Weekend Edition, May 18-19, 2013
Where the plutocrats play. Article by Tom DiLorenzo.
How Life Became Regulated, Regimented, and Overseen
Charles Burris on ex-America.
The Greatness of Smuggling
Paul Rosenberg on forbidden history.
Avoid Financial Surveillance
Tess Pennington on how to go unbanked.
Proof They Want Confiscation
5 examples show the gun-controllers are lying. Article by S.H. Blannelberry.
The UN Wants You To Eat Bugs
But don’t expect the elite to chow-down on them. Article by Daisy Luther.
May 3, 2013
These are clear warnings signs that a rational person simply cannot ignore.
Three minutes of clarity…
Bottom line, Nations are going bust. And the worse things get, the more desperate their tactics become.
This isn’t the first time that the world has been in this position. This time is not different. History shows that there are serious, serious consequences to running unsustainably high debts and deficits. And those consequences have almost invariably involved pillaging people’s wealth, savings, livelihoods and liberties… either directly or indirectly.
Ron Paul slams Boston police. Has he gone too far?….. “Former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has slammed US law enforcement for responding to the Boston Marathon bombing with “police state tactics.” In a post on the website of libertarian activist Lew Rockwell, Mr. Paul said Monday that the governmental reaction to the tragic explosions was worse than the attack itself…”
Yahoo! News ^ | 04/30/2013 | Peter Grier
Posted on Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:15:04 PM by E. Pluribus Unum
In a post on the website of libertarian activist Lew Rockwell, Mr. Paul said Monday that the governmental reaction to the tragic explosions was worse than the attack itself…
Your Money or Your Life… “As Murray Rothbard pointed out, taxation is the worst method of looting us. Inflation is destructive, of course, and it might make a loaf of bread cost $10. But at least you get a loaf of bread. With taxation, you get nothing—except theft and other violations of our civil liberties.” – Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. – Mises Daily
April 15th is a horrible day, because it sums up all the wealth destruction called taxation that we are subjected to all year long.
As Murray Rothbard pointed out, taxation is the worst method of looting us. Inflation is destructive, of course, and it might make a loaf of bread cost $10. But at least you get a loaf of bread. With taxation, you get nothing—except theft and other violations of our civil liberties.
Society, as Mises noted, is divided into two competing classes by interventionist government: the taxpayers and the tax consumers. If you are a payer, you are automatically demonized as greedy. On the other hand, those who want the fruits of your labor involuntarily transferred to themselves and their favored pressure groups are the compassionate.
A basic immorality becomes the center of a vortex of immoralities. When the State invades the right of the individual to the products of his labors it appropriates an authority which is contrary to the nature of things and therefore establishes an unethical pattern of behavior, for itself and those upon whom its authority is exerted.
Thus, the income tax has made the State a partner in the proceeds of crime; the law cannot distinguish between incomes derived from production and incomes derived from robbery; it has no concern with the source. Likewise, this denial of ownership arouses a resentment which breaks out into perjury and dishonesty.
Men who in their personal affairs would hardly think of such methods, or who would be socially ostracized for practicing them, are proud of, and are complimented for, evasion of the income tax laws; it is considered proper to engage the shrewdest minds for that purpose.
More degrading even is the encouragement by bribes of mutual spying. No other single measure in the history of our country has caused a comparable disregard of principle in public affairs, or has had such a deteriorating effect on morals.
The first great lesson to learn about taxation is that taxation is simply robbery. No more and no less. For what is “robbery”? Robbery is the taking of a man’s property by the use of violence or the threat thereof, and therefore without the victim’s consent. And yet what else is taxation?
Patriotism Is Statism
Liberty By Logic ^ | 4/13/13 | Sal
Posted on Saturday, April 13, 2013 11:26:36 AM by LibertyByLogic
Righties might own the word Patriotism now, but if you haven’t noticed, the left has been trying to use it to condition you into thinking that giving them more tax revenue is the ultimate way to show your love of country.
Ron Paul Politico’d by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr…. “As an establishment site, the warmongering Politico has always hated and feared Ron Paul. Here is their latest attack, within the context of a broader article.”
As an establishment site, the warmongering Politico has always hated and feared Ron Paul. Here is their latest attack, within the context of a broader article. First, they associate Ron with traditional libertarianism, which they describe as “pro-pot, pro-porn, pro-pacifist.” Needless to say, Ron has never used pot nor porn, but he does believe in the individual’s right to decide what goes into his mind and into his body. The state seeks control over both, of course.
Nor is Ron a pacifist – an ancient charge against those who oppose constant war. He believes in the right to self-defense, but he does not believe in the initiation of violence, whether by private criminals or the state. The state has recently taken more than a million lives in its imperialist anti-Muslim wars. Ron Paul has opposed them with all his heart and soul. He is a man of peace and the golden rule, in his private life and his policy.
Next, Politico tells us that “Ron Paul epitomized to a swath of voters the caricature of a goofy grandpa who invests in gold, stockpiles guns, sees black helicopters whirling overhead and quotes Friedrich Hayek.”
Of course, Ron Paul is the most ungoofy guy you could know. He is thoughtful, careful, serious, well read, eloquent, an important public intellectual. It’s true he’s patiently invested in gold over many years, and made a good deal of money. Hurrah for him!
Ron does not “stockpile guns,” unlike the government, though he supports gun rights for private citizens. And if they want to collect guns, that’s their business. He doesn’t see black helicopters, though he does deplore the drones that spy on us for the police state, and which can kill us, too, on presidential whim. And yes, he quotes the great Austrian economist Hayek, and Mises, Rothbard, Sennholz, and the others, too. He has also read the works of these men.
However, I do like this quote: Ron “recounted Richard Nixon’s infamous declaration as president that ‘we’re all Keynesians now’” – “’We’re all Austrians now,’ Paul pronounced with a sense of looming triumph, a reference to the school of economics that most values the free market.”
Taxation is Robbery, Part 1 “It is not the law which in the first instance defines robbery, it is an ethical principle, and this the law may violate but not supersede”- Frank Chodorov – Mises Daily
The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines taxation as “that part of the revenues of a state which is obtained by the compulsory dues and charges upon its subjects.” That is about as concise and accurate as a definition can be; it leaves no room for argument as to what taxation is. In that statement of fact the word “compulsory” looms large, simply because of its ethical content. The quick reaction is to question the “right” of the State to this use of power. What sanction, in morals, does the State adduce for the taking of property? Is its exercise of sovereignty sufficient unto itself?
On this question of morality there are two positions, and never the twain will meet. Those who hold that political institutions stem from “the nature of man,” thus enjoying vicarious divinity, or those who pronounce the State the keystone of social integrations, can find no quarrel with taxation per se; the State’s taking of property is justified by its being or its beneficial office. On the other hand, those who hold to the primacy of the individual, whose very existence is his claim to inalienable rights, lean to the position that in the compulsory collection of dues and charges the State is merely exercising power, without regard to morals.
The present inquiry into taxation begins with the second of these positions. It is as biased as would be an inquiry starting with the similarly unprovable proposition that the State is either a natural or a socially necessary institution.
Complete objectivity is precluded when an ethical postulate is the major premise of an argument and a discussion of the nature of taxation cannot exclude values.
If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself. If the State has a prior right to the products of one’s labor, his right to existence is qualified.
DHS Has Reportedly Told Banks That It Has Authority To Seize The Contents Of Safety Deposit Boxes Without A Warrant When It’s A Matter Of “National Security”, Which A Major Bank Crisis No Doubt Will Be… | Econom
(Before It’s News)
Could This be the Simple Formula That has Wrecked Two Civilizations, Going on Three?
And they’d use their one point seven billion hollow points to back it up…
Today’s banks are insolvent by definition and if customers lose confidence in their holdings and decide to cash out, it’s called a ‘run on the bank‘ and the doors close.
If banks were legitimate businesses with ‘normal’ constraints, they would be legally liable to meet their contractual obligations, one of which is to ‘pay you, on demand’ your money.
A loss of confidence is always fatal because, by the very nature of fractional-reserve banking, no bank can honor all of its contracts.
The Law of Unintended Libertarian Consequences
self | 3/31/13 | crusher
Posted on Monday, April 01, 2013 1:39:17 PM by crusher
The Law of Unintended Libertarian Consequences
Over the past forty-five years since becoming politically aware, I have vacillated between conservatism and libertarian thinking in contemplating the world around me. I never feel completely at home with either camp when living out my own minarchist tendencies. It is of course oversimplification, but the former seem to think that everyone wants to be like us, and that the impulse for liberty is the yearning of the human spirit.
Evidently they are not paying attention to what is happening in the nation and around the world where dependency is in full march. On the other hand libertarians seem to relish their contempt for my own deeply held Christian faith and view debauchery not as an unfortunate side effect of freedom (my attitude) but rather celebrate hedonism as the whole point of liberty.
Friday, March 8, 2013
The Myth of Fed Independence… “By far the most secret and least accountable operation of the federal government is not, as one might expect, the CIA, DIA, or some other super-secret intelligence agency.” – Murray N. Rothbard – Mises Daily
[Excerpted from The Case Against The Fed.]
By far the most secret and least accountable operation of the federal government is not, as one might expect, the CIA, DIA, or some other super-secret intelligence agency. The CIA and other intelligence operations are under control of the Congress. They are accountable: a Congressional committee supervises these operations, controls their budgets, and is informed of their covert activities. It is true that the committee hearings and activities are closed to the public; but at least the people’s representatives in Congress insure some accountability for these secret agencies.
It is little known, however, that there is a federal agency that tops the others in secrecy by a country mile. The Federal Reserve System is accountable to no one; it has no budget; it is subject to no audit; and no Congressional committee knows of, or can truly supervise, its operations. The Federal Reserve, virtually in total control of the nation’s vital monetary system, is accountable to nobody—and this strange situation, if acknowledged at all, is invariably trumpeted as a virtue.
Gunny G: …THE GOD THAT FAILED, ETC…
May 15, 2004 … War, the God That Failed. by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Thinking back to the scandals of the Clinton years, when …
Sep 26, 2009 … By rendering the labor of one, the property of the other, they cherish pride, luxury, and vanity on one side; on the other, vice and servility, …
On August 8, 2008, In Podcast, By editor. Lew Rockwell interviews Hans- Hermann Hoppe. 15. Democracy: The God That Failed [ 11:32 ] Play Now | Play in …
Sep 1, 2009 … Recently by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.: Obama and the Post Office … say that no one can read works like Democracy — The God that Failed, …
Joe Sobran on evil. President Ron Paul? Joe Sobran on The Man. What Do We Owe the State? Joe Sobran on Hans Hoppe’s Democracy, the God That Failed.
Turn to Mr. Libertarian for the answer, says Lew Rockwell. …. Lew Rockwell on the failure of propaganda and the return of reality. ….. War, the God That Failed …
One of the most chilling realities of the contemporary age in the United States and other Western nations is the demise of the Fourth Estate. The death of a vigorous and free press came when mainstream media and other vital components of the information establishment became propaganda organs for the government.
“If it were left to me to decide whether we should have a government without a free press or a free press without a government, I would prefer the latter,” said Thomas Jefferson.Edmund Burke, an 18th century British political philosopher, seeded the concept of the Fourth Estate.
Here is the introduction to the new edition of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.
There are many varieties of libertarianism alive in the world today, but Rothbardianism remains the center of its intellectual gravity, its primary muse and conscience, its strategic and moral core, and the focal point of debate even when its name is not acknowledged.
The reason is that Murray Rothbard was the creator of modern libertarianism, a political-ideological system that proposes a once-and-for-all escape from the trappings of left and right and their central plans for how state power should be used. Libertarianism is the radical alternative that says state power is unworkable and immoral.
