A LITTLE REBELLION

Why Young Conservatives Are Drawn to Libertarian Politics

(via PolicyMic.com)

I can't help but feel confused by an organization like the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). On the one hand, Dick Cheney received roaring applause and a standing ovation and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was awarded the "Constitution Award."

On the other hand, a few of the smartest libertarian minds were also represented: author Thomas Woods, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and Congressman Ron Paul. Campaign for Liberty and Antiwar.com - two libertarian outposts with significant grassroots influence - were also in attendance.

I have a hunch, however, that the old, stuffy, and wealthy right-wing donors at the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are dying off; that their ideas of perpetual war and a "clash of civilizations" with Islam are losing sway with my generation.

As fellow PolicyMic contributor Christine Harbin - who also happened to be in D.C. attending the event - pointed out in her recent article:

Young people are dissatisfied with the status quo. They’re worried about the government’s rate of growth. They wonder whether the government will be able to pay for its promises without burdening the tax base. They disagree with the federal government on what issues should be a priority, and how they can be best achieved.

And she's right. The biggest thing I took away from watching the events at CPAC from the web here in San Francisco was how young people "crashed" CPAC and made their presence felt.

And it appeared that the overwhelming majority of youth were sympathetic not to the modern, war-mongering, torture-supporting, nationalist conservatism of the Republican Party, but to a classical (but still just as relevant and applicable) conservatism.

Some, like Fox News, have labeled these youth as "disrespectful libertarians," but it strikes much deeper than that. Sure, the politics of the followers of Ron Paul may be described as "libertarian" in this age of Left Statism and Right Statism, but in a different time, conservatives were making the same arguments libertarians are making today.

Frank Chodorov, Garet Garrett, John T. Flynn - the most prominent intellectuals of what has been dubbed "the Old Right" - were distinctively conservative in the very essence of the word. They understood that a moral and social order lies not in the power of the state but in the power of the individual and his right to exercise his liberty free from outside coercion.

Decentralized and limited government, private property, peace, an inherent suspicion of all things large, whether corporate or state; these ideas used to resonate with American conservatives before the movement was hijacked by neocons and warfare statists. “Small is beautiful” morphed into a defense of America’s state-capitalism, and the vision of a peaceful, commercial republic transformed into an ugly thirst for Pax Americana.

Although I consider myself a libertarian with anarchist impulses, I have always sympathized with the voluntary aspects of social and cultural conservatism; that morality and virtue do not come from government edict and are regulated best by communities and ostracism.

It is a strange feeling for someone who hasn't even hit 25 to feel such resonance with a philosophy held by old white guys that are long dead now, but living under a government that steals half your income, garrisons the globe, wages perpetual war, and twists morality like a pretzel makes a wild-eyed radical find strange bedfellows.

According to those that "hijacked" CPAC, I'm not alone. My generation is tired of the killing, of the police state, of the debt and taxes, of the utter racket that the American Empire brings.

As Ronald Reagan said, libertarianism is at the heart and soul of conservatism. It's time the Right re-discovers its roots and abandons its nationalistic and big government impulses.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

San Francisco's Sit/Lie Law: the Signs of a Police State?

Last April, I blogged about San Francisco's "sit/lie" law and all the things that are wrong with it.

By having the privilege of being able to see a lot of San Francisco on a daily basis, I can see why an issue like this would be of interest to city officials. The amount of panhandlers and homeless on the streets is staggering and sad, but when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

The law essentially makes it a crime to sit or lie on public sidewalks, which is a typical government response (pass a law!) to a problem largely created by government.

For example, how many of San Francisco's (or any other major city) homeless are veterans that were sent thousands of miles away in a war to kill and die for a government that routinely denies them basic medical care when they get back? Or what about old government legislation, passed during WW2, that forced employers to provide health insurance, thus individuals losing both if fired? Or the permanent underclass that is created by the government's insane prohibition of drugs?

It truly is exhausting cataloging the extent in which state intervention into society has incredibly harmful, counterproductive, and often unforeseen consequences, but even more frustrating that the solution to these problems is always....more laws, more force, more government.

And as it turns out, as this Alternet article explains, this law that kicked in last month was propelled by wealthy donors and business interests eager to shift the burden onto a coercive third party with very police-stateish implications. Corruption and crooked collusion in government? Who knew?

I know the "officials" and big, important people in the San Francisco city government (or any government) could ever contemplate the idea that they are fundamentally incapable of solving social problems, but I have a simple solution: stay as far away from this issue as possible; the more you do, the worse it gets.

For starters, why not lessening (or even eliminating!) the restrictions on starting businesses and acquiring employment, from licensing to the infinite amount of regulations and fees to minimum wage laws. All of these discourage economic growth and the free marketplace and make a life selling drugs or engaging in violent crime that much more appealing.

And secondly, give back the money taken from us through taxation so that we may spend it (and donate it) in the manner we see fit. That way we can volunteer, give money to charities, and provide for those less fortunate than us in the most moral and efficient way possible: voluntarily.

The Difference Between Libertarians and Republicans

I can't help but laugh at the incoming Rethugicans reading the US Constitution out loud on the floor of the Imperial Congress.

After all, these are the same guys who violated the document they swore fidelity to more times than you count expanding the size and scope of the state, as Laurence Vance points out:

So, the Republicans in the House are now promising to follow the Constitution. Does this mean Social Security and the federal minimum wage will be abolished, to name just two out of hundreds of thousands of unconstitutional federal programs? Don’t hold your breath.

I note also that Republicans in the House are going to vote on repealing Obamacare. Does this mean they will also vote to repeal Bushcare, otherwise known as the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003? How about the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, which makes criminals out of people who want Sudafed for their stuffy nose (see Jeff Tucker’s great article on this)? Again, don’t hold your breath.

And don’t ever mistake Republican hot air for “libertarian themes.”

But don't worry, lovers of liberty, the Republicans really mean it this time. Some of them even want to trim $100 billion* from a federal government that is $14 trillion in debt, and won't touch the trillion dollar a year empire budget of course. The Republicans are so devoted to their principles, in fact, that they just voted for the largest military spending bill in world history.

Sure, the Democrats are welfare-warfare, deficit-creating, liberty-stripping statists as well, but what is really frustrating about Republicans is that they consistently use libertarianish and limited government rhetoric in order to enact their big government policies.

But a real devotion to philosophical principle is more than just lip service and catchy platitudes. It requires the identification of the source and intrinsic cause of the problems with state power; striking the root as opposed to trimming the branches.

In contrast, here is Lysander Spooner --19th century abolitionist, entrepeuner, lawyer, essayist, and radical libertarian individualist-- concerning the US Constitution:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Spooner, and many libertarians who follow in his intellectual footsteps, see the US Constitution for what it is: an inherently statist document that gives the federal government far too much power, and those that support it as hopefully naive in thinking that a piece of paper can restrain a coercive monopoly.

The solution to the Constitutional Coup that gave our infant republic everything it needed to expand and grow into the tax-and-spend empire it is today? The Articles of Confederation.

*Predictably, the GOP is beginning to back down from this pledge, and that's just fine and dandy to former GOP Majority Leader Dick Armey.

Don't Vote!

Before the mid-term elections, I blogged about why voting has very little practical or philosophical merit for the future of individual liberty, peace, and the tenets of a liberal (free) social order.

Sure, there may be instances where voting can have short-term benefits --a tax cut, legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, the extension of marriage rights-- but these are tantamount to cowardly getting on our knees and begging our state rulers for longer chains. In the long run, however, consenting to the guns at our necks, which the act of voting does, is a self-defeating and even counterproductive option.

I owe many scholars, philosophers, theorists, books, and essays to these conclusions because I myself used to be under the spell that as long as we get "our guys" in charge, everything will be fine.

But thanks to the influence of these intellectual giants --Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Jefferson, Henry David Thoreau, and Emma Goldman just to name a few-- I have washed away my naive faith in politics and that social problems can be solved and/or addressed by the violent and coercive methods of state power.

This is the reason I do what I do, why I write this blog, why I end up spending hours at bars talking politics and philosophy with strangers, why I have dedicated myself to peaceful revolution. My only aim is to live as free and with as much dignity as possible in this statist world, and to convince, not force, others to throw off their chains and embrace the beauty and responsibility of liberty.

Here is Elisee Reclus, in Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, explaining better than I ever could why we should not vote.

EVERYTHING that can be said about the suffrage may be summed up in a sentence.

To vote is to give up your own power.

To elect a master or many, for a long or short time, is to resign one's liberty.

Call it an absolute monarch, a constitutional king, or a simple M.P., the candidate that you raise to the throne, to the seat, or to the easy chair, he will always be your master. They are persons that you put "above" the law, since they have the power of making the laws, and because it is their mission to see that they are obeyed.

To vote is befitting of idiots.

It is as foolish as believing that men, of the same make as ourselves, will acquire in a moment, at the ringing of a bell, the knowledge and the understanding of everything. Of course it is so. Your elected person shall have to legislate on every subject under the moon; how a box of matches should or should not be made, or how to make war; how to improve the agriculture, or how best to kill a tribe of Arabs or a few Negroes. Probably you believe that their intelligence will grow in proportion to the variety of subjects they have to give their minds to; but history and experience teaches otherwise.

The possession of power has a maddening influence; parliaments have always wrought unhappiness.

In ruling assemblies, in a fatal manner, the will prevails of those below the average, both morally and intellectually.

To vote is to prepare shameful treachery and traitors.

Read the rest here.

Whatever Happened to the Ozone Scare?

From the Mises Blog:

Remember when the thinning of the ozone layer was going to cause us all to die of malignant melanoma, just a few years ago? The ozone scare seems to have dropped off the radar entirely.

As you might remember, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were the evil du jour, playing the same role carbon dioxide (CO2) plays today in the global-warming scare. Environmentalists claimed that CFCs would somehow travel 40 miles up above the surface of the earth, despite the fact that CFCs are about five times heavier than air. A common case of floating bricks, no doubt.

By banning CFCs in 1989, the 196 countries who signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer lost a cheap, safe, nontoxic, chemically inert, noncorrosive, and nonflammable source of refrigerants, propellants, and fire-control-system components.

As with most regulations, the CFC ban hit the poor with a vengeance. Millions of perfectly functioning refrigerators could no longer be recharged with Freon, so everyone was forced to purchase new CFC-free appliances. This, of course, was especially difficult for those with low incomes.

Another group that still suffers greatly are asthma patients. The substitutes for CFC inhalers are the HFA (hydro-fluoroalkane) inhalers, which many doctors report to be of marginal effectiveness compared to the CFC version, which provided faster and longer-lasting relief from the agony of suffocation. Many patients have found that, whereas one puff used to be sufficient to reopen the airways, the new product requires two or even three puffs to work. This raises the cost of the medication due to the increased dosage. And to add insult to injury, because of their recent introduction, HFA inhalers are protected by patent law, whereas CFC inhalers were already generic. Prices per inhaler have increased from the $5–$25 range to the $30–$60 range in the United States.

Needless to say, taxpayers are still funding research into this bogus field, and the CFC ban is still alive and well. As always, regulations and funding are very easily put in place — especially when the public is manipulated with scare tactics — but they are very hard to roll back; in fact, regulations are hardly ever repealed, and the institutions in charge of enforcing them are only occasionally dismantled.

It is important to recognize the behavioral pattern of governments, NGOs, and scientists by looking at similar scares, such as acid rain, Y2K, mad-cow disease, H1N1, and now climate change and terrorism. Fear and guilt are the usual tools used to rob citizens of their liberty and money. These scares foster the centralized masterminding of our choices and allow ever-greater transfers of power and wealth toward the government.

Environmental scares are particularly effective because they combine the fear and the guilt effects. Such "man-against-nature" scenarios will provide endless possibilities for loss of liberty unless power is taken away from governments altogether.

Unless we realize that man and nature are one and the same, there will be no degree of underdevelopment low enough for the ecofanatics: the so-called philosopher poet of the ecological movement, Derrick Jensen, wrote that "civilization is not and can never be sustainable." We should not underestimate this type of statement, especially coming from a man like Jensen, who has a wide audience and has repeatedly defended the use of militant violence to achieve environmental goals. We must be wary, not so much because of the possibility of Jensen's own violent actions, but because of government's talent for harvesting such ideas and using them to its advantage.

Watch for a new scare just as the climate-change myth loses steam and the population grows weary of antiterrorism.

And while we're on the topic of environmental protection, which has unfortunately been monopolized by the Greens and Leftys, I recommend reading Murray Rothbard's essay, "Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution."

It is one of the best articles I have ever read on why private property rights and older American jurisprudence, not government regulation, protected the environment by punishing pollution as an act of agression against another person's property.

Not only did this process evolve spontaneously through the market, but encouraged businesses to practice cleaner standards and use more expensive equipment for fear of being sued in court. And all of this without government force.

(Not So) Happy Bill Of Rights Day!

Today is Bill of Rights day in the US, and I'm sure you have been bombarded with stories all over the mainstream media about how radical and revolutionary the first ten amendments to the Constitution are, how they were intended to preserve our liberty and provide restrictions against the power of the government. No? Ya, me neither.

This is probably because they exist solely as a remnant on a piece of paper preserved, like an ancient artifact, at the National Archives and Records Administration.

So in honor of this day, let's take a look at what they say and what they mean today in 21st Century America.

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Free-speech zones. Journalists who do real investigative work are smeared and attacked, and a Pravda press that repeats the state line. Sedition Acts. Peaceful protesters thrown in jail without trial. Yes, there are the John Hagees and Pat Robertsons of the world, but freedom of religion is actually one of the few aspects of the Bill of Rights that has been maintained, and the US is one of the most religiously diverse countries ever to exist. 

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Nearly every state and the federal government has incredibly strict restrictions on the private ownership of firearms, from licensing to regulation of ammunition. The media manipulates the language by referring to some guns as "assault weapons." Unless you are a special state employee, of course, where you will be allowed to carry massive firepower to enforce the Empire's edicts against Arabs abroad as a soldier and against Americans at home as a police officer.

Third Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This one has not been really violated...yet.

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Warrantless wiretapping. Omnipresent state security cameras. Entrapment by police as well as outright theft...excuse me, "asset forfeiture." The TSA. Citizens who are encouraged to spy on their neighbors and anyone acting "suspiciously."

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Just ask Bradley Manning about being locked up in a cage before "a indictment of a Grand Jury" or being "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Or the thousands of immigrants deported each year by the Gestapos at the INS. Or the array of tickets, fines, and breaches of regulations that bury people in debt without due process. And every time I see a hideous strip mall or large government building, I think of the private residents that were either coerced or bullied out of their homes. For "public use" of course.

Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Speedy and public trial? That phrase alone should make anyone who has ever been to court laugh out loud. But hey, I don't really blame the feds for this one. After all, can you really except a coercive monopoly to provide the speedy provision of law, justice, and dispute resolution? Or any service?

Seventh Amendment:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Sure, we technically have "trials by jury" in this country, but what about the concept that the provision of jurors is compulsory? For some great analysis on why sub minimum-wage jury slavery is inefficient (and immoral), see Lysander Spooner's "Trial By Jury" and Murray Rothbard's essay from The Ethics of Liberty on the issue.

Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

This one is too easy. For decades the US government has engaged in unspeakable torture, including torturing some people to death.

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In my opinion, this is the most important, though underappreciated, part of the Bill of Rights. It basically says that just because a right is specifically not mentioned in the Constitution, it does not mean that you do not have that right. Although it has been invoked to defend abortion, it was supposed to be a check on the federal government denying new rights from people on issues that emerged with time. And even if the Second Amendment didn't provide for the secured right of private self-defense and gun ownership, the Ninth does. Ditto to all the rights that have currently been stripped in the name of the "war on terror" and the "war on drugs."

Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This one comes in at a close second (although I'm sure many would argue it's the most important). The federal government is given a very few basic, and specific tasks, and the rests of the power belongs to us. It also justifies the right of secession, nullification, and provides the framework for a decentralized order. Unfortunately, the Fascist Lincoln pretty much declared this amendment null and void, and succeeding presidents have followed suit with the centralization of the state.

But as much as the American state has trampled all over our constitutional rights with its wars, its police state, its taxation, its top-down imposed order, this is really what the Constitution has allowed. It has been completely impotent in preventing the growth of the federal parasite. The Constitution gives the federal government waaaaay too much power. Instead of this document representing our "founding," it more resembles the coup of 1787, where the Hamiltonians established the strong-man state whose legacy we see today.

So the way I am going to celebrate Bill of Rights is by honoring the document that truly represents the spirit of the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation.

Decentralize and Repeal

"Big Government and Big Business ... will try to impose social and cultural uniformity upon adults and their children. To achieve this they will (unless prevented) make use of all the mind-manipulating techniques at their disposal and will not hesitate to reinforce these methods of non-rational persuasion by economic coercion and threats of physical violence. If this kind of tyranny is to be avoided, we must begin without delay to educate ourselves and our children for freedom and self-government. Such an education for freedom should be ... first of all in facts and in values — the facts of individual diversity and genetic uniqueness and the values of freedom, tolerance and mutual charity, which are the ethical corollaries of these facts."

- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

One of the biggest and most harmful myths in American civic discourse is the idea that Big Business and Big Government are opponents of each other. We all learned that Teddy Roosevelt and the "progressive" movement sought to use the noble power of the federal government to protect us against the evil, greedy cartels.

