although I often disagreed with Breitbart’s editorial and ideological positions, he was certainly right about how political institutions are changed.

But to accomplish this goal, it is necessary to create organizations and institutions that can offer an alternative to the ”entertainment industry, print and television journalism and government agencies that set social policy.” This requires research, writing, podcasts, and videos. It requires educational institutions (like the Mises Institute’s graduate school) that offer views that go against what is usually taught in universities. It requires revisionist historians and scholars who can write books that counter the views pushed in the endless stream of books and articles churned out by professional academics at state-supported institutions. It requires cultural institutions like churches that provide a compelling intellectual vision that can compete with what’s taught in the colleges.

Until that happens, expect institutions like social media, Wikipedia, the mainstream media, and even corporate America to keep moving left and doing it at an increasingly fast pace. And expect the people who control those institutions to be increasingly hostile to those who disagree with them. Author:

Contact Ryan McMaken

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Be seeing you

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

About Two Years … – Gold Goats ‘n Guns

Posted by M. C. on October 22, 2020

If you are truly on an honest journey to find the right path for your own personal behavior, then rigorously applying the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) to all facets of your life leads you to shedding the precepts of the necessity of the coercive state to shape and hold society together.

https://tomluongo.me/2020/10/20/about-two-years-anarchy-capitalism/

Author: Tom Luongo

There’s an old joke that runs through hard core libertarian circles that goes something like this.

An overly earnest newbie at a Libertarian Party meeting one night during a lull in a heated discussion of comma placement in a new rule change proposal asks, “What’s the difference between an anarchist and a minarchist?”

The grizzled party chair looks up from his copy of Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty and replies, “About two years.”

And I can tell you that that joke, like all good jokes has a nugget of deep truth in it. Embracing Minarchism is the toe-dip into the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). It’s your first tentative step into the scarier world of imagining it without a state.

And it’s a position that’s comforting. But it is also rife with contradictions. Those contradictions weigh on a person who is trying to live up to the ideal of the NAP.

If you are truly on an honest journey to find the right path for your own personal behavior, then rigorously applying the NAP to all facets of your life leads you to shedding the precepts of the necessity of the coercive state to shape and hold society together.

Anarchy in the You ‘Kay?

Because you begin to see the break points, the fault lines of our society in NAP terms. For me, I quickly no longer gave credence to the idea that in order for my individual rights to express themselves I have to submit to a human authority with a granted monopoly power on the use of aggressive force, which the NAP itself stands in opposition to.

At the core of all collectivist thinking is this basic tautology that your rights stem from the negotiation of what others define them as. Only by submitting to a higher human authority over you can you have a hope of retaining any of them, so you need to negotiate them down from the ideal.

Sound complicated? That’s because it is and it’s also insane.

A far simpler interpretation is to state I have a right to life. I have a claim of ownership of myself. Any abrogation of that claim of ownership and right to it by an aggressor is wrong.

Clear, concise, powerful.

Once you come to that conclusion and are willing to apply it consistently then you can become comfortable with freeing your mind of the need for the state.

But it also comes with responsibility. How do you defend those rights? Will you defend every assault on them no matter how minor?

But here’s better questions, ones Marxist will always throw at you to trip you up…

If you don’t defend yourself against a minor theft, say a pen or a coffee mug, was your right to property taken from you? Do you still have it in practical terms if you can’t defend against a murderer?

The answers are, in order, No and Yes. Just because the property was taken or the threat made, you always reserve the right to express the right to defend it.

That you choose not to is… wait for it…

… also your right.

“If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

Neil Peart – Free Will

That leads to basic economic questions like: Should you always do so? When is forgiveness or acceptance better than retribution?

Is it worth my precious time to chase down a guy who sold me a fake watch rather than chalk it up to experience and go about my other business?

These are basic questions that form the filter on which to view the world around you and are the basic seeds of the growth from being mired in the inconsistencies of Minarchism and blossoming into the flower of Anarchism.

