Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Libertarians’

Four things only libertarians can see about COVID-19

Posted by M. C. on April 7, 2020

What is unseen are the variety of harms that occur because people have been denied freedom of association and movement.

Second, don’t overlook the harm caused by government actors.

No matter the doomsday scenario, it’s hard to imagine a single governor (or president) outsmarting millions of people.

The Principle of Human Respect is a natural, cause-and-effect relationship. If I rob you at gunpoint, your happiness decreases. Social harmony and prosperity are diminished too.

A new form of political correctness has spread, like a virus, across the fruited plain. Libertarians are taking heat – getting angry responses for criticizing governors who have used the spread of COVID-19 to issue edicts that shutter businesses and impose martial law-like schemes.

coronavirus covid-19 libertarians politics

Still, libertarians find they cannot keep quiet. Their philosophy of self-government is forged in an understanding of consequences. Libertarians are the only members of society who can see – even foresee – the following four things about the State’s edicts and regulations…

The seen and the unseen

First, libertarians can visualize the Unseen.

What is seen is that which is obvious to us. In the present case, it’s easy for us to see the way the virus is spreading and how the healthcare system is overrun in Italy.

What is unseen are the variety of harms that occur because people have been denied freedom of association and movement. Politicians are using wartime powers and preening before TV cameras. There will be short-term and long-term effects stemming from their actions. Nearly everyone, especially the regime media, is overlooking these costs.

The proper way to analyze this situation is to take all of the effects into account.

Libertarians are just like you; they’re sheltering and practicing physical distance. But let’s be clear, not everyone has that luxury. There’s no way that a governor could anticipate, let alone solve all of these sticky issues. Edicts are “one size fits all.” Each person understands their unique situation better than a politician in a distant capitol could. There are many scenarios to consider. Here’s a sampling…

  • Right now, families are trapped in a home with an abuser. Perhaps the abuser’s workday was a time of relief, or the victim’s school or work was an escape path to safety.
  • Suicides will increase during the crisis.
  • Addiction will worsen because the sense of purpose or even mere interruption that occupational work provides has been stolen away.
  • Businesses that were operating on a thin margin will fold, crushing dreams, resulting in unemployment, and even reducing supply. Supply reductions will fuel price increases for all of us.

Notice State failures

Second, don’t overlook the harm caused by government actors. For example, Donald Trump’s aides were afraid to give their reelection-minded boss any bad news until it was too late. And the sudden, jarring, gubernatorial edicts have caused fear, uncertainty, and doubt – provoking shortages.

In a libertarian world, reliable tests would already be for sale! And if the tests were universally available, the crisis would’ve been far smaller and Americans would be back to work.

There are two reasons tests are not already on the market.

  1. Political suppression of information. If they had gotten the signal earlier, then entrepreneurs, inventors, and existing businesses would’ve started delivering tests by now. We know there was sufficient time because a handful of U.S. Senators were briefed in January. After seeing the impending crisis, they sold off their stocks.
  2. Ironically, regulations are supposed to make us safer. What they do instead is create barriers which increase delays and costs. Frequently, the innovator realizes that no action is profitable, choosing not to invent (another unseen effect). The FDA has been in the way of tests getting to market.

Wisdom of the crowd

Third, self-government is the best solution to the Knowledge Problem. No matter the doomsday scenario, it’s hard to imagine a single governor (or president) outsmarting millions of people.

No matter how brilliant the governor and his or her advisors are, he or she lacks the capacity to win a problem-solving contest against tens of millions of people.

Worse, political acts are prone to cause injuries (which tend to be unseen and unreported). The miracle of “stuff” arriving on our store shelves involves millions of micro-decisions. Sudden edicts have replaced that. Shortages result because the governor deploys unanticipated force. Consider…

Restaurants who planned menus suddenly have too much food. Grocery stores, who thought people would be at restaurants, find that they have new customers instead. The restaurant owner takes a bath.

Even with nearly-empty shelves, stores need to make sure they don’t over-order in response. Grocers know these effects are temporary, but they don’t know when they will end. They don’t want to end up like the restaurants, stuck with too much stock on hand. Uncertainty prevails. Shortages will remain a problem until governors back out of the equation.

Human respect

Fourth and most important of all, is the matter of Human Respect. The libertarian uniquely recognizes that everyone seeks happiness and that no one person can make everyone happy.

