A LITTLE REBELLION

Libertarians Led Charge For NY Gay Marriage

(via Policymic.com)

The historic victory for individual liberty in New York, as it became the sixth and largest state to legalize same-sex marriage, was only made possible by behind-the-scenes maneuvering between parties. By appealing to the common ground — and more specifically, libertarian instincts — of both Republicans and Democrats in New York, the state legislature was able to create a bipartisan coalition in favor of the expansion of liberty.

Unfortunately, whenever “bipartisan” legislation is passed in the U.S., it is usually the worst of both parties coming together to expand government power and control. The PATRIOT Act, the expansion of foreign wars, and the TARP bailouts are the most obvious examples. But, in the case of same-sex marriage in New York, the exact opposite was true.

As a recent piece for the New York Times points out, it was the invocation of “personal freedom” from Republican donors that got the GOP to rethink their traditional position on gay marriage. According to the article, wealthy Republican donors could afford to insulate senators from conservative backlash and “were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views.” These donors “cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign that eventually totaled more than $1 million.”

The Myth Of Sweden's Social Welfare State

Via Mises blog:

The myth of Sweden as the successful socialist experiment continues to thrive – despite and in direct contrast to the available facts. On his blog, Carl Svanberg recently summarized the state of Swedish health care using recent news reports. It is a nasty image of advanced and high-tech health care that is unavailable when needed, strictly rationed, and where medical personnel dissuade dying people from seeking care.

 But let’s not forget that the myth is so much more important for socialist-oriented politicians aiming to nationalize private industry (like Obama), than facts could ever be.

And don't forget about Sweden's caring and compassionate government ripping children away from their parents for the "crime" of "homeschooling." Parents, too, are locked inside cages for refusing to obey dictates that emanate from this socialist paradise.

Children Understand Property Rights

As young as 2 and 3 years old, children comprehend the concept of ownership and property rights far better than most Harvard economists and Fed central planners.

Ronal Reagan: 'Isolationist'

Although the modern Reich-wing tends to lionize former President Ronald Reagan as a hawkish Cold Warrior smiting evil in the globe with the Holy US Military, Jack Hunter explains that this simply isn't the case. He was still a murderer, but compared to Presidents before after and him, he was actually quite prudent when it came to foreign policy.

  

And on a separate but related note, Reagan also wasn't some "small government conservative" that the conserva-clones on the radio make him out to be. He may have read a copy of The Freeman on a plane ride with Nancy on his campaign trail in a famous picture, but he increased the size of the federal government by almost 70%. In others words, he was another big-government Republican socialist.

How Libertarians Helped Legalize Gay Marriage In NY

Nick Gillepsie at Reason Magazine highlights articles in both the New York Times and New York Magazine that explain how "top Republican moneymen" in New York City got rich Republican donors to support same-sex marriage by appealing to their "libertarian sensibilities" and framing the issue as "one of personal freedom." "And when you strip away the cultural and identity politics, gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty," the article in New York Magazine continues. Marriage, after all, is a private contract between consensual adults. Why should this be any of the government's business?

The Free Market Does Not Create 'Income Inequality'

Just the opposite, in fact. In a post over at Cafe Hayek, Don Boudreaux links to an essay by Ludwig Lachmann that explains how counter to the Marxist-progressive talking point, the market does not create massive gaps in income and wealth:

In this essay Lachmann argues that the market is constantly redistributing wealth far more productively and fairly than any government efforts on this front.  But that’s not the really profound part.

What’s most profound is Lachmann’s clear and compelling explanation of just why it’s the case that wealth in a market economy has constantly to be created and re-created; that it’s never fixed – never an inexhaustible fund that pays out goodies to lucky passive owners.

Prosperous Anarchy In Somalia?

The BBC is shocked -just SHOCKED!- that without a monopoly organization of violence taxing, regulating, coercing, plundering, ordering, jailing, threatening, and bullying the people of Somalia for the last twenty years that it has not only not fallen apart, but compared with the rest of Africa, is thriving. From the telecommunications industry to basic livestock trading, Somalia has seen a significant increase in economic activity and wealth. This may shock liberal elitists - who generally feel that they need to be in charge, running things according to their progressive dictates - but shouldn't be surprising to anyone familiar with the concept of human liberty, free markets, and peaceful, stateless cooperation.