…..There are many unanswered questions and fuzzy areas about 007 – enough, surely, to defuse the hysteria and try to get back – or forward – to a sane approach toward the airliner and toward the Soviets generally.
1. What in hell was KAL 007 doing flying 300 miles off-course for several hours over Soviet airspace? KAL 747’s are equipped with three separate, cross-checking, internal navigation systems.
The pilot and crew of 007 should have known instantly that they were off course. And why were there no radio communications from 007 until fifteen minutes before it was shot down? The idea of radio failure makes no sense. Not only because they did make contact at long last, but also because 747’s are equipped with five separate radios, two of which can reach anywhere in the world.
Furthermore, the route flown by 007 is well-travelled; there are planes up there all the time, including another 747 twenty minutes behind that was carrying Senator Jesse Helms. Why didn’t 007 contact any of these other planes and check where they were?
Lincoln: The Movie
As I walked away from the movie, an older man behind me whispered to his friend: “that movie should have come out ten years ago. What a needed story for our time.”
Needed? I’m not so sure. But the timing was impeccable. With the recent talk of frustrated citizens storming the White House petition website demanding the allowance of secession http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/14/white-house-secede-petitions-reach-660000-signatures-50-state-participation .
It’s hard to put into words what Ron Paul means to me. In fact, it seems a little strange that someone who I do not know on a personal level has had such a big impact on my life. I guess the best place to start is from the beginning.
Back in college I was your typical neoconservative. I was a pro-war Republican who also gave passing, lackadaisical support to limited government and reducing spending. But limited government didn’t have much true meaning to me back then. It meant simply this: support reducing spending only to the extent that it can be used to criticize the Democrats and promote the Republican Party and its agenda. That’s a pretty shallow understanding, but it’s an understanding that had a firm grip on my mind back in those days. I was even the chairman of the College Republicans at my university! I’d bought into the whole canard hook, line, and sinker.
The three main schools of political thought: the Legalists, the Taoists, and the Confucians, were established from the sixth to the fourth centuries BC. Roughly, the Legalists, the latest of the three broad schools, simply believed in maximal power to the state, and advised rulers how to increase that power. The Taoists were the world’s first libertarians, who believed in virtually no interference by the state in economy or society, and the Confucians were middle-of-the-roaders on this critical issue. The towering figure of Confucius (551–479 BC), whose name was actually Ch’iu Chung-ni, was an erudite man from an impoverished but aristocratic family of the fallen Yin dynasty, who became Grand Marshal of the state of Sung. In practice, though far more idealistic, Confucian thought differed little from the Legalists, since Confucianism was largely dedicated to installing an educated philosophically minded bureaucracy to rule in China.
My View of Politics
Recently by Laurence M. Vance: And Your Point Is?
Please remove me from your mailing list, “I’m just totally uninterested in your view of politics,” wrote a former student and friend.
I have been described (and dismissed) by some of my former friends as anti-war, libertarian, isolationist, or anti-government, not so much because they think that one word encapsulates my political philosophy, but because they are ignorant of U.S. history, the U.S. military, the U.S. government, U.S. foreign policy, and their own Bible that they profess to believe.
Although I am a student of, and a commentator on, politics, I am not political in any way. I don’t vote. I don’t donate to political campaigns. I don’t endorse candidates. I don’t campaign for anyone. I don’t frequent political events. I don’t watch political debates. I loathe politicians, and especially members of Congress, of whom Mark Twain said: “There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”
But what’s not to like about my “view of politics”? What could possibly be so bad about it? And what is my “view of politics” that some conservatives, evangelicals, and Red-State Christian fascists find so uninteresting?
I have assembled this brief explanation of my “view of politics.” I am using the word politics in its broadest sense, as is common. Some of my views are best explained by quotes from others that I like. Not in any particular order, here are twelve propositions that make up my “view of politics.”