The Principle of Human Respect is a natural, cause-and-effect relationship. If I rob you at gunpoint, your happiness decreases. Social harmony and prosperity are diminished too.

Since this is a principle, even governors cannot violate it. Bans and edicts are ultimately enforced by armed men and women. These are not acts of persuasion; they are threats to achieve a desired result. When anyone, be they a criminal or your governor, coerces another human being, they never increase happiness. And in the present situation, the bans have obviously decreased social peace and material prosperity.

The damage to prosperity is already so obvious that no one is contesting it.

And before the governors started acting, we had peaceful cooperation. Most people were already practicing physical distancing. We also witnessed allegedly greedy corporations voluntarily sacrificing many millions of dollars. To prevent the spread of COVID-19 the NCAA closed events to the public. Then, the NBA suspended its season and Disney closed its parks. Like falling dominoes, tons of businesses followed.

AFTER that, governors forced the holdouts to close. Libertarians began raising important questions like the four you’ve just reviewed. They’re getting accused of wanting to clog hospitals and increase the death toll. Therefore, consider the role politicians are playing. Are their acts increasing harmony or did they introduce new divisions into our society?

Be seeing you




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

I Endorse ‘OK, Boomer,’ And So Should You – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 26, 2019

If you want to be right-wing, knock yourself out. But don’t be dumb-guy right-wing, speaking and thinking in slogans that sound like they were hammered out in the boardroom of a D.C. marketing firm.


Tom Woods Show

From the Tom Woods Letter:

So the youngsters are using “OK, boomer” as a dismissive retort these days.

The reference is to the generation born roughly between 1946 and 1965 — though the set of beliefs I personally associate with the phrase is not confined to people from that age group.

I’ve seen some libertarians (and of course conservatives) object to this.

Why, these youngsters should respect authority!

But you know what?

No matter how the expression is being used in practice, in principle it’s a great idea that I wholeheartedly endorse.

And yes, I will of course lose subscribers today. (I’ll live.)

Boomers should be exercising some kind of leadership role today, as our elders. They should be giving us something to look up to.

Instead, even the Boomers who consider themselves cheeky and anti-Establishment just repeat slogans and talking points handed to them by talk radio or the Heritage Foundation.

(Boomerism as I conceive of it is more a set of ideas than it is an age range.)

With every possible resource available to them online at the push of a button they’re still thinking in 1980s Republican Party platitudes?

They’re still portraying presidents they like as heroic defenders of Jesus?

They’re still worked up when people object to the Pledge of Allegiance? They still haven’t encountered anyone or anything that makes them wonder about “one nation, indivisible” as an American principle?

They’re still comparing American soldiers to Jesus Christ?

They still use the expression “my president”?

They’re still saying, “If you won’t stand behind the troops, feel free to stand in front of them”?

After all the police abuse, which takes a multitude of forms, they’re still repeating slogans with all the sophistication of a third-grade book report?

So no, I won’t be shedding any tears if we have a dismissive response to this contemptible intellectual laziness.

If you want to be right-wing, knock yourself out. But don’t be dumb-guy right-wing, speaking and thinking in slogans that sound like they were hammered out in the boardroom of a D.C. marketing firm.

Be seeing you

A Baby Boomer's Belated Blog to George Will | HuffPost





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

What Is It That Libertarians Don’t Get about the Military? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 17, 2019


I expect to get negative responses from conservatives when I write articles about the U.S. military. I don’t expect to get them from libertarians.

In response to my recent article, “Should We Honor Military Personnel?,” I received e-mails from two libertarians. Perhaps there were others. I never assume that everyone who contacts me after I write an article for is a libertarian. One, not everyone who reads LRC is a libertarian. I myself, a libertarian, read many conservative and liberal websites. And two, many times my LRC articles are reposted by a variety of websites. I never know if someone read my article on LRC or some other website.

Both libertarians who wrote me took issue with the basic premise of my article: military personnel who actually defend the country like they are supposed to shouldn’t be honored any more than a cook at Waffle House. I didn’t address the issue of honoring military personnel who don’t actually defend the country like they are supposed to. My position on that has been consistently and vehemently negative since I began writing about the warfare state after the United States invaded Iraq…

What is it that libertarians don’t get about the U.S. military?

Here are ten things about the U.S. military that I have mentioned scores of times over the years in my articles about the U.S. military:

  1. The U.S. military is the president’s personal attack force.
  2. The U.S. military doesn’t defend our freedoms.
  3. The U.S. military carries out a reckless, belligerent, and meddling U.S. foreign policy.
  4. The U.S. military goes places it has no business going.
  5. The U.S. military kills people it has no business killing.
  6. The U.S. military engages in offense, not defense.
  7. The U.S. military fights unjust and immoral wars.
  8. The U.S. military bombs countries that were no threat to the United States.
  9. The U.S. military creates terrorists, insurgents, and militants because of its actions.
  10.  The U.S. military is a global force for evil.

These ten things are more than enough.

No member of the military should be honored no matter where or why he “served.” Individual soldiers should be blamed for the misdeeds (and they are not perceived; they are real) of the military because (1) individual soldiers joined of their own freewill and (2) individual soldiers are the ones who commit the misdeeds. The fact that they took an oath to defend the Constitution means nothing if they don’t actually defend it. No soldier should have to be sent away from his family for extreme lengths of time or prepare himself mentally, emotionally and spiritually to lay down his life if necessary. Not if he was actually engaged in defending the country against real threats instead of fighting foreign wars.

The huge embarrassment to libertarianism is for anyone who calls himself a libertarian to honor U.S. military personnel just because they “served” when, even in their best state, they should not be honored any more than a cook at Waffle House.

Be seeing you



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

Immigration Tyranny and Cruelty Come Home – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on May 16, 2019

Not all Libertarians favor open borders. Some of us believe no border, no country.

We already have a mans of legally entering the US. Flawed though it may be.

Some Libertarians believe that if there is a job or some sort of private support waiting it is OK to make a home here. Otherwise taxation and theft of private property is the result (ie taxation and government using otherwise public and/or private land and property to house and support illegals).

The arrest of the lady helping people in distress – that is simply a AGW (armed government worker) who is either/or low on his quota and exercising his power. I am betting on a power play.



I can’t help but wonder if what has happened to Theresa Todd will cause conservative-leaning libertarians to abandon their support of immigration controls, the system of immigration central planning, cruelty, and tyranny that both conservatives and progressives have unfortunately foisted upon our land.

Todd lives in West Texas. One night she was driving down a highway when she was flagged down by three young Central American migrants — Carlos, 22, his brother Francisco 20, and their sister Esmeralda, 18.

The three of them had fled El Salvador years ago and had been living with an aunt in Guatemala. Two of Carlos’s friends had been murdered by Guatemalan gangs and a gang leader wanted Esmeralda to be his girlfriend. The three of them decided to flee to the United States. They entered the U.S. by crossing a remote desert.

When Todd encountered the three, Esmeralda was suffering from starvation, extreme dehydration, and infected wounds from cactus spines and rhabdomyolysis, a grave illness that sometimes leads to kidney failure. According to William Kitts, the local sheriff in Jeff Davis County, Texas, where the incident took place, Esmeralda would have died if Todd had not stopped to help her.

And Todd did stop to help, a decision that has ended up costing her immensely. Why? Because while the three migrants were sitting in Todd’s vehicle as she began making telephone calls, a deputy sheriff drove up and then immediately summoned the Border Patrol, who proceeded to arrest not only the three migrants but also Todd herself.

Todd hasn’t yet been formally charged and there is still a possibility that federal officials will think twice before prosecuting her, especially since the 53-year-old woman serves as both the city attorney of Marfa, Texas, and the county attorney of Jeff Davis County. If she is charged, the likely offense will be “harboring” illegal immigrants, which is a felony.  A conviction would likely result in the revocation of her law license.

That’s what Todd gets for stopping to help those three young people, one of whom was on the verge of death.  As she put it,

I honestly don’t feel like I ever did anything wrong: I stopped to help some kids. It’s been pretty transformative for me, to be perfectly honest. To have devoted my life to public service, and then to be Mirandized, detained and investigated as if I’m a human smuggler. The whole thing was really, really, very surreal. It was like a “Twilight Zone.”

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, under a system of open borders, which is the system that we libertarians favor, Carlos, Francisco, and Esmeralda would not have been entering the country by crossing a lonely and dangerous desert…

Be seeing you

La-Raza-Founder (1)

…from the USA


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

Why School Compulsory-Attendance Laws? – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on May 10, 2019

No one should be forced to attend church. By the same token, no one should be force to submit to a state-approved education. For that matter, no one should be forced to fund a state-approved school any more than he should be forced to fund a state-approved church. The state has no more business in education than it does in religion.