Bait-And-Switch In House Vote On Libya War

After the House of Hyenas voted against authorizing Dear Leader's imperial slaughter in Libya, they voted to keep sending money that isn't there or theirs to line the pockets of weapons manufacturers and the war machine fund the war and support the troops. The irony in these votes is astonishing; under the US Constitution, perhaps the most powerful power - and check on the Executive Branch - Congress has is the power of the purse. Congress decided to relenquish this power (which actually has some teeth) since this would actually require principle, but cast an "opposition vote" to a war started by a President that has already said doesn't care what Congress says about it.

Here's Ron Paul on the House floor on this madness.

 

Abolish The Department Of Agriculture!

Writes Dan Mitchell:

This is another part of the federal behemoth that specializes in taking money from productive taxpayers and dispensing it to well-connected agri-businesses to maintain a system of subsidies and central planning so Byzantine that it would probably make a North Korean Commissar shake his head with bemusement.

Like all government programs, the Department of Agriculture lavishes subsidies on the rich: in this case, large, millionare, corporate farmers. The result of this reverse Robin Hood effect has created ugly agri-businesses that keep farm animals in tiny cages like assembly line fodder, destroys organic farming, and oh ya...it's run by violence (or the threat of it) through taxation.

The Paradigm Of Empire

Sheldon Richman at the Future of Freedom Foundation has a great piece about Caesar's supposed "drawdown" in Afghanistan. Despite the chest-thumping and massaging rhetoric of the Administration, there will still be about 70,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan until at least 2014 - more than double the troop levels of 2009.

Obama’s speech the other night was mostly show, a spectacle to make the war- and deficit-weary public think he’s taking substantial steps toward disengagement. He did something similar in Iraq, though 50,000 troops remain and are still taking casualties.

And this is considered a "drawdown?"

Richman argues (cynically, but correctly) that Obama will use this maneuvering on the campaign trail as the "peace President." The wise and prudent moderator between the "extremes" of the bloodthirsty hawks like John McCain and John Kerry and the Get The Hell Out Yesterday folks like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

But even if Obama (or any President after him) decided to pull out all combat troops out of Afghanistan, there is a much larger issue at stake. Yes, the termination of this murderous government program would be a great occurrence, but even absent the occupation of Central Asia, the US government would still be waging multiple wars in nearly every continent. The real issue, as Richman argues, is one that we must deal with sooner or later: the unsustainability of global empire:

But the pace, though not insignificant, is hardly the main issue. The main issue is the empire. If all combat troops were removed from Afghanistan tomorrow, the U.S. government would continue to treat that country like a protectorate, ready to send troops back if events are not to the policy elite’s liking. It’s the paradigm of empire that must be rejected. But Obama’s drawdown and disavowal of empire notwithstanding, the U.S. policy elite have no intention of reconsidering America’s hegemonic role in the world. To be sure, fiscal difficulties have forced a reconsideration of tactics, but the imperial framework remains. It was compactly summed up by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 as he prepared to move against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait: “What we say goes.”

But what about the arguments that always come up whenever someone advocates withdrawing from Afghanistan, that it's "instability" would be a breeding ground for terrorism against the US. “We withdrew from Afghanistan one time,” McCain says. “We withdrew from Afghanistan and the Taliban came, eventually followed by al-Qaeda, followed by the attacks on the United States of America.” The rhetoric is all-too familiar: we have to fight "them" over there, you see, until every last raghead is wiped off the face of the earth.

But this is an outright lie, one of the Establishment myths of the American Empire. Richman continues:

That is empire-serving nonsense. The policymakers did not abandon Afghanistan; they tried to micromanage it in defiance of Afghan history and culture. As Michael Scheuer, who once ran the CIA’s bin Laden unit, wrote in 2009, “In the immediate post-Soviet years, then, Washington spent tens of millions of dollars to try to form exactly the same type of strong and centralized Afghan government — the type of regime that historically causes war in Afghanistan — it is trying to form today.... The Afghans wanted no part of the secularism the U.S.-led West insisted on then....” Instead of letting the conflicting Afghan factions find some way to peace after a decade of brutal Soviet intrusion, American policymakers fanned the flames of civil war.

In any event, it was neither neglect of Afghanistan nor intervention there that prompted al-Qaeda’s attacks on 9/11. Rather it was half a century of U.S. support for brutality in the Muslim and Arab world, from Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, to the corrupt monarchy in Saudi Arabia, to the torturous secular dictatorships in Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries.

In other words, actions have consequences. To think that our Empire isn't the reason for the anger aimed at the US is either naive, ignorant, delusional, or all of the above. The answer lies in "renouncing a foreign policy designed to rule the world," a foreign policy of free trade and neutrality. Abolish the Empire!

End Pot Prohibition

Congressmen Ron Paul and Barney Frank have introduced legislation that would remove the regulation of marijuana from the authority of the federal government and leave it up to the individual states. It's not the most ideal situation, of course, but any measure that decreased centralization, expands the possibility of individual liberty, and scales back the US government's horrendous (and racist!) "war on drugs" is a step in the right direction.

'Not My President'

What if a foreign government attacked, killed, or captured an American citizen and the US government - the agency supposedly in charge of protecting us - publicly said that they would do absolutely nothing in response? What if they said that any attempt to help bring humanitarian aid to people that that same foreign government has been occupying for decades would be considered "support for terrorism?" Under any other circumstances, this would not stand. Of course, when the foreign government in question is the militarized-socialist Israel, it's "standing with our ally."

Bring Back The Articles Of Confederation

 

The State Is A Corporation

Laurence Vance at LRC links to a Truthout article explaining that corporations are spending more on paying their CEOS and executives than they paid in income taxes. Liberals are up in arms about this, he says, but:

Let's suppose that all of the top executives of all corporations are major-league slimeballs. I would still rather they get their companies' money than the even greater slimeballs in the U.S. government. Anyone but the government.

Fair enough, I totally agree. And if you scroll down to the comment section, you'll see the preditable response of "tax the rich" and how evil these large corporations are.

But this knee-jerk left-wing analysis puts the horse before the cart and reveals one of the fundamental flaws of progressive analysis of the economy. The Left tends to be under the unfortunate delusion that large business interests and the federal government (especially one as large as the US State) check each other, that somehow it is not in the interest of both to collude for mutual benefit.

We can see this phenomenon everywhere we look. Federal regulations, subsidies, tariffs, taxes, and licensing are measures traditionally supported by large corporations because they hinder competition from actual and/or potential smaller competitors. The rich hardly pay any taxes - but reap most of the government benefits - while the honest middle-class and poor folks foot the bill. Government is nearly cost-free muscle for corporate interests. All they need to do is send a small portion of their loot to some Congressmen every year and the corporate-state boot on our necks rolls on.

The concept of a "corporation" with "limited liability" and the legal status of an individual is a creation of state law. After all, the State is a corporation; in its structure and in its hierarchy, only with the added bonus of the legal right to initiate aggression against innocent people.

In a free market, something resembling that of a modern ugly corporation would not exist as it does today. There are no state-granted privileges, and the losses and actions of businesses in the marketplace are placed directly on the private actors involved, not socialized on the backs of the rest of us.

McCain's Hypocrisy

In a recent article for PolicyMic, I wrote about Senator John McCain's (R - Pentagon) criticism of the supposed "isolationism" he sees in the current Republican presidential candidates. Since the warmongering Imperial Senator sees nothing wrong with throwing smearing labels at anyone who dares not support whatever exercise in mass murder that the US government is currently engaged in, I have some additional thoughts.

Doub Bandow has a great article in Forbes about McCain's name-calling tactic and his hypocrisy (especially concerning the war in Libya). Bandow points out that it was just two years ago that McCain was courting Ghaddafi and salivating at the thought of selling his government some weapons. What changed in two years? Is an Arizona company getting a new lush Pentagon contract? Is McCain just simply too stubborn to see how foolish he is?

And concerning that awful term "isolationist," Bandow is right on:

Over the years “isolationist” has been routinely used to libel people who don’t want the U.S. government to wander the globe bombing, invading, and occupying other nations and writing checks to assorted corrupt thugs, vicious authoritarians, and incompetent socialists.  Isolationist also has been applied to those who believe the Constitution reserves to Congress the authority to start wars.  The only way to avoid the epithet is to be a profligate spender and promiscuous warmonger who routinely violates the Constitution.

America, and more important, Americans, should engage the world.  Except in highly unusual circumstances, the U.S. government should maintain political relations with other nations.  Transnational issues—refugees, environment, proliferation—warrant transnational cooperation.  On the rare occasion when America has truly vital interests at stake, military action may be justified.