But a more thorough investigation into the relationship between business and the state reveal that they are and have been more friends than enemies. As much research has correctly pointed out, most of the top-down, government "regulation" that was enacted during the Progressive Era --and legislation that continues to be passed today-- was either heavily lobbied for, or directly written by, large corporate interests.

At first, this seems like a paradox. But a proper understanding of the nature of the state and how it operates reveals that this corporate-state relationship is fairly easy to explain. State regulation tends to benefit big business by creating uniform standards that only large corporations with their army of lawyers can accommodate. Tariffs, licensing, subsidies, land grants, and war are all government distortions into the free marketplace that make it nearly impossible for smaller businesses to compete or even get started.

As John D. Rockefeller famously said, "competition is a sin." State intervention, always done in the name of the "public good," allowed Rockefeller's axiom to be nearly cost-free to him and many of his other fellow corporatists.

This is why I can't understand when critics of libertarians label us as "apologists for corporate power." I hate the influence of mega corporations on our media, economics, and culture, which is exactly why I want less, not more, cartelizing government intervention into the economy. As the great libertarian Murray Rothbard pointed out in an article recently posted by lewrockwell.com, the Panama Canal Treaty was favored by business interests. It was, as he put it, the Treaty that Wall Street wrote.

The inevitable question arises: how do we stop this centralizing corporate power from having more and more influence over our lives? The answer, as I alluded to above, lies in a simple process: decentralize and repeal.

Repeal the thousands upon thousands of federal, state, and local laws that restrict the entry of new businesses into the marketplace. End corporate welfare. This would have the effect of not only localizing economic control but also of removing the coercive apparatus of taxation and regulation over economic activity.

Larry Gambone at the Porcupine Blog has some great analysis about this issue:

Eliminating the fraud known as the corporation as the “fictitious individual” would have far-reaching effects. Rights and freedoms were meant for INDIVIDUALS, not corporations. In order to give corporations these rights they invented the lie that a corporation is an individual. Thus, attempts to control corporate advertising and Korporate Krap Kulture are met with loud shrieks of censorship, and since the corporation has the rights of an individual, it cannot be touched.

Remember that it is state law and state judges that have given the corporation the legal status of an "individual" and granted them the privilege of "limited liability." This, in essence, socialized the costs of corporate losses and makes shareholders, workers, and their pensions suffer the losses of their decisions as opposed to the CEOs themselves. This is not a free market, but fascistic crony state corporate capitalism.

Intellectual property law --law that exists not through experience and custom but through legislative fiat-- also has a similar effect on the economy. Gambone continues:

Patents are harmful because they allow the patent holder a monopoly. With a monopoly they can gouge customers through artificially high prices or inferior goods. Patents waste a lot of energy as people invent procedures to get around the patent. A royalty system, like that of song-writing, would allow inventors a good return without these harmful effects. Patents made Bill Gates the richest man in the world. Without patents, he would still be rich, but not anywhere near the same extent.

Large corporations benefit from intellectual property law in the same way that they benefit from the state's regulatory system: they can afford the costs and burdens that these restrictions on the free market create, and in turn, are rewarded handsomely for doing so.

In summary, as Gambone puts it, "stop the state from acting like a goon squad for corporations."

This means repealing, not adding, federal laws, which would have the effect of actually forcing large corporations to compete on an unrestricted market. Government could then focus on its real job (protecting individual rights from aggression) and not on helping corporations maintain their top-heavy profits with the use of state violence.

Decentralize and repeal! Why not give the actual free market a try?

China is Becoming More Free

Thanks to its peaceful libertarian tradition. Writes David Franke at LRC:

“The Chinese are in the midst of a great awakening of religious belief. In cities, yuppies are turning to Christianity. Buddhism attracts the middle class, while Taoism has rebounded in small towns and the countryside. Islam is also on the rise, not only in troubled minority areas but also among tens of millions elsewhere in China.”

This New York Times Magazine article, “The Rise of the Tao,” by Ian Johnson, should be read in conjunction with Murray Rothbard’s articles, “The Ancient Chinese Libertarian Tradition” and “Libertarianism in Ancient China”:

Says Rothbard:

“The first libertarian intellectual [in the world] was Lao-tzu, the founder of Taoism. Little is known about his life, but apparently he was a personal acquaintance of Confucius in the late sixth century BC…

“Unlike the notable apologist for the rule of philosopher-bureaucrats, however, Lao-tzu developed a radical libertarian creed. For Lao-tzu the individual and his happiness was the key unit and goal of society. If social institutions hampered the individual’s flowering and his happiness, then those institutions should be reduced or abolished altogether. To the individualist Lao-tzu, government, with its ‘laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox,’ was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and ‘more to be feared than fierce tigers.’”

