MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘the left’

The Left’s 180 on Tariffs?

Posted by M. C. on April 8, 2025

Glenn Greenwald

The first comment I saw. What do you think?

SecondLayer20 hours ago

Traditional “left” was working-class. That is CLEARLY not the case anymore. This accelerated under obama when the corporations (who had ruined the gop under bush) all ran to support the new left under obama. The new left is wealthy, sub-urban, corporate, and huge numbers of highly paid govt employees (both federal and unionized municipal). They are economically regressive (upward wealth transfer) and hide that under the guise of really really extreme far-“left” social issues like the transgender agenda.

Be seeing you

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

The Left Gives Us “President Musk” Nonsense … And The Right Wants To Give Us More Debt

Posted by M. C. on January 2, 2025

Remember Gates?

The Ron Paul Liberty Report

Be seeing you

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

Thomas Sowell EXPOSES the Left’s War on Marriage and Family!

Posted by M. C. on November 25, 2024

NYT-“Manufacturing news to fit an ideology”

Be seeing you

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

The Left Loves and Hates the Poor

Posted by M. C. on November 2, 2024

by Jacob G. Hornberger

So, how did these four men become so wealthy? Well, keep in mind that this was the most unusual period in U.S. history, which is why it’s my favorite period from the standpoint of economic liberty. Imagine: No income tax or IRS, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, national-security state (i.e., Pentagon, CIA, and NSA), (few) economic regulations, public schooling, foreign interventionism (except the Spanish-American War), foreign aid, drug war, immigration controls, and gun control. Like I say, the most unusual society in history, totally different from the type of society in which we live today.

One of the shibboleths of progressives (i.e., “liberals” or leftists) is that they love the poor. However, the truth is more complex. Actually they only love the poor when they remain poor. If the poor get rich, they then hate them.

Consider, for example, four American multimillionaires from the Gilded Age, which is my favorite period of time in U.S. history: John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, and Leland Stanford.

The left hates them. All four of them are vilified as “robber barons.” However, leftists also love them.

How is that possible?

Well, they hate them because they were rich. But they weren’t always rich. They started out poor. The left loves them when they were poor because leftists love the poor. It was because they got rich that the left began hating them. If they had remained poor instead of becoming rich, leftists would have continued loving them.

Consider Rockefeller. According to his Wikipedia page, he was “one of the wealthiest Americans of all time.” That why the left hates him and vilifies him. But Rockefeller wasn’t always rich. Wikipedia says that he was born to “con artist” William A. Rockefeller, Sr., who “worked first as a lumberman and then a traveling salesman.” John D. Rockefeller’s first job was as an assistant bookkeeper, during which he “worked long hours.”

Consider Carnegie, another one of the richest Americans ever. But he wasn’t always rich. Wikipedia: He was born in Scotland “in a typical weaver’s cottage with only one room. His father had a “successful weaving business and owned multiple looms…. When Carnegie was 12, his father had fallen on tough times as a handloom weaver. Making matters worse, the country was in starvation. His mother helped support the family by assisting her brother and by selling potted meats at her ‘sweetie shop,’ becoming the primary breadwinner.”

Consider Vanderbilt, also one of the richest people in American history. Wikipedia: “He began working on his father’s ferry in New York Harbor as a boy, quitting school at the age of 11. At the age of 16, Vanderbilt decided to start his own ferry service. According to one version of events, he borrowed $100 (equivalent to $1,900 in 2023)[7] from his mother to purchase a periauger (a shallow draft, two-masted sailing vessel).”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Thomas Sowell: This is why the left only focuses on race

Posted by M. C. on June 17, 2024

Fox News

Be seeing you

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

The Left’s Big Pitch: Embrace A Worse Life In The Name Of Equality

Posted by M. C. on December 30, 2022

President Joe Biden’s entire economic agenda is built around the notion of economic mediocrity rooted in a self-proclaimed higher justice. Paul Waldman of The Washington Post posited this week that Biden had launched an “economic policy revolution” rooted in fighting “inequality.” This would require “more active government intervention in the economy.” 

And we will all learn to love such intervention, because it will be done in the name of a higher value: equality. Not equality of rights, but equality of outcome; not equality of value, but equality of resources. The problem with this philosophy is that it removes the incentive for all that creates prosperity: work, creativity, thrift, responsibility. And removing that incentive means more misery for everyone.

