Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Libertarians’

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 »

Conservatives and Libertarians for Higher Taxes – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 15, 2017

Local, state and federal governments, they all want to reform tax structure while keeping tax revenue unchanged or preferably higher.

It is a giant shell game. Everyone ignores the elephant that is spending has to go down. That requires smaller government. Big government means more unproductive jobs and more ‘free’ stuff.

Guess who wins.

Why do some conservatives and libertarians want some Americans to pay more in taxes?

Oh, they don’t actually come out and say that. Then they would sound like Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.

What they do say is that certain tax deductions are “loopholes” that need to be “closed” because they “distort” the tax code, “subsidize” high-income taxpayers, and encourage people to make “economically unwise decisions.” Read the rest of this entry »

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

The Meaning of Term Limits… and Size Matters

Posted by M. C. on August 10, 2013

There has been much discussion and even a petition drive in Erie County of late for term limits.

We of course already have a term limit mechanism-elections.  But this does not seem to work.

Why?  On a very local level an official may have done a good job of dealing with certain issues so you want to keep him/her around for a while.

The higher up the food chain the worse things get.  My Senator Casey for example says he is the gun-owners friend and often votes that way as PA, even though a democratic state, is a gun-owners state.  Casey wants re-elected and says what he must to accomplish that end.  But he is Obama’s man.  The mask came off and he voted for the UN small arms control treaty.

The upper levels of the food chain is where the real money is and money is the name of the game.  Politician X may be a lapdog for AIPAC but we don’t care because we don’t know what AIPAC is or care to know.  All we know is X gets us free stuff.  Roads, military contracts, bridges to nowhere.  Like many dictators we support, X may be an SOB but X is our SOB.  But we don’t think “SOB” because getting money stolen from someone else makes us happy and buys our vote.  Our SOB is oh such a good guy (Don’t get a complex.  If you are reading this and/or pissed about your government the “we” is hopefully not you). Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Big Government | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »