MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Libertarian’

TGIF: Who’s the Aggressor? Who’s the Victim? | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on July 17, 2021

If the point of rights theory is to enable human beings to flourish as they live side by side peacefully and cooperatively in society, then any theory that regards land and other scarce resources as jointly owned by all of humanity is in for problems. The moral is the practical.

The principle of nonaggression is universal: you may not interfere with me, and I may not interfere with you. Liberty for all means no one is aggressed against. Society should be based on consent and cooperation.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tgif-whos-the-aggressor-whos-the-victim/

by Sheldon Richman

rothbard

When a libertarian says that the most basic individual right is the right not to be aggressed against, a clever interlocutor may accuse the libertarian of begging the question, of stuffing the rabbit into the hat. The trick, the critic will say, is in the word aggress: libertarians allegedly rig the game by restricting the category of aggression to only the actions they disapprove of, thereby institutionalizing many corrupt activities.

For example, If Jones tells Smith to get off land to which Jones has legal title, is it really clear that Smith is in the wrong and Jones is in the right? The critic will offer a counter-narrative: it’s considered Jones’s land because the political system arbitrarily defines property rights in a certain way. It might have defined rights differently so that Smith could walk on the land as wishes. So why not see Jones as the aggressor against Smith?

If the libertarian responded that Jones transformed the hitherto unowned parcel by mixing his labor with it, perhaps by clearing and fencing it, the critic might respond that Jones’s act constituted aggression because, unlike yesterday and the day before, no one now may step on the land without Jones’s permission. Jones, in other words, restricts everyone else’s freedom. Who’s right and who’s wrong would depend on one’s point of view.

This case against libertarian property rights implies that land has never been unowned because it has always been owned by humanity in common. Such a position was taken most famously by Henry George. While George did not oppose individuals’ use of parcels of land, he said that users ought to have to pay land rent to the community, the true owners. This was George’s “single tax.” Murray Rothbard rebutted George’s case in both its moral and economic dimensions. (See also Rothbard’s Power and Market.)

If the point of rights theory is to enable human beings to flourish as they live side by side peacefully and cooperatively in society, then any theory that regards land and other scarce resources as jointly owned by all of humanity is in for problems. The moral is the practical. So imagine the impracticality of determining how a piece of land is to be used if everyone is to have a say in the matter. Yet if human beings are to prosper, decisions about how to use scarce resources are crucial. No one is infallible or has a monopoly of wisdom about the “best” use of resources, but we have the next best thing: the market and its price system. The market provides indispensable signals about ever-changing supplies and consumer preferences. Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek made their marks as great economists by, among other things, showing that market prices are the only things we have to relieve, insofar as possible, our ignorance about how scarce resources can be used best to serve everyone’s welfare. Private property and free markets expand rather than contract the public’s access to resources.

The critic of libertarianism may listen and nod but continue to insist that we have no objective way to tell who is the aggressor: Smith or Jones. But maybe we do.

Life is not an abstraction. Individual people are beings who live day to day through the pursuit of projects, which usually involve the cooperation of others. Since we are physical beings, that pursuit requires control over things, including land, and therefore noninterference by other people. How could we live and plan long term if our activities could be interfered with and the fruits of our efforts could be appropriated by others? I take for granted that each person is a self-owner because denial of this principle collapses in absurdity. Lincoln wrote that “if slavery isn’t wrong, nothing is wrong.” Abolitionists called slave owners “man-stealers.” If self-ownership isn’t right, then nothing is right.

The principle of nonaggression is universal: you may not interfere with me, and I may not interfere with you. Liberty for all means no one is aggressed against. Society should be based on consent and cooperation.

In the story above, if we assume Jones acquired the land justly through homesteading, purchase, or gift, then the land is part of his project, and Smith’s trespass constitutes interference with Jones’s life. (Of course, trespass can be trivial, and methods of prevention or redress would have to be proportional to the offense. Put bluntly, Jones can’t shoot Smith merely for setting foot on his land.)

Yes, in a physical sense, Jones’s ownership “interferes” with Smith’s freedom, although not his ability to live as a human being (except perhaps in an emergency). But human action is never merely physical. Justice is relevant. The same physical act can be just or unjust depending on the circumstances.

I think this demonstrates that the libertarian case does not pack its conclusions into its definition of aggression. Hard cases of course can arise, but generally we can determine who is the rightful owner and who is wrongfully interfering.

Finally, I have not tried to sort out the case of ownership clouded by historical injustice, namely, theft. What to do about this is a complicated matter, in part because of the variety of cases, on which I claim no particular wisdom. Those who wish to delve into the problem can begin by looking at what Rothbard had to say in The Ethics of Liberty.