On the state, I believe with Lew Rockwell that the state is “a gang with a flag.” I believe with Murray Rothbard that the state is “a bandit gang writ large.” It is “a vast criminal organization far more formidable and successful than any ‘private’ Mafia in history.” I agree with H. L. Mencken that “every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under” and that “all government is, in its essence, organized exploitation, and in virtually all of its existing forms it is the implacable enemy of every industrious and well-disposed man.” I also agree with Voltaire that “the art of government is to make two-thirds of a nation pay all it possibly can pay for the benefit of the other third.”
Vote for Liberty by Not Voting by Daniel J. Sanchez… (“For one thing, your vote helps provide a mandate for all of the elected officer’s policies, whether you support those policies or not. As one author has said, voting “just encourages the bastards.”)
The line betrays a deep misunderstanding of what liberty means.
As many libertarians have already pointed out, Romney is not nearly as different from Obama as is commonly supposed. But more importantly, in some vital ways he is actually worse.
Twenty years ago, as I was completing my freshman year in college, I was a full-blown neoconservative. Except I didn’t know it. Having concluded that I was not a leftist, I simply decided by process of elimination that I must be a Rush Limbaughian.
Like most people, I was unaware that any alternative to those two choices existed, or that in some ways they were two sides of a common statist coin. In particular, I embraced a neoconservative foreign policy with gusto. The way to show you weren’t a commie was by supporting the U.S. military as it doled out summary justice to bad guys all over the world. And frankly, it was exciting to watch it all unfold on TV.
In an essay entitled “Lincoln, the Declaration, and Secular Puritanism: A Rhetoric for Continuing Revolution,” the late literary scholar Mel Bradford explained the ideological genesis of American military and foreign policy that has prevailed since 1863.
Lincoln’s “erroneous understanding of the Declaration of Independence” as espoused in The Gettysburg Address, wrote Bradford, established “a rhetoric for continuing revolution” and “set us forever to ‘trampling out the grapes of wrath.’”
What Bradford meant by this is the way in which Lincoln quoted the “all men are created equal” line from the Declaration and reinterpreted it to mean that it was somehow the duty of Americans to stamp out all sin in the world, wherever it may be found, so that ALL MEN everywhere could share in equal freedom.
What Ron Paul Might Have Said About That 47% by Thomas DiLorenzo (“Rothbard considered John C. Calhoun, the nineteenth-century U.S. Senator, Secretary of War, and Vice President of the United States to have been one of America’s greatest political philosophers as well.”)
Unlike Romney and Obama, Ron Paul is neither a repeater of Republican Party platitudes about “America’s greatness” nor a mumbler of silly socialist platitudes that sound like they were paraphrased directly from The Communist Manifesto (“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs“).
Paying attention to politics matter of self-defense… (“…about libertarianism; the politics, or “anti-politics” as the case may be, of liberty….”)
Every day, in a variety of places, I write about libertarianism; the politics, or “anti-politics” as the case may be, of liberty. Everything I am is libertarian.
That shouldn’t scare you; it just means I will not steal from you and I won’t use force against you unless it is in self-defense, nor will I have other people do this dirty work on my behalf.
Down With the Presidency by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. (GyG: He Really Said/Wrote A Mouthful w/This One!)
The modern institution of the presidency is the primary political evil Americansface, and the cause
of nearly all our woes. It squanders the national wealth and starts unjust wars against foreign peoples that have never done us any harm.
It wrecks our families, tramples on our rights, invades our communities, and spies on our bank accounts. It skews the culture toward decadence and trash. It tells lie after lie. Teachers used to tell school kids that anyone can be president.
This article is excerpted from volume 2, chapter 10 of An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought 1995.
An MP3 audio file of this chapter, narrated by Jeff Riggenbach, is available for download.Karl Marx, as the world knows, was born in Trier, a venerable city in Rhineland Prussia, in 1818, son of a distinguished jurist, and grandson of a rabbi. Indeed, both of Marx’s parents were descended from rabbis.
Marx’s father Heinrich was a liberal rationalist who felt no great qualms about his forced conversion to official Lutheranism in 1816. What is little known is that, in his early years, the baptized Karl was a dedicated Christian. In his graduation essays from the Trier gymnasium in 1835, the very young Marx prefigured his later development. His essay on an assigned topic, “On the Union of the Faithful with Christ” was orthodox evangelical Christian, but it also contained hints of the fundamental “alienation” theme that he would later find in Hegel.