The Right Stuff

It leads you to conclusions about how to find ways to minimize, not eliminate, coercive forces on your life. That we live in a world circumscribed by tyrants constantly climbing over each other for the power to tyrannize is irrelevant. They may in real terms suppress the expression of your right to life but it most certainly doesn’t negate it.

You can always choose to say, “No.”

Notice to this point I haven’t spent one word talking about implementation or politics. Because implementing these ideas isn’t a system to be imposed. That, itself, is a violation of the NAP, the idea of imposing Anarchy is a Collectivist perversion of the process.

We’re seeing this in the hyper-violent rioting of Antifa and BLM wanting to impose their new system that they call anarchy at the point of a gun and an open-ended wrench.

Anarcho-Capitalism isn’t a political system, it is a behavioral model and a filter with which to view the world. It is a philosophy whose name implies an internal vision of the world we want rather than the world we have.

And that filter is an incredibly powerful tool to analyze the world — especially economics and politics as both lie at the intersection of behavioral dissonances within a given population.

(I talked with Jay Fratt, The Conservative Hippie, about Anarchism on his podcast over the weekend.)

It is also a personal goal most people share — the best versions of ourselves possible. Where the differences lie along the political landscape is the extent to which taking on the responsibility of fixing problems which are not ours leads to violence, i.e. the State and before that revolution.

And that leads to the next two-year process, the one of realizing that there is no Utopia where sin is expunged, theft conquered and sociopathy eliminated.

There is only the minimization of these things because people are capable of tremendous generosity and tremendous violence. All of us. At all times.

Sometimes simultaneously.

And the real struggle is coming to terms with that fear. Fear drives Communists to overreach and hubris. AnCaps are driven by the acceptance of their limitations.

Only a culture which reinforces this idea of personal responsibility for one’s actions rather than glorifying thieves as winners will put us back on the right path rather than the wrong one.

Given where we are right now, that’s going to take a heckuva lot more than two years.

Be seeing you

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

Elon Does Something Libertarian – EPautos – Libertarian Car Talk

Posted by M. C. on October 1, 2020

Vaccines have a very sketchy record for being safe.

Especially those rushed to market, as the vaccine for the Swine Flu was back in the mid ‘70s. A not-small number of previously healthy people became seriously – and permanently – sick after getting needled.

Journalists – there were such creatures, once upon a time – actually reported this.

Today, they report about the cases! the cases! – because their air-time is bought and paid for by the Needlers, who need to maintain the fear in order to get the mandate.

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2020/09/30/elon-does-something-libertarian/

 
Many libertarians want to like Elon Musk. He just gave them a reason to.

Not because he has decided to stop relying on government to help him sell electric cars.  But because he came out against government forcing people to submit to injections.

Musk isn’t old – or sick – and neither are his kids. Therefore, he reasons, there is no reason to inject himself or them with a vaccine against a sickness that doesn’t pose much if any serious risk to themselves – but which is itself much riskier than the virus it might protect them from getting.

Unless it is a novel vaccine, the pending WuFlu vaccine will at best be partially effective – reports have it that the threshold for FDA approval is 50 percent effective – which means 50 percent not effective – and guaranteed to come with a higher risk of serious side effects than the risk of healthy/not-elderly people getting seriously sick from the WuFlu.

Vaccines have a very sketchy record for being safe.

 

Especially those rushed to market, as the vaccine for the Swine Flu was back in the mid ‘70s. A not-small number of previously healthy people became seriously – and permanently – sick after getting needled.

Journalists – there were such creatures, once upon a time – actually reported this.

Today, they report about the cases! the cases! – because their air-time is bought and paid for by the Needlers, who need to maintain the fear in order to get the mandate.

Which Elon has decided he’ll say no to.

Good for him – and for us.

Needling the healthy and not-elderly is as unnecessary as forcing people who can swim to wear a life-preserver whenever they go near the water. Worse, actually – because the latter would be merely silly while the former (needling the healthy) is objectively dangerous. They are trying to force healthy people to assume a greater risk than the risk of the thing which the needling is supposedly meant to protect them from.

With indemnity!