Be seeing you

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

Classical Natural Law and Libertarian Theory | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on July 8, 2021

I love philosophy up to the point where I start treading it.

https://mises.org/library/classical-natural-law-and-libertarian-theoryCarlo Lottieri

Carlo Lottieri

If libertarianism wishes to give up modern political categories, it has to think about law in a different way. Murray N. Rothbard, the most important exponent of the radical libertarian school, is right when he rejects the historicism and relativism of legal realism and when—for the same reasons—he criticizes Hayek and Leoni.

But unfortunately, he does not really grasp the function of the evolution into classic natural law. Furthermore, his idea of building a libertarian code is completely inconsistent with his frequent references to the Greek and Christian legal heritage.1

In For a New Liberty, Rothbard points out that the history of a changing and evolving law can be useful in order to find just rules: “since we have a body of common law principles to draw on, however, the task of reason in correcting and amending the common law would be far easier than trying to construct a body of systematic legal principles de novo out of the thin air.”2

But the relationship between common law and natural law must be seen differently. Common law is not only an interesting tool for discovering natural law: it has its specific role. Positive law needs to interact with natural law principles, but even the latter cannot be considered as self-sufficient.

Moreover, in his defense of rationality, Rothbard does not realize that law cannot be entirely read into the praxeological framework, which is axiomatic and deductive. The division of theory and history puts some disciplines into opposition with others, but above all it makes a distinction within any single field of study.

Economics, for instance, is a theoretical science if considered as political economics, but a historical and empiric activity if it analyzes what happened in the past.3 This is also true for legal studies, because they have a theoretical part but, at the same time, include many other aspects which, on the contrary, are historical and cannot be examined using logical and a priori methods.

See the rest here

Author:

Carlo LottieriCarlo Lottieri is an Italian political philosopher with the University of Siena and Istituto Bruno Leoni whose main interests are in contemporary libertarian thought. Most recently he edited an anthology of writings by Bruno Leoni.

Be seeing you

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

Four Libertarian Principles to Guide Childcare Policy

Posted by M. C. on June 28, 2021

by Laurence M. Vance

Just as many conservatives believe that the federal government should have an education policy, so many conservatives believe that the federal government should have a childcare policy.In a free society, the government would be completely indifferent as to whether anyone had children or not. It would not concern itself with their education, health care, or upbringing.
[Click to Tweet]

A case in point was an event held last March held by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) titled “Should Conservatives Favor Child Allowances?,” as well as a recent article by Lyman Stone on the AEI website titled “More Choice, Fewer Costs: Four Key Principles to Guide Child Care Policy.”

According to its website, AEI

is a public policy think tank dedicated to defending human dignity, expanding human potential, and building a freer and safer world. The work of our scholars and staff advances ideas rooted in our belief in democracy, free enterprise, American strength and global leadership, solidarity with those at the periphery of our society, and a pluralistic, entrepreneurial culture.

AEI scholars are committed to making the intellectual, moral, and practical case for expanding freedom, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening the free enterprise system in America and around the world.

Lyman Stone “is an Adjunct Fellow at AEI, a Research Fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, and a former International Economist at the US Department of Agriculture.”

At the AEI event, two conservative scholars argued against a government child allowance, and one argued for it. This was followed by a panel discussion in which three conservative scholars argued against a government child allowance and two argued for it, including Stone.

In his remarks, Stone posited four “key principles that should guide policymakers as we debate childcare policies and the increase in spending in this area: choice, compensation, fairness, and cost.”

1. Choice. The government should “do more to support school choice by providing vouchers to families.” But it should also support childcare choice. Any new government spending “should give parents more choice about childcare, not less, and correspondingly should not discriminate between different parental choices.”

See the rest here

This post was written by: Laurence M. Vance

Laurence M. Vance is a columnist and policy advisor for the Future of Freedom Foundation, an associated scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and a columnist, blogger, and book reviewer at LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Gun Control and the Second Amendment, The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom, and War, Empire and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society. Visit his website: www.vancepublications.com. Send him e-mail.

Be seeing you

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

A Libertarian Look At Land, Fear, And Life After Covid – With Guest Jeff Deist

Posted by M. C. on June 4, 2021

Mises Institute president and former Rep. Ron Paul chief-of-staff Jeff Deist joins today’s Liberty Report to discuss the prospects for libertarianism and a non-violent approach to seemingly intractable disputes over land, control, and government coercion. Is the post-Covid US ripe or barren for the ideas of liberty to take hold?