Marx’s discussion of the “necessity for union” with Christ stressed that this union would put an end to the tragedy of God‘s alleged rejection of man. In a companion essay, “Reflections of a Young Man on the Choice of a Profession,” Marx expressed a worry about his own “demon of ambition,” of the great temptation he felt to “inveigh against the Deity and curse mankind.”Going first to the University of Bonn and then off to the prestigious new University of Berlin to study law,
Marx soon converted to militant atheism, shifted his major to philosophy, and joined a Doktorklub of young or Left Hegelians, of which he soon became a leader and general secretary.The shift to atheism quickly gave Marx’s demon of ambition full rein. Particularly revelatory of Marx’s adult as well as youthful character are volumes of poems, most of them lost until a few were recovered in recent years. Historians, when they discuss these poems, tend to dismiss them as inchoate romantic yearnings, but they are too congruent with the adult Marx’s social and revolutionary doctrines to be casually dismissed.
(NEW!!!!!) ~ Reform Party of Kansas Offered Ron Paul Their Presidential Ballot Line by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
In such a hyper-Republican state, it might not make a difference. In any event, Ron neither encourages nor opposes such efforts, meaning he would sign no election forms.
Here’s a question: If the Republicans want to win the election, why did they just commit fraud against their libertarian/conservative wings? The Republican leadership used a series of
dubious tactics to ram through a series of rule changes that are seemingly designed to disenfranchise the party’s growing, small government liberty-movement.
Liberty Knows No Compromise
Is this a great country or what? — jtl, 419
HOT: Ron Paul Left Tampa Yesterday
Ron, Carol, and one of their granddaughters left the GOP snake pit yesterday afternoon, but the State was not yet through with them. At the little airport in Clearwater, 8 TSA agents descended on them and ordered them not to board their private plane. First, the pilots, the airplane, and the passengers would have to be screened in great detail, because Romney might be nearby. After a long examination of the pilots and their credentials, the agents said they had to check the plane for explosives. One of the pilots noted that the plane, full of gas, was already a bomb. Then Carol Paul, who has a heart pacemaker, refused to be screened, and an aide started taking video of the whole rotten proceeding. At that point, the TSA backed down and let them through.
Then during the late 1960s, radical feminists encouraged young women to set aside their traditional family roles as homemakers, helpmates, child nurturers and husband civilizers for something trumpted as much more rewarding.
The Internet has been burning up about the “Comeback Team” after Willard Romney announced his VP choice as Paul Ryan.
Star of conservatives because of his “leadership” in heralding “smaller government” and Ryan’s much touted efforts to solve America’s financial crisis. Sounds good – until you read the label.
Weekend Edition, August 11-12, 2012
MORE !!!!!/LINK BELOW !!!!!
“It’s easy to be conspicuously compassionate if others are being forced to pay the cost”
I admit it. I discriminate. I am kind and respectful to the elderly; I am helpful to the handicapped and I open doors for women.
When I go into a Japanese restaurant, I am a racist. I don’t want to see a white guy or a black guy or a Latino guy, or even a Korean guy making my sushi. Funny that. When I go into a Korean restaurant I certainly don’t want to see a Japanese making the food either (ask any Koreans you know if they agree with me).
And speaking of Seoul food, ditto goes for, say a German or Italian, or down-south real Soul food restaurant; and nope, I don’t want to see a guy named Yamazaki making the pork chops and gravy with collard greens.
The Right to National Bankruptcy
The Mises Institute ^ | 18 July 2012 | Andrew Foy, M.D.
Posted on Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:54:31 PM by BfloGuy
Here is a series of links to the New World Orderist’s Plans to De-populate the earth and use Agenda 21 in part as part of the plan!
This article is excerpted from An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought (1995), volume 2, chapter 9: “Roots of Marxism: Messianic Communism,” section 2, “Secularized Millennial Communism: Mably and Morelly.” An MP3 audio file of chapter 9, narrated by Jeff Riggenbach, is available for download.