Similarly, in the New York Times Magazine article, Taoist businessman/patron Zhu Tieyu says:

“Taoist culture is noncompetitive and nonhurting of other people. It teaches following the rules of nature.”

Indeed, that does sound very similar to the libertarian creed that we should defend our own natural rights but do nothing to infringe on the natural rights of others.

Evil, Socialist Republicans

In the last few months, the American public has witnessed many Republican and TEA Party candidates warn about the incredible growth of government that has accompanied the Obama Administration. The stimulus, bailouts, Obamacare; it's all cause for concern, and the GOP rode a sentiment of populist waves into victories in the Senate and a new majority in the House. Maybe the Republicans would throw a wrench into Obama's legislative plans and curb the size of the State.

But then reality set in, and I remembered that the Republicans are, in a nutshell, evil. Politics tends to have a short memory, but it was just two years ago that Republicans were torturing people to death, expanding the police state, and growing the federal government like no administration before it.

The awful Heritage Foundation really confirmed my suspicions of the GOP. They have a five-point "checklist" as a Solution for America, which includes a $170 billion cut from the budget. Now, any cut in the federal government is a good thing, but what the Heritage Foundation --and the entire GOP-- ignores is the "defense" budget.

This is where the Republicans give themselves away. If you listened to them, Obama is a terrorist-sympathizing surrender monkey pacifist who hates America and is weakening our national defenses. He may talk like less cowboy-ish version of Bush, but his actions tell a different story.

Obama is ramping up the war in Afghanistan to levels Bush would have never dreamed of, extended the Patriot Act, lobbing missiles into Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, has military training troops in 75 countries, and is vastly extending our nuclear weapons production. All of these are large, wealth-transferring socialist government programs --not to mention MASS MURDER-- without even a mention from the Republicans.

That's because they are socialists themselves, as Doug Bandow at the Campaign for Liberty points out:

Republicans are against government spending. Except when they are for it.

Justin Logan of the Cato Institute recently made this point:

Republicans are against government spending. Except when they are for it.

Justin Logan of the Cato Institute recently made this point:

There's been a lot of talk on the right in recent months about President Obama's "socialist" policies. While much of that talk seems overheated, so does the furious pushback from the left. Would President Obama's domestic policies really be so out of step in what in Europe would be called a "Social Democratic" party? I don't think so. But for understandable Hartzian reasons, lots of American liberals seem to get squeamish about allegations of socialism.

However, Republicans may want to examine the plank in their own eyes before casting aspersions on the one in the eyes of Democrats. Military Keynesianism has long been a centerpiece in the Republican platform, and it still is.

If government spending inefficiently diverts money from the productive private sector, it does so whether the end result is public housing or advanced submarines. The latter may be necessary for America's defense, but then that is the reason, and the only reason, to spend money on the military. Not because building unnecessary tanks "creates jobs."

The Tea Party movement can do much to improve American politics. One of its most important tasks is simply to hold both major parties to account for their inconsistencies and hypocrisies. And "military Keynesianism" is a good place to start.

Since President Obama would likely veto any attempt by the Republicans to repeal or substantially change his health care law, the cynic in me suggests the Republicans will compromise on this socialist government program in exchange for their own socialist programs. In fact, war criminal GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham is drooling at the thought of "all hell breaking loose" in Iran:

The senator said that if the United States did attack Iran's navy and air force, Iran could retaliate with unconventional attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan and launch terrorist attacks in other parts of the world.

"You can expect that," he said. "You can expect, for a period of time, all hell to break loose. You must have to almost plan for that. And weigh that against the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran and what that means to the future of the world."

President Obama should be "bolder," he said, targeting Iran's refined petroleum products, which he said is a key economic vulnerability of the regime."

So this is what we got from voting for a party that just two years ago left the White House with its tail between its legs. More war, more government, and the evil Republicans stealing libertarian rhetoric for their totalitarian, megalomaniacal plans.

But don't blame me, I proudly did not vote.