Tyler Durden's Photo

BY TYLER DURDEN

TUESDAY, DEC 27, 2022 – 04:44 AM

Authored by Ben Shapiro via RealClear Politics,

This week, The New York Times released a long expose of the shortcomings of the United Kingdom’s National Health Service. Long cherished as a crown jewel of Left-wing governmental policy, the NHS has been plagued by massive resource shortcomings, requiring rationing of critical infrastructure and care. Now, citizens are waiting up to 12 hours for ambulances. “It’s a near-crisis situation that experts say reveals a breakdown of the compact between Britons and their revered National Health Service,” the Times reported, “that the government will provide responsible, efficient health care services, mostly free, across all income levels.”

There can be only one excuse for such signal failure to serve the prosperity of your citizenry: the chimera of equality. This, in fact, is the clarion call of the Left: that human beings sacrifice well-being and prosperity on behalf of the cult of equal distribution of resources. Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, says as much in his book, “The Great Narrative”: we should dispense with economic measures like gross domestic product (GDP) in favor of “what matters most: climate action, sustainability, inclusivity, global cooperation, health and well-being.” In fact, says Schwab, “We might even find we can live with such a scenario quite happily!” The end goal will be ending “inequality and the unfairness that underpins it” by enshrining “universal provision of social assistance,” which will require that governments “rewrite some of the rules of the game and permanently increase their roles.”

Closer to home, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie says the same when he argues in favor of government nationalization of all wealth and then redistribution of that wealth on a per capita basis… every generation. This would amount to a complete rupture of property rights — and this in turn would mean the end of innovation, since societies that dispense with property rights and profit margins regress into stagnation and then economic collapse. But at least we will have achieved Bouie’s goal: equality! 

Indeed, members of the political Left are constantly asking citizens to simply reframe their perspectives on prosperity entirely.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Why the Left Must Destroy Free Speech – or Be Destroyed – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on December 9, 2022

In totalitarian societies, wrote Hayek, truth is not something that is discovered by learning, education, self-study, research, and debate and discussion. Instead, it is “something to be laid down by authority . . .” 

It isn’t just the Left. I see John Bolton is rearing his ugly head.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/12/thomas-dilorenzo/why-the-left-must-destroy-free-speech-or-be-destroyed/

By Thomas DiLorenzo

In Hayek’s famous 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom, he warned that the intellectual and political classes of the democracies of that time were embracing some of the same ideas that inspired Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Stalin’s Russia:  comprehensive government planning, hyper regulation of industry,  nationalization, welfare statism, and collectivism in general.  He did not predict that these societies would end up “in serfdom,” however, as some have mistakenly claimed.  Quite the contrary.  In his first chapter he clearly stated that he hoped the ideas in the book would help these countries to avoid that disastrous fate.  He hoped the ideas of the book would be a roadblock on the road to serfdom.

The eleventh chapter of The Road to Serfdom is entitled “The End of Truth,” about the historical imperative in all totalitarian states throughout history to destroy freedom of speech so that the only true belief is “the social plan” imposed by the state, whatever that may be.  This is achieved by relentless institutionalized lying and propaganda, coupled with harsh censorship of all contrary ideas or even questions about the propriety of forcefully imposing one single “social plan.” This is American society today, in other words, in case you haven’t noticed.  (Socialism, Hayek said, has always been about substituting the plans of politicians for the plans that all of the citizens make for themselves.  It’s not a matter of planning versus no planning, but who is to do the planning).

The significance of propaganda in totalitarian countries, Hayek wrote, is that “If all the sources of current information are effectively under one single control, it is no longer a question of merely persuading people of this or that.  The skillful propagandist then has power to mold . . . minds in any direction he chooses . . .”  Jeff Deist, among others, has commented that America today has become a “post-persuasion society” and he is right, almost eighty years after Hayek issued this warning.  The Left is no longer willing to seriously debate anything – at least for the time being while they control the universities, all three branches of government, the media, (laughingly-named) “entertainment” industries, and more.  Even dopey Prince Harry publicly denounced the First Amendment in a pathetic attempt to ingratiate himself with Hollywood Leftists like his wife shortly after divorcing himself from his family and moving to Hollywood.  If you disagree with their latest version of socialist totalitarianism (“woke-ism” coupled with green hysteria and calls for worldwide central planning), then you can be canceled, smeared as a racist, a white supremacist, or even fired from your job and prevented from getting a new one.