During the havoc and upheaval of the French Revolution, the communist creed, as well as millennial prophecies, again popped up as a glorious goal for mankind, but this time the major emphasis was a secular context. But the new secular communist prophets were faced with a grave problem: What will be the agency for this social change? In short, religious chiliasts never had problems about agency, i.e., how this mighty change would come about. The agent would be the hand of Providence, specifically either the Second Advent of JesusChrist (for premillennialists), or designated prophets or vanguard groups who would establish the millennium in anticipation of Jesus’s eventual return (for postmillennialists).
From the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, September 1994.
For political junkies like myself there is nothing quite so bracing as the tangle, the complexity, the ethnopolitics, the back-stabbing, and the downright sleaze of New York politics in an election year.
The state elections law establish, for each primary, a state convention in late May, or early June, followed by a primary in September. A party convention endorsement carries more than moral or financial clout; one crucial clause mandates that a losing candidate for a state post gets automatically on the ballot in the party’s September primary, provided that he gets at least 25 percent of the vote at the convention.
2. Should Ron Paul endorse Mitt Romney?
If in the future, Ron endorses Mitt, I will regard this act solely on pragmatic grounds. I am not sure whether this is a wise move or not. On the one hand, Ron will score points with the GOP establishment if he does; on the other, his legions of fans will be gnashing their teeth. But, as far as libertarian principle is concerned, I would have no problem with it, any more than I did with the prospect of Ron accepting matching funds from the government for his campaign expenditures. As I see things, this decision is not a matter of praxeology, of logic, of libertarian principle. It is solely an issue of history as Mises would put it, or practicality.
In many countries, though not in the United States, laws prohibit “hate speech.” Those who, in Jeremy Waldron’s opinion, uncritically elevate the benefits of free speech over competing values oppose hate-speech laws; but Waldron thinks that a strong case can be made in their favor.
Conceived in Liberty 1975. In 1676, Nathaniel Bacon began a mutiny against the governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, because Bacon and many other Virginians wanted to pursue a more vigorous war against the Indians than Berkeley would allow.
This mutiny was the spark that lit the flame of Bacon’s Rebellion.Why? Why revolution? This question is asked in fascination by contemporary observers and historians of every revolution in history. What were the reasons, the “true” motives, behind any given revolution? The tendency of historians of every revolution, Bacon’s Rebellion included, has been to present a simplistic and black-and-white version of the drives behind the revolutionary forces.
Thus, the “orthodox” version holds Nathaniel Bacon to have been a conscious “torchbearer” of the later American Revolution, battling for liberty and against English oppression; the version of “revisionist” history marks down Bacon as an unprincipled and Indian-hating demagogue rebelling against the wise statesman Berkeley.
Neither version can be accepted as such.The very search by observers and historians for purity and unmixed motives in a revolution betrays an unrealistic naïveté. Revolutions are mighty upheavals made by a mass of people, people who are willing to rupture the settled habits of a lifetime, including especially the habit of obedience to an existing government.
They are made by people willing to turn from the narrow pursuits of their daily lives to battle vigorously and even violently together in a more general cause…….
Say No to Government ‘Doctoring’; Where Are the Voices Against a Monstrous War on Iran?; Turning the Table on the Snoops, ETC…
Murray Rothbard vs. Ed Crane
What goes around comes around, says Skip Oliva.
Red-Headed, Celtic Mummies in China
Europeans settled there 4,000 years ago.
Top 10 Hottest Cities
In the world.
No Roadkill Stew
Matt Moore cooks up bison burgers, elk steak, and other game.
The modern institution of the presidency is the primary political evil Americans face, and the cause of nearly all our woes. It squanders the national wealth and starts unjust wars against foreign peoples that have never done us any harm.