You know you’re in trouble when the government can force you to submit to a medical procedure that you not only can’t refuse but which you can’t sue for redress in the event you’re permanently damaged by it. It is like being told you must buy a car with a potentially lethal defect and if it maims or kills you, you can’t sue the company that made it.

Elon also publicly excoriated the “lockdowns” as “fascistic” – which is absolutely correct though perhaps not in the sense he meant it.

Fascism isn’t defined by goose-stepping and Jew-baiting. These are incidentals. Mussolini – who coined the term and based it on the Roman fasces, or lictor’s bundles, which were the symbol of state authority – defined it as the partnering of the state and corporate power.

 

Does this sound familiar?

The “lockdowns” – ordered by the government – did not lock down corporations. Both were declared essential (by themselves) and given leave to operate, while individual proprietors and small businesses were not. The government, in other words, advantaged the corporations – the “big box” retailers and grocery stores, etc. – and itself at the disadvantage of the not-corporate, with the obvious intent being not public health but the health of corporate/state power. If health were the true reason, the “lockdowns” would have applied generally.

 

Elon gets this, apparently. At least, partially.

He sees the “de facto house arrest(ing”) as “unethical” but does not see the immorality of partnering with the government to enrich himself via mandates that advantage his corporate power. He does not get that if the government can force people to buy electric cars because of assertions about climatological health then surely – logically – it can force people to take a Needle for the sake of assertions about public health.

Elon’s heart may be in the right place. But it’d be better if his mind were.

He is, at least, on the right track. Perhaps it will occur to him that it would be much more ethical – and far more moral – to build electric cars that sold on the merits, without resort to mandates.

He’s a smart guy – and a very rich guy. He could do it – and by doing it, show the world how it could be done. Offer “ludicrous speed” to those who can afford to pay for the indulgence, as Porsche and Ferrari have always done (without needing subsidies). But offer reasonable cost to those who need it.

And then they just might buy it – without being forced. Without forcing others to subsidize it.

If he were to do that, he’d actually be a libertarian  – instead of one who believes he is.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Donald Trump, Anarchism Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on September 27, 2020

an·ar·chism
/ˈanərˌkizəm/
noun
“Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.” (Google Online Dictionary)
“ANARCHISM is a political philosophy and movement that rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. It calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.”  (Wikipedia)

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/donald-trump-anarchism-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

by

 

Inigo

Donald Trump seems to think we’re all stupid, or he really is stupid. Then again, maybe we can just chalk this all up to neo-McCarthysim. What, you may ask, am I talking about?

The ‘Dear Fuhrer’ keeps using a word as a fear-inducing pejorative, and I don’t think that it means what he thinks that it means. It’s even more ridiculous than something from ‘The Princess Bride.’

There are a lot of people in the world who identify as an ‘anarchist’ of some sort or another. From some of the world’s most respected intellectuals and political minds, to the factory floors, as well as the culture in music, and even among those who practice law or fight wars; you can find a rich history of anarchists in America. If Bubba from Forrest Gump were here, he might say: “There’s market anarchists, christian anarchists, political anarchists, classical anarchists, individualist anarchists, mutualist anarchists, social anarchists, crypto anarchists,” etc, ad nauseam.

If you’re talking about people who may not always self-identify as ‘anarchists,’ but technically are living a given lifestyle consistent with some traditional vein within anarchism, then even pacifists such as the Amish communities can count as a type of ‘anarchist.’ And, in fact, anarchists are typically not bomb-throwers, but garden-growers. Anarchists may sometimes just include people who tend to have an aversion to being organized in authoritarian and violent hierarchies, and choose rather to surround themselves among people who problem-solve with a countenance towards peaceful resolutions which respect everyone’s natural rights and freedoms.

I’ve been happy to self-identify as an ‘anarchist’ of a stripe for many years now because I find the concept of consent and voluntaryism to be the highest of all the ideals in both morality and law.