Imagine if Congress were to enact a law that required everyone to attend church on Sundays. The overwhelming majority of Americans would go up in arms. The concept of religious liberty is so deeply ingrained in our American heritage that there is no way that people, including devout Christians, would accept such a law. That heritage was enshrined in the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from enacting such a law.

Now, suppose things had been the exact opposite. Suppose that from the beginning, the Constitution had authorized Congress to enact compulsory church-attendance laws. Suppose that immediately after the Constitution called the federal government into existence, Congress had enacted a law requiring parents to send their children to church, in order to be educated on religious, moral, ethical, and Biblical principles. Suppose that we had been living with that national compulsory church-attendance law for the entire history of the United States.

Now suppose we libertarians were to advocate the repeal of the church-attendance law, which would enable families to decide for themselves whether to send their children to church or not. Can you imagine the outcry?

“Are you libertarians crazy? If we let families make that decision, no one would send their children to church. Most parents are just too irresponsible. How could we be certain that children would receive the right education and training when it comes to morality, ethics, and religion? Wouldn’t some parents teach their children to be atheists or, even worse, to worship Satan? No, you libertarians are all off base. People aren’t ready for that type of freedom. Repealing the church-attendance law would destroy the moral, religious, and ethical foundation of American society.”

After all, isn’t that the mindset of many Americans when they hear libertarians calling for the repeal of compulsory school-attendance laws? Don’t they say that people just aren’t ready for that type of freedom — that parents are too irresponsible — that children wouldn’t get educated — and that a free-market educational system would destroy America?

But the fact is that there is no difference in principle between religious liberty and educational liberty. Just as people shouldn’t be forced to send their children to church, they shouldn’t be forced to send their children to a state-approved organization for secular education and training. Families have the natural, God-given right to make educational decisions for their children without state interference or meddling, just as they do with respect to religious decisions…

Be seeing you

public vs private primary schools




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

The Little House on the Prairie of Laura Ingalls Wilder – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on April 2, 2019

In real life, Wilder and Lane came to share a deep political connection through their mutual rejection of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies. In her book Libertarians on the Prairie: Laura Ingalls Wilder, Rose Wilder Lane, and the Making of the Little House Books, Christine Woodside explained, “They both hated the New Deal. They thought the government was interfering in people’s lives, that individuals during the Depression were becoming very whiny and weren’t grabbing hold of their courage. The climate of America was really irritating them.


Prairie Fires: The American Dreams of Laura Ingalls Wilder by Caroline Fraser (Metropolitan Books, 2017); 625 pages.

Prairie Fires: The American Dreams of Laura Ingalls Wilder, by Caroline Fraser, is one of the finest biographies I have read, and a fully deserving winner of the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for Biography. Prairie Fires is the definitive depiction of Laura Ingalls Wilder (1867–1957), author of the world-renowned series of eight children’s books that are collectively known as The Little House on the Prairie. The best-selling novels recount Wilder’s childhood and her family’s life on the Western frontier during the 1870s and 1880s. In simple but compelling prose, Wilder invites readers to become part of a loving family who survive through poverty, hunger, blizzards, droughts, locusts, crop-killing hailstorms, and other hardships that are almost unimaginable to modern readers. But the novels are far from depressing; they are inspiring. Wilder makes the past come alive and readers experience the heroism of perseverance, the strength of family bonds, and the sheer beauty of nature, as seen through young Laura’s eyes and Wilder’s simple eloquence.

Fraser captures it all.

The need for Prairie Fires

Wilder’s ability to evoke vivid images and feelings is part of why Fraser’s book is necessary. Millions of people around the world grew up with Wilder. They know her almost as a friend, because her novels draw them into her life vicariously. They believe the stories are accurate depictions of her childhood. Wilder encouraged this belief by repeatedly stating that the books contained unvarnished truth. The claim itself is untrue. The broad framework of her works is undoubtedly an accurate portrayal of her past, and the sincerity of her style cannot be manufactured. But some incidents depicted did not occur, while others were materially altered, omitted, or romanticized. The blurring of Wilder’s real childhood was accelerated by the extremely popular television show Little House on the Prairie, which ran from 1974 to 1982 and introduced a generation to an almost entirely false vision of Laura, her family, and pioneer life…

Be seeing you

Gov. Gavin Newsom in drag




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

The Right Not To Testify – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 11, 2019


This originally appeared in Libertarian Review in November 1978

Libertarians surely favor freedom of speech, that is, the right to speak without being hampered by the government. But the right to speak implies the right not to speak, the right to remain silent. Yet libertarians have themselves been strangely silent on the many instances of compulsory speech in our society.