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

The Present Libertarian Priority – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on April 28, 2021

This ambivalence, and this stupidity, by libertarians, is contributing to the destruction of society. That’s right. Supporting face masks, the Covid-19 vaccine, and any of the other things I mentioned above is contributing to the destruction of society. The present libertarian priority is the condemnation and elimination of these things, not just because they are unnecessary, but because they are destroying society.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/04/laurence-m-vance/the-present-libertarian-priority/

By Laurence M. Vance

“The idea behind advocating for libertarianism is to introduce a more civil society, not the destruction of society.” ~ Robert Wenzel

I have previously written about libertarian priorities. There I began:

The libertarian goal is ultimately a free society where the non-aggression principle is the foundational principle and individual liberty, laissez-faire, and property rights reign supreme. Standing in the way of that goal is the state. And if that weren’t already a formidable enough obstacle, the state is also actively seeking to increase and expand its power and its interventions into the economy and society.

Under the guise of the Covid-19 “pandemic,” government at all levels is succeeding to increase and expand its power and its interventions into the economy and society as never before.

Yet, some libertarians not only still don’t get it, they are aiding and abetting the state in its destruction of society as a result of their ambivalence or their stupidity.

Libertarians generally recognize that there are core priorities that take precedence over most other issues. Here are ten of them:

  • The drug war
  • Foreign wars
  • The U.S. empire of troops and bases
  • The warfare state
  • The welfare state
  • The national security state
  • The size and scope of government
  • Government control of education
  • Government wealth confiscation
  • Government income redistribution

Eliminating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and privatizing local garbage collection take a back seat to these much more damaging things.

Because of the events of the past year, in addition to the above core priorities there is one issue that libertarians must make their priority for its duration: the bogus government Covid-19 “pandemic” and draconian government response to it. The libertarian priority at the present time should be the condemnation and elimination of:

  • Lockdowns
  • Curfews
  • Face masks
  • The Covid-19 vaccine
  • Mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations to attend school, travel, or go to work
  • Social distancing
  • Capacity limits in stores, restaurants, churches, theaters, arenas, and stadiums
  • Quarantines
  • Plastic shields in front of all cash registers
  • Contract tracing
  • CDC recommendations and guidelines relating to Covid-19
  • Covid-19 testing
  • Vaccine passports
  • Travel restrictions
  • The closure of, and restrictions on, “unessential businesses”
  • Government and corporate propaganda in support of these things
  • Censorship of opposition to these things

It doesn’t matter if it is private entities that are promoting and practicing these things. They should still be opposed root and branch. Business that are requiring masks, limiting the number of people in their stores, and making announcements about maintaining social distancing are generally only doing so because they are following government mandates and/or CDC propaganda about “the virus.” They wouldn’t even be thinking about these things were it not for the government’s draconian response to the “pandemic.”

But as I said, some libertarians (generally self-proclaimed left-libertarians) still don’t get it.

One libertarian asks: “What does it mean to be libertarian now? I would say that the purer forms of libertarianism are evolving: from a set of policy stances on political questions to a series of projects for building entire new political worlds.” After praising “the importance of Operation Warp Speed in getting the U.S. out of the pandemic” and dismissing the Great Barrington Declaration as “fatally flawed,” he says that “much of the intellectual effort in libertarian circles is concentrated in two ideas in particular: charter cities and cryptocurrency.” I don’t know what libertarian circles he is running in, but the intellectual effort of its members is being wasted while society is crumbling around us.

Another libertarian, even while criticizing Democrats and liberals for panicking over the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions in Texas, spouts a bunch of Covid-19 nonsense that could have come from the CDC:

Masks have been an important tool in slowing the course of the pandemic. There’s a strong case to be made that the unvaccinated should still wear them when they gather in large numbers in indoor spaces.

Fully vaccinated people are essentially immune from serious disease or death, and according to the latest data, they are very unlikely to carry or transmit COVID-19 at all. The message to the unvaccinated should be: Go get vaccinated. The message to the vaccinated should be: Rejoice! You can go back to normal life.

If we don’t want pandemic restrictions to become the new airport security, there needs to be pushback: Get vaccinated, and then get back to normal.

This ambivalence, and this stupidity, by libertarians, is contributing to the destruction of society. That’s right. Supporting face masks, the Covid-19 vaccine, and any of the other things I mentioned above is contributing to the destruction of society. The present libertarian priority is the condemnation and elimination of these things, not just because they are unnecessary, but because they are destroying society.

The best places to find the valuable information you need about the bogus government Covid-19 “pandemic” and the draconian government response to it are LewRockwell.com, Lifefacts by LifeSiteNews, the daily Tom Woods e-mail, the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), TargetLiberty, and my Covid-19 insanity page. There are other places, of course, and I apologize in advance for omitting to mention them, but these places will give you more than you can possibly use to combat the lies, nonsense, and propaganda about all things relating to Covid-19—even when uttered by libertarians.

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom; War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism; War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy; King James, His Bible, and Its Translators, and many other books. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society.

Be seeing you

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

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 »