The moral consequences of totalitarian propaganda are even more profound.  It is “destructive of all morals” because it “undermines one of the foundations of all morals:  the sense and respect for the truth.”  An avalanche of Official Lies has always been the tool of “various theoreticians of the totalitarian system,” wrote Hayek, citing Plato’s “noble lies” and “social myths” championed by the French philosopher Georges Sorel.  The ends justify the lying means to totalitarians everywhere.  When was the last time a “White House spokesperson” did not lie in public?  (See my 1992 book, Official Lies: How Washington Misleads Us, with James T. Bennett).

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Rousseau, Guevara, Marx and More: The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of the Left | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on December 26, 2021

The revolutionary intellectual has no title to boast of any personal superiority nor to set himself up as the master of society. On the contrary, with his rambling ideologies and his bad human example, which has corrupted the minds and behavior of millions of young people, the revolutionary intellectual is undoubtedly the most pernicious figure of our times.

https://mises.org/wire/rousseau-guevara-marx-and-more-moral-and-intellectual-bankruptcy-left

Guglielmo Piombini Bernardo Ferrero

A brief look at the lives of Rousseau, Marx, Guevara, Brecht, and Sartre suggests that many of the Left’s most celebrated heroes built their philosophies on a foundation of the most repugnant narcissism, violence, and inhumanity. 

Introduction

In editing David Hume’s 1766 pamphlet titled About Rousseau, Lorenzo Infantino has drawn attention to a dispute between the two philosophers that at the time caused much discussion throughout Europe. At the core of that contrast were not only two different world views, David Hume’s classical liberal and individualist weltanschauung versus Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s egalitarian and collectivist one, but also two very different personalities: the Scottish thinker was mild mannered, humble, and reserved, while the philosopher from Geneva was megalomaniacal, paranoid, and quarrelsome.1

The relationship between the two represents an interesting historical episode. When Rousseau became wanted by the police in Continental Europe for his subversive writings, Hume, who empathized with the precarious situation in which the Swiss philosopher found himself, generously offered to host him in his house in England. In addition, he also made an effort with the authorities to get him a living and a pension. However, following a hoax organized by Horace Walpole against Rousseau (specifically a fake letter which was published in the newspapers), the latter was convinced, wrongly, that Hume was the head of a “clique” of enemies who had conspired against him. Hence the irreparable break between the two, in which Hume, unwillingly and only on the insistence of his friends, answered to Rousseau’s unpleasant public accusations.

The Moral Credentials of the Committed Intellectual

In the story of the stormy relationship between Hume and Rousseau there appears a figure that has become typical of contemporary times, the socially engaged intellectual, who emerged precisely in this period and of whom Rousseau was probably the original prototype. Indeed, in the eighteenth century, with the decline of the power of the church, a new character emerged, the lay intellectual, whose influence has continually grown over the last two hundred years. From the beginning the lay intellectual proclaimed himself consecrated to the interests of humanity and invested with the mission of redeeming it through his wisdom and teaching.

The progressive intellectual no longer feels bound by everything that belonged to the past, such as customs, traditions, religious beliefs: for him all the wisdom accumulated by humanity over the centuries is to be thrown away. In his boundless presumption, the socially engaged intellectual claims to be able to diagnose all of society’s ills and to be able to cure them with the strength of his intellect alone. In other words, he claims to have devised and to possess the formulas thanks to which it is possible to transform the structures of society, as well as the ways of life of human beings, for the better.

But what moral credentials do committed intellectuals like Rousseau and his many heirs, who claim to dictate standards of behavior for all of humanity, have? In fact, if we look at their lives, we often find a constant: the more they proclaimed their moral superiority, their dedication to the common good, and their selfless love for humanity, the more despicably and unworthily they behaved with the people they dealt with in everyday life, with family members, friends, and colleagues.2

The Distorted Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for instance, opposed all aspects of civilization, starting from the arts and the sciences. As he wrote in his famous 1750 Discours sur les sciences et les artes, which gave him overnight fame: “When there is no effect, there is no cause to seek. But here the effect is certain, the depravity real, and our souls have been corrupted in proportion to the advancement of our Sciences and Arts to perfection.”3

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

The Left’s Final Objective Is Subversion of Western Civilization – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on December 5, 2020