The most flagrant example of continuing compulsory speech takes place in every courtroom in our land: the compulsory bearing of witness. Now surely each person is the absolute owner of his or her own body; as the owner of his own body, only the individual should decide on whether or not to speak in any given situation, and there should be no compulsion upon him to talk or not to talk. And yet in every court, witnesses are dragged in by force (the subpoena power) and compelled to bear witness for or against other people.

The Fifth Amendment, as we all know, prohibits the government from forcing a person to testify against himself: “nor shall any person … be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Excellent. But why should an accused criminal possess a right not also granted to admittedly innocent persons? In short, by what right does a government compel someone to testify against another? Here is a flagrant invasion of liberty, a flagrant abuse against the rights of the individual, and an initiation of force and violence against an innocent person. Yet where are the libertarians to raise their voices against this practice?

There is also something peculiarly monstrous and anti-libertarian about the way in which courts, i.e. judges, move against such “crimes” as non-testimony. In every other criminal case, whether real or victimless, the defendant is duly charged, indicted, and prosecuted, and is allowed to plead his case before third parties: judges or juries who are not involved in the dispute. Yet with the “crime” of failing to testify, all such procedures and safeguards go by the board. The judge is the prosecutor – charging the defendant with “contempt of court” – and also the decider of the defendant’s guilt (in this “crime” against himself). The judge is the plaintiff, prosecutor, judge, and jury all wrapped into one…

Be seeing you

Big Gov

I am from the government and am here to help.




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

What’s So Great About Voting? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 19, 2018

Asking a philosophical non-voter to vote is like inviting a vegan out to a steakhouse.


First, if voting is so great, why we do have to be constantly harangued, bullied, hectored and bribed into engaging in this marvelous activity?  Why do only half or less of the population vote in any given election?  Let’s ask the question a different way.  What percentage of kids fail to show up when Mom says, “breakfast is ready”?  They show up because they expect to receive a major benefit from showing up, especially when weighed against the minimal costs of running downstairs and grabbing a chair.

We have our answer.  Most people either don’t vote or do so out of habit or inertia and with little enthusiasm because they realize that the marginal benefit of doing so is so close to zero that only a mathematician could tell the difference.

Second, the propaganda is aimed at those who are the most ignorant and least concerned citizens.  How are their votes going to add to the quality of the result?  While awaiting that answer, I will move on. Read the rest of this entry »

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

Mo’ Money, Mo’ Invasion – Gold Goats ‘n Guns

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2018

The Soros-funded invasion caravan is a thinly-veiled political stunt which is being used to fuel the unquenchable greed of globalists using Marxist arguments of envy to sow sympathy for those marching to take back what was supposedly stolen by evil white American Imperialists


Immigration is a tricky subject for a lot of libertarians.  If there is one issue that has caused more fights in libertarian circles it is the question of restricting a person’s right to movement.

But in a world of private property where does that right end?  We know where it is in a world of public property.  It doesn’t.  I’m very Hoppean in my views on private property and the private production of defense.  So, I have zero problem going toe to toe with the left-libertarians who refuse to divorce themselves from their principled hobby horses and push for open borders uber alles.

It’s stupid, counter-productive and, frankly, one of the main reasons why libertarians are thoroughly corrupted as a political force in the U.S., having been neutered by the Koch brothers fighting about irrelevancies. Read the rest of this entry »

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

Shouldn’t the US Return to Its Constitution? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 13, 2018


…In a speech at his alma mater—the University of Texas— on February 1, ahead of a five-nation Latin American tour, U.S. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson declared that many people in Latin America “still live under the oppression of tyranny.” He then singled out the regime in Venezuela:

Tillerson took some questions after his speech. A senior studying government asked a question regarding Venezuela:

So a commonly proposed solution to a lot of the problems in the country is the removal of President Maduro from power. In your opinion, is this removal necessary, and what could the U.S.’s role be in the possible regime change, especially considering the turmoil that could surmount from such a change?

Here is Tillerson’s response:

Read the rest of this entry »

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