For the record:
an·ar·chism
/ˈanərˌkizəm/
noun
“Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.” (Google Online Dictionary)
“ANARCHISM is a political philosophy and movement that rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. It calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.”  (Wikipedia)

(In)famous atheist activist Madalyn Murray O’Hair was a self-identified anarchist, and philosopher Ayn Rand has certainly been a historical favorite among those who enjoy reading in the ‘individualist anarchist’ vein of thought (although I don’t know of her ever technically self-identifying as an anarchist). Emma Goldman is probably one of the most well-known historical anarchist names in American labor movements. Leo Tolstoy left an undeniable legacy of anarchism within America’s most widely practiced faith tradition. There are ‘Austrian economists’ who openly call themselves anarchists currently, and who have even testified before the U.S. Congress on economic matters. Noam Chomsky seems to be a celebrity favorite of many anarchists today, and even a President of the United States can sound much like an anarchist when they say things like, “Government isn’t the solution to our problems, government is the problem,” as Ronald Reagan did.

Words actually have definitions. One might think the president would know the definitions of the terms he speaks publicly and would want to use those words correctly.

Or, maybe there’s another agenda afoot.

If someone has awoken the spirit of Eugene McCarthy, I’ve got a few questions for them.

Kru Adam G. “Brick” House is an Afghanistan war veteran and former licensed minister (UPCI), who has become an outspoken skeptic, peace advocate, and libertarian activist. He currently resides in Leander, Texas, where he is a licensed Muay Thai Kru and owner of Peaceful Warrior Muay Thai Academy.

Be seeing you

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

Why There’s a Left-Right Divide among Libertarians | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on September 6, 2020

So while thin libertarians are primarily concerned with limiting state power and protecting private property, it is thick libertarians who often seek to infuse their political philosophy with leftist social justice exhortations and calls to fight injustice and racism everywhere, even if the state must eventually be invoked as an intervening power (e.g., Gary Johnson’s “bake the cake” fiasco, or Jo Jorgensen’s recent Tweet). As Rockwell has noted, this has happened before, with what he sees as the degradation of classical liberalism into today’s American “liberalism.”

https://mises.org/wire/why-theres-left-right-divide-among-libertarians?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=a777ee7200-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-a777ee7200-228343965

Amid the sociocultural convulsions and boutique displays of urban anarcho-tyranny that have taken place in America in recent months, there has been renewed discussion within certain circles of the liberty movement about how appropriate it is for libertarians and their intellectual brethren to self-identify as “right-wing” or “left-wing.” While libertarianism itself, which merely requires adherence to the nonaggression principle (NAP) and a desire to minimize or abolish state power, need not be considered a “right-wing” or “left-wing” political philosophy, I contend (from a decidedly right-wing perspective) that individual libertarians are almost certainly on the right or on the left.

All too often, libertarian infighting and internecine squabbles come across as mere navel gazing, with many mainstream libertarians—especially Libertarian Inc.—insisting that they have heroically transcended the old left-right spectrum. (Strangely enough, some libertarians seem to believe that this spectrum primarily pertains to red/blue politics.) Nevertheless, in recent months there have been some important conversations touching upon rights, human nature, the left-right spectrum, and what being a libertarian actually means. These conversations have taken place on podcasts such as Dave Smith’s Part of the Problem, Free Man Beyond the Wall, and The Tom Woods Show, among others.

I believe that these conversations are quite useful, as they might help convince some libertarians to abandon the hackneyed idiocy of defining and summing up the movement as “economically conservative but socially liberal.” It is a cheap cop-out, and individual libertarians should not shy away from accepting a “right-wing” or “left-wing” label; in fact, attempting to do so is an exercise in futility.

Stripped down to its very core, being right-wing entails a defense of natural hierarchies and a recognition that human beings are not all the same. This is consonant with thinkers from Aristotle all the way through the “revolutionary” leaders of the American War for Independence. Thomas Jefferson—admittedly not typically cited as a right-winger—voiced this sentiment in a letter to John Adams:

I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents….The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society.

Many on the right augment their worldview by noting that there is an objective moral order in the universe—and that it is knowable to us. Imperfect human beings are capable of great evil but also incredible acts of love, mercy, courage, and creativity. The embrace of an objective moral order (i.e., natural law) can be traced back to Catholic scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas and, later on, the Jesuit thinkers of the School of Salamanca (whom Murray Rothbard considered to be proto-Austrians in their approach to economics).