As was the case with the churches, their behavior may seem irrational, but only until we remind ourselves of the left’s ideological purpose. The structures and statues they vandalized commemorated the efforts of people who in one way or another advanced the cause of western civilization. It is the protestors’ deep-seated antipathy toward the west that explains why they acted the way they did.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/12/vasko-kohlmayer/the-lefts-final-objective-is-subversion-of-western-civilization-part-2/

By Vasko Kohlmayer

In the previous piece we showed that ending (non-existent) racism could not have been the real goal of the riots that convulsed the United States this year. Rather we argued that the riots represented a dramatic eruption of the left’s anti-western animus which is the psychological disposition that frames the left’s mindset and actions.

We will see what the riots’ real purpose was when we consider what the so-called anti-racist “protestors” targeted for destruction. In the weeks following the death of George Floyd hundreds of attacks against Catholic churches were reported across America. This may seem strange, given that America’s woke commissars of social justice never really charged the Catholic Church with complicity in this country’s current “racist” regime or the death of George Floyd. If anything, in recent years the Church has been a notable abettor of the progressive movement, having incorporated parts of the woke agenda into its own teachings. This has been especially true during the pontificate of Francis who in many ways sounds like a secular progressive clad in papal robes.

The protestors’ raids on Catholic churches, therefore, bewildered many people. But if you remember what the left’s driving impulse is, these acts will make perfect sense. Despite its recent dabbling in wokeness, the Catholic Church – along with our classical Greco-Roman heritage – has been a foundational pillar of Western civilization. This is the real reason why the churches became a target of the left’s destructive urge. To make their motivation completely clear, in some instances the protestors even inscribed sickle and hammer on the walls of the sacred structures they vandalized. Sickle and hammer stand, of course, for the Soviet Union and its communist revolution which condemned the western model and established a new system based on ideas that were antithetical to occidental tradition.

The attacks on churches, however, were not the only clue exposing the hidden agenda behind the faux anti-racist protests. The war on statues was just as revealing. They initially began with monuments of those who had at least some connection – however remote or tenuous – to slavery. Very quickly, however, no statue was safe from the mob’s wrath. So much so that they targeted even those who had done much for the advancement and liberation of black people. Abraham Lincoln would be one of them. This despite the fact that Lincoln is generally considered to be the man who effectually ended slavery in the United States. The widely-held view of Lincoln as the emancipator of black people was well expressed by the journalist Edward Achorn who wrote recently that in most Americans’ eyes Lincoln stands as “a symbol of wisdom, decency, sacrifice, and perseverance in defeating slavery and liberating millions of black Americans.”

And yet the allegedly “anti-racism” protesters repeatedly attacked Lincoln’s statues across America. The attacks were so flagrant that even CNN had to take note. In its October 12 dispatch, CNN reported that “protesters in Portland, Oregon, pulled down statues of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt…”

The protesters did not stop there, however. As part of their statue rampage, they also attacked edifices associated with our national heritage. In a piece headlined “The Mob Goes After Abraham Lincoln,” the Daily Signal reported that they “trashed the Oregon Historical Society, which preserves treasures of the past so that people of succeeding generations may understand their culture and history.”

The next morning CNN quoted Portland Police Chief Chuck Lovell who made this observation:

“These events late at night, they purport to have a racial justice nexus. But they’re not that. They’re about violence and criminal destruction.”

Chuck Lovell is absolutely correct. The rioters’ actions had nothing to do with race – they were all about destruction. As was the case with the churches, their behavior may seem irrational, but only until we remind ourselves of the left’s ideological purpose. The structures and statues they vandalized commemorated the efforts of people who in one way or another advanced the cause of western civilization. It is the protestors’ deep-seated antipathy toward the west that explains why they acted the way they did.

Since the leftist mindset is transnational in nature, we could expect that a powerful eruption of its anti-western animus in one country would trigger corresponding disruptions in other countries belonging to the western stream. And this was, in fact, what happened. Within two weeks of the start of the George Floyd riots in the United States, similar events began taking place in other western nations. The protests waxed especially strong in leading European countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany where hundreds of thousands took part. On June 6th a British newspaper ran a  report which opened as follows:

“Furious Europeans have taken to the street this week to protest against police brutality and racism, following the death of George Floyd in the US, as major capitals across the EU were shut down by the protesters. Europeans have defied official bans against mass gatherings across the continent, as protests continue to erupt across major capitals from Paris to Berlin.”