It wrecks our families, tramples on our rights, invades our communities, and spies on our bank accounts. It skews the culture toward decadence and trash. It tells lie after lie. Teachers used to tell school kids that anyone can be president. This is like saying anyone can go to Hell. It’s not an inspiration; it’s a threat.The presidency – by which I mean the executive State – is the sum total of American tyranny. The other branches of government, including the presidentially appointed Supreme Court, are mere adjuncts. The presidency insists on complete devotion and humble submission to its dictates, even while it steals the products of our labor and drives us into economic ruin.
It centralizes all power unto itself, and crowds out all competing centers of power in society, including the church, the family, business, charity, and the community. I’ll go further. The US presidency is the world’s leading evil. It is the chief mischief-maker in every part of the globe, the leading wrecker of nations, the usurer behind Third-World debt, the bailer-out of corrupt governments, the hand in many dictatorial gloves, the sponsor and sustainer of the New World Order, of wars, interstate and civil, of famine and disease.
(“Libertarianism and its twin sister Austrian Economics were invented by the Money Power to be the opposite of Communism in a dialectic”) Proof Libertarianism is an Illuminati Ploy – henrymakow.com
Libertarianism and its twin sister Austrian Economics were invented by the Money Power to be the opposite of Communism in a dialectic
.According to this amazing report, from which all non-specified quotes here are taken, “Volker was no great scholar or thinker.
The ideology he set out to create was built upside down, starting only with a set of foggy conclusions for which he had a predisposition. From these conclusions, it was the task of Volker’s considerable fortune to find a set of justifications, then an enabling ideology or “theory” that gave it all perspective and unity and, eventually, a true philosophical platform from which to launch the whole.”Even though Volker was not an economist or philosopher he had money and, very important, influential relations with the University of Chicago, founded by John D. Rockefeller.
True conservatism goes back to the pre-William F. Buckley days, where conservatives believed in small government and staying out of the affairs of foreign countries. It’s not quite libertarianism, but very close.
WaPo has a fascinating take today on this, though I doubt they truly understand what they have uncovered.
Let’s start with an understanding of the Old Right
In 1994, Murray Rothbard explained the Old Right:
The original right of which I speak, and of which I am one of the few survivors, stretched from 1933 to its approximate death, or fading away, upon the advent of National Review in 1955. The Old Right began in 1933 in response to the coming of the New Deal. It was “reactionary” in the best and most generous sense: it was a horrified reaction against the Roosevelt Revolution, against the Great Leap Forward toward collectivism that enraptured socialist intellectuals and enraged those who were devoted to the institutions and the strict limitations on centralized government power that marked the Old Republic…
The Old, original, Right realized the horrors of the New Deal and predicted the collectivist road on which it was setting the nation.
The Old Right was a coalition of ideologies and forces that did not have one single, common, positive program, but “negatively” it was solidly united: all opposed the New Deal and were committed to its total repeal and abolition – lock, stock, and barrel. The fact that its unity was “negative” did not make it any less strong or cohesive: for there was total agreement on rolling back this collective excrescence and on restoring the Old Republic, the true America…
The Old Right experienced one big sea change. Originally, its focus was purely domestic, since that was the concentration of the early New Deal.
It is a testament to the power of government propaganda that several generations of self-described conservatives have held as their core belief that war and militarism are consistent with limited, constitutional government. These conservatives think they are “defending freedom” by supporting every military adventure that the state concocts. They are not.
Even just, defensive wars inevitably empower the state far beyond anything any strict constructionist would approve of. Prowar conservatives, in other words, are walking contradictions. They may pay lip service to limited constitutional government, but their prowar positions belie their rhetoric.
“War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne said in his famous essay of that title. Statism, moreover, means central planning, heavy taxation, fascist or socialist economics, attacks on free speech and other civil liberties, and the suffocation and destruction of private enterprise. Classical liberals have always understood this, but conservatives never have. (Neoconservatives either don’t understand it or don’t care.)
Thus, you have the celebrated neoconservative writer Victor Davis Hanson writing in the December 2, 2009, issue of Imprimis that antiwar activism and other “factors” that make people “reluctant” to resort to war are “lethal combinations” that supposedly threaten the existence of society.