Also, check out John Stossel and Ron Paul discussing this same topic:

 

Nobody in November

As November approaches in a year that is divisible by two, politics turns from its background nuisance into an obsession. Television ads dominate the airwaves, pamphlets urging citizens to vote for or against certain measures litter the streets, and the debate between friends and co-workers grows deeper and more volatile.

The question inevitably comes up, "so, who are you voting for?" I often get a lot of curious and even angry looks when I explain that I don't vote. But, comes the usual response, voting is your voice, your chance to participate in our democracy, to change things for the good, and so on. 

But when I take a look around, what has been accomplished by voting? There exists poverty, bailout rip-offs, stupid wars in countries most Americans can hardly pronounce, inflation, and debt.

It's easy to blame the politicians and bureaucrats for these troubles since they are the ones calling the shots, but the blame lies squarely on us. By voting, we are choosing between the the lesser of two evils, to entrusting our lives and our property to a third party, and at its core, voting implies consent to political rule.

Like inmates in a prison who feel "free" when our wardens give us longer breaks, better meals, or loosened chains, voting gives legitimacy to the State. The State is founded upon naked aggression or the threat of it, but ultimately its authority rests on the consent of the governed. 

This is the heart of why I don't vote: I do not consent to being taxed, regulated, controlled, restricted, lectured, conscripted, and ultimately coerced. As a free and sovereign individual, I feel it is the most patriotic thing one can do.

Just imagine for a second, as the great Frank Chodorov once asked, if no one voted?

Such abstinence would be tantamount to this notice to politicians: since we as individuals have decided to look after our affairs, your services are no longer needed. Having assumed social power we must, as individuals, assume social responsibility – provided, of course, the politicians accept their discharge. The job of running the community would fall on each and all of us. We might hire an expert to tell us about the most improved firefighting apparatus, or a manager to look after cleaning the streets, or an engineer to build us a bridge; but the final decision, particularly in the matter of raising funds to defray costs, would rest with the townhall meeting. The hired specialists would have no authority other than that necessary for the performance of their contractual duties; coercive power, which is the essence of political authority, would be exercised, if necessary, only by the committee of the whole.

By voting, we give consent to a social order that relies on a top-down, monopolistic institution and discourages or eliminates the infinite other ways that order, goods, and services can be provided. As Thomas Paine pointed out, a large majority of the order that exists in society comes from every man's rational self-interest to improve his existence and the voluntary exchange of goods, labor, and services in the marketplace.

Can you imagine what the reactions in the corporate media and the halls of Congress would be if no one showed up to vote on Election Day? It would send shock waves throughout the entire institutionalized structure of DC's parasitic empire.

Instead of handing away your life to a snake in a suit who's sole purpose is to get re-elected, I recommend committing the most revolutionary act you can do and engage in self-improvement. Lead by example and withdraw consent, read voraciously, work hard, and live as freely as you possibly can.

Peaceful sedition, quiet rebellion, and skepticism are the soul of the American contribution to the world. Just ask the great Emma Goldman:

The poor, stupid, free American citizen! Free to starve, free to tramp the highways of this great country, he enjoys universal suffrage, and, by that right, he has forged chains about his limbs. The reward that he receives is stringent labor laws prohibiting the right of boycott, of picketing, in fact, of everything, except the right to be robbed of the fruits of his labor…

Or Henry David Thoreau:

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers, or backgammon, a playing with right and wrong; its obligation never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right thing is doing nothing for it. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.

These sentiments echo the conclusions of many, like Franz Oppenheimer, who argued that there are essentially two ways that human beings can interact with each other: the political means and the economics means.

The economic means include any voluntary, consensual, mutually-beneficial activity, whether it be grocery stores, farmers markets, neighborhood watches, homeowners associations, the internet; spontaneous, horizontal structures of activity that benefit mankind since they are done voluntarily. The political means are the means of all States and private criminals: force, fraud, aggression, or theft.

By voting, we give power and legitimacy to the political, exploitative means of human interaction, that a group of fallible individuals (whether called a King, Monarch, President, or Legislature) has the right or the ability to manage the infinitely complex and unpredictable results of human action.

So this November, I will gladly stand quietly, firmly, with my liberty and my dignity, and withdraw my consent. What if a million others did the same?

Everything You Love You Owe To Capitalism

The great Lew Rockwell on the liberating, wealth-producing power of the marketplace.

 

'Freedom Does Not Come in Pieces'

Here's Alexander McCobin, Berkeley's Students For Liberty co-founder and President, at the 2010 CPAC brilliantly defending the libertarian position on individual liberty, that is that it should be applied to everyone and every private, consensual act.

"Freedom does not come in pieces," he points out, and it's neither Left nor Right, liberal or conservative. Freedom is not something to cherry pick, it is not something that any government or individual has the authority to give or deny.

Because of the growing attention to libertarian philosophy, Austrian economics, the success of Ron Paul's presidential candidacy, and the resurgence in popularity of authors like F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises, the American "consensues" of Left/Right is slowly withering and being questioned.

And good riddance. The Left tends to stress the value of political freedom --privacy rights, civil liberties-- but see no contradiction when advocating economic feudalism through the confiscation of wealth and property by the State. And the Right talks about "free markets" and cutting taxes, but stand right in line when the State is wiretapping, torturing, or kicking in doors.

But political freedom means nothing without economic freedom, and vice versa. Liberty it is not a privilege to be handed out for proper obedience, but a natural right as unique and sovereign individuals. Gay, straight, white, black, we only ask that everyone be left alone to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell!

It's time to finally end one of this country's greatest injustices, the US military's official policy of "don't ask, don't tell" when it comes to civilian casualties. Just in this century, the Empire has killed at least a million Iraqis and thousands of Pashtuns in Afghanistan, with barely a murmur from the State-stenographers in the media. This policy is intentional, of course. As war criminal Tommy Franks once said, "we don't do body counts."

Because if a majority of American were aware, or cared, about our killing fields all over the globe, they might start to question some of the nauseating cliches that are indoctrinated into our minds by State schools and the mass media. Like how the U.S. government is "exceptional," "benevolent," bringing "liberty and democracy" to backwards people everywhere.

People might just come to the conclusion that the State is NOT a public servant, but a parasitical monster, looting, taxing, controlling, coercing, and killing in service of its political interests and the interests of those who cozy up to it. This is why it spends millions of dollars every year convincing you otherwise, the manufacturing of consent.

Without these myths, without the consent of the majority of the population, the State falls apart. For the sake of peace, individual liberty, order, and the free production of goods and services, it won't come soon enough.

On a side note, I just can not comprehend the national attention given to the other "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning gays in the military. Why would ANYONE fight for the right to participate in the slaughter and destruction of villages, cities, and entire countries, to come home with missing limbs so that Lockheed Martin's stock goes up a few points? Gays have been persecuted for far too long by governments; they deserve better than military slavery.

The Ultimate Ponzi Scheme

I have never understood how Bernie Madoff could go to jail for extorting millions of dollars from people in an elaborate Ponzi scheme, yet when the federal government does the same thing, it is called "Social Security."

It is a complete fraud to its absolute core. For example, the modern concept of government-provided "social welfare" comes from the Prussian leader Bismarck, the godfather of the militaristic welfare-warfare state. While slaughtering thousands around Europe, he thought that he should throw his subjects a bone. At the time, the life expectancy of Prussians was 65, so he made "welfare" benefits available at 65. And voila, the great scam was born.

This is the inherent contradiction of the State. If any private person or group of individuals did what the federal government does to us on a daily basis --confiscate wealth and property, commit mass murder, lock people in cages-- we would be (correctly) outraged.

But stripped of its propaganda and PR about providing "public services" and "order," the State is nothing more than a gang of thieves writ large, as Murray Rothbard famously called it.

Here's the great Stefan Molyneux on what Social Security has done to multiple generations of the elderly:

Bob Higgs on the Myth of War Prosperity

One of the greatest myths that are forced upon the minds of countless government school zombies is that war is an economic stimulus. WW2 "got us out of the Depression." Military bases stimulate the economy and create jobs. Carpet-bombings put people to work.

Besides the fact that war is mass murder and the destruction of property, it is the heart of the State and its power.

Offensive war is paid for through compulsory taxation; it has to be, no one would voluntarily pay to occupy the globe with troops and military bases. It is parasitic, taking wealth from private individuals and transferring it to weapons manufacturers, and further discouraging the peaceful production of goods and services in the marketplace.

As Randolph Bourne famously said, "War is the health of the State."

Bob Higgs busts this Amerikan myth:

Kagan Confirmed

Elena Kagan  has worked her way up the greasy totem pole of politics and managed to get herself elected to the highest government court in the U.S. today.

Her job is to sit on a raised bench and play politics with everyone's life and property. Oh, and she now gets to wear a big, fancy black robe!!!!!

She's an authoritarian, of course, like all Supreme