The very understanding that we are born with inherent natural rights is a sine qua non for civil society that is embraced by most anarcho-capitalists, propertarians, “paleolibertarian” minarchists, Ron Paul supporters, and true conservatives on the right. They recognize that the sacrosanct rights to private property and free association do not come from any government or collective entity.

Critics of the Right toss around (what they believe to be) slurs such as “reactionary” and “counterrevolutionary.” Yet, as Jeff Deist and others have argued, when considering the twentieth century’s long and disastrous litany of egalitarian and statist experiments here in the United States (e.g., the institution of the federal income tax, the Federal Reserve, the popular/democratic election of US senators, the New Deal, the Great Society), it is almost impossible for a libertarian NOT to take up a reactionary stance against these statist usurpations. After all, right-wingers contend that not all changes to civil society are desirable and that not all novelty serves the good. There might even be a modicum of wisdom from past generations that should be retained and imparted to future generations.

The Left, on the other hand, is defined by a devotion to egalitarianism, fighting for what they define as “oppressed” groups, and working for what they see as social and economic justice. They typically promote radical social change and keeping the ancien regime in a state of upheaval, believing that “inclusion” and tolerance are more appropriate for a progressive polity than reactionary morality and societal mores.

It is a leftist view that human beings are not born with intrinsic natural or God-given rights; rather, they are granted and assured those rights by the state or the collective. Any differences that might exist between human beings—whether disparities in wealth, innate abilities, health, intelligence, or even biological sex—could be unjustly exploited, so it follows that there might be a much bigger role for the state.

There are a variety of different economic views among left libertarians. Some adhere to anarcho-socialism and mutualism as described by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Others on the left practice countereconomics and agorism as promulgated by Samuel Konkin. All left libertarians are against economic and military imperialism; many of them recognize the labor theory of value, along with the rejection of private ownership of natural resources and the means of production, as fundamental economic principles.

In many instances, the line between left libertarians and right libertarians roughly approximates the delineation between “thick” and “thin” libertarianism. Thin libertarians merely believe in the NAP, the inviolability of private property, and the illegitimacy of state violence. Under subsidiarity principles, any government that is allowed to exist has its relatively small, distinct sphere of influence, and it must not intrude upon local communities—and especially not the family. Thick libertarians usually go much further, though. As Lew Rockwell has argued:

Proponents of a “thick” libertarianism suggest that libertarians are bound to defend something more than the nonaggression principle, and that libertarianism involves commitments beyond just this. One such proponent recently said, “I continue to have trouble believing that the libertarian philosophy is concerned only with the proper and improper uses of force.”

So while thin libertarians are primarily concerned with limiting state power and protecting private property, it is thick libertarians who often seek to infuse their political philosophy with leftist social justice exhortations and calls to fight injustice and racism everywhere, even if the state must eventually be invoked as an intervening power (e.g., Gary Johnson’s “bake the cake” fiasco, or Jo Jorgensen’s recent Tweet). As Rockwell has noted, this has happened before, with what he sees as the degradation of classical liberalism into today’s American “liberalism.”

Certainly, it is possible for left libertarians and those with “thick” tendencies to avoid the siren song of authoritarian power and live according to the NAP, but it could very well represent a constant internal ideological struggle. After all, who would enforce the far left’s desired ban on privately held land and factories? Who would step in and prevent workers from being exploited? What entity will outlaw discrimination, curtail racism, and punish rogue bakers?

The differences in economics, ethics, and worldview among libertarians are plainly evident. When libertarians approach political and societal questions—and when they define the scope of their own libertarianism—they clearly do so from the left or from the right.

Author:

Gregory Gordon

Gregory Gordon (Twitter: @gregorysgordon) earned his Ph.D. from the Colorado School of Mines. He currently works as a geoscientist in the energy industry, and he is a lecturer in the California State University system. He resides in California with his wife and four children.

Be seeing you

 

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