The piece continued by listing some of the European nations where the “protests” took place.

“Thousands have taken to the streets in Europe to protest racism and police brutality, following the tragic US police killing of George Floyd, which has first triggered a wave of protests in America. Thousands poured in the streets in countries including France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Slovakia, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Sweden and others.”

It is deeply significant that the protests in Europe were organized by chapters of BLM. This should make us pause, given that BLM is an American organization which came into existence in 2013 in response to a shooting death of a black American teenager in Florida. Why, then, is this outfit organizing mass demonstrations across Europe? And even more importantly, why is Black Lives Matter trying to incite protests in countries that have virtually no black populations? In nations such Finland, Poland, Ireland or Slovakia – which are for the most part ethnically homogenous – racism has never been a significant problem.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

The Best of Vasko Kohlmayer Vasko Kohlmayer [send him mail] is a naturalized citizen.

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

Discrimination Is Freedom – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 19, 2020

This doesn’t mean that refusing to admit or serve someone would be practical or prudent, and having prejudice can exact a heavy price. But in a free society, no one has the right to be admitted to or served in any restaurant or business establishment.

If a business owner discriminated against anyone for any other reason than for the lack of a face mask, he would face a federal civil rights lawsuit and picketing, boycotts, and violence by leftists. It is only government-approved discrimination that is lawful—like discriminating against Asians in college admissions.

The hypocrisy of the left on discrimination is appalling.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/laurence-m-vance/so-do-we-now-have-the-right-to-refuse-service/

By

To comply with the letter of the non-law issued by the fascist mayor of Orange County, Florida, Jerry Demings, most restaurants in the county want their patrons to (1) Wear a mask upon entering the restaurant, (2) Wear a mask while waiting for a table, (3) Wear a mask while walking to your table, (4) Wear a mask when going to the restroom, and (5) Wear a mask upon leaving the restaurant. At least we don’t have to wear a mask while eating (although I have seen at least one person at a restaurant pull their mask down to insert a bite of food in their mouth and then put their mask right back over their mouth to chew their food).

Most of the restaurants I have been to in Orange County aren’t enforcing the mayor’s dictate. They don’t have to. Because compliance is nearly 100 percent, the restaurants either don’t notice or don’t care to make an issue of the 1 percent or so who enter their establishments without a mask. Never thought I would be a member of the 1 percent.

Yet, I was refused service twice last week at fast-food restaurants: Five Guys and Smashburger. Why? Although I wore a shirt and shoes, I had no face mask. Instead of complying with the mask requirement, I went and got a hamburger elsewhere (not McDonalds: it is total mask nazi).

I was discriminated against and refused service. And I fully support the right of businesses to do both.

I have made it clear in my many articles on discrimination that all businesses should have the right to discriminate against anyone on basis and for any reason: race, religion, color, creed, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, facial hair, hair style, political preference, clothing style, age, height, weight, head covering, disability, familial status, martial status, odor, socioeconomic status, religious piety.

Any business should have the right to refuse service to anyone with or without a red shirt, black pants, a bald head, a mustache, a Rolex on the wrist, a gold chain around the neck, leather shoes, or a face mask.

Discrimination means freedom. It is a crime in search of victim. Anti-discrimination laws are an attack on property rights, freedom of association, and freedom of thought.

This doesn’t mean that refusing to admit or serve someone would be practical or prudent, and having prejudice can exact a heavy price. But in a free society, no one has the right to be admitted to or served in any restaurant or business establishment.

So, in regard to my being discriminated against and refused service, here is the $64,000 question: Do we now have the right to refuse service?

Of course we don’t.

If a business owner discriminated against anyone for any other reason than for the lack of a face mask, he would face a federal civil rights lawsuit and picketing, boycotts, and violence by leftists. It is only government-approved discrimination that is lawful—like discriminating against Asians in college admissions.

The hypocrisy of the left on discrimination is appalling.

Since discrimination is not aggression, force, coercion, threat, or violence, the government should never prohibit it, seek to prevent it, or prosecute anyone for doing it.

So, to those restaurants in Orange County that want me to wear a mask when inside your establishment when I am entering, waiting, and walking (even though many who are finished eating and drinking are still sitting at tables and booths talking without wearing masks), I will take my appetite and my money elsewhere.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

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