The most important activities between nations should be between peoples.  Trade and investment, culture and sports, education and travel, economic development and humanitarian assistance, and much more.  The proper presumption, in a free society at least, is that most human action and exchange take place outside of government.  Minimizing political entanglements, as George Washington famously advocated in his Farewell Address, is not isolationism but prudent engagement.

McCain: GOP 'Isolation Strain' Has Moved Center Stage

(via PolicyMic.com)

In a recent interview with ABC’s “This Week,” Senator John McCain (R-AZ) expressed concern over the supposed “isolationism strain” he says has emerged in the tone of the Republican presidential candidates.

McCain recognized that there has always been an isolation strain in his party, “... that Pat Buchanan wing of our party,” McCain said when asked about the New Hampshire GOP debate. “But now it seems to have moved more center stage, so to speak. … If we had not intervened, [Libya President Muammar] Gaddafi was at the gates of Benghazi. He said he was going to go house to house to kill everybody. That's a city of 700,000 people. What would be saying now if we had allowed for that to happen?”

McCain may be worried about the possibility the GOP will turn away from its recent hawkish foreign policy positions, but a shift toward a more non-interventionist philosophy would actually be the best thing for the Republican Party in years. Not only is a humbler foreign policy the traditionally conservative position, but it represents a great issue with which to challenge and potentially beat President Barack Obama in 2012.

Remember The Fourth Amendment?

(via Policymic.com)

The city government of Cedar Falls, Iowa, recently passed an ordinance that requires commercial building owners to store their keys in lockboxes that the fire and police departments could access; Iowa citizens were justifiably outraged.

As the local story reports, “A group of people who say the ordinance is a risk for invasion of citizens' privacy and an unnecessary cost for businesses are mounting a campaign to keep it out of the books.” On a larger scale, this ordinance is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. It shows the growing local, state, and federal government abuses of civil liberties. Since the government continues to infringe on our civil liberties, we need to find alternative ways to safeguard our freedom.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees citizens’ rights to secure their private property against “unreasonable searches and seizures” without an official search warrant. This right — “a man’s home is his castle” — dates back to English common law and the 1215 Magna Carta; it is an essential pillar of any free society.

Media Heroes

Here are the top 10 most influential people in the non-corporatist media, according to Activistpost.com. I don't agree with all of what these individuals say and represent, but their dedication to honest journalism, exposing government lies, and searching for the truth provides an essential service in the liberty movement.

10. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:  Paul Craig Roberts is one of the most respected columnists in the alternative media.  His syndicated articles can be seen on many leading alternative news websites including Lew Rockwell, Infowars, Counterpunch, InformationClearingHouse and countless others. Roberts scores huge points in the credibility department having been the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury under Reagan, and the editor of the Wall Street Journal -- among a long list of other accolades.  His research is impeccable and his vision of how the world really operates is second to none.  He knows why and when the global chess pieces are moving, and has the incredible talent to communicate difficult concepts to the general public.  He has written several books including The Tyranny of Good Intentions, and How the Economy was Lost. His many interviews can be seen on Russia Today and Prison Planet TV.  Roberts is also a recent contributor to Gerald Celente's esteemed Trends Journal.  There is no one better at reporting the reality of geo-political events and the workings of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

9. Gary Franchi: Franchi is a longtime researcher and liberty activist.  His essays and reports have been published all over the Internet and in the book Songs of Freedom: Tales From the Revolution.  He also the producer of several documentaries like Camp FEMA and Don't Tread on Me.  Because of his tenacious work, he now has one of the best alternative media platforms on the Internet.  His liberty social network, RTR.org (Restore the Republic) has over 32,000 members and is growing quickly.  The quality of his Reality Report newscasts rival the multi-million dollar productions at any cable news outfit -- except he reports TRUTH news.  Franchi does an excellent job aggregating the most important stories in the alternative news and presenting them in a concise and visually appealing newscast.  We've found each of Franchi's recent Reality Reports to be must-see TV, and only expect this up-and-comer's influence to continue to grow.

They Killed John Henry But They Won't Kill Me

 

Abolish Military Socialism

In a shocking display of corruption by our usually benevolent and noble representatives, the House of Hyena's theftillion dollar Empire bill is apparently loaded with special-interest pork projects, sweet deals for politically connected corporations, and goodies for congressional districts to buy votes, guarantee further donations, and secure reelections. And libertarians are the radical ones for suggesting that wealth-transfering, freedom-crushing military socialism and global empire is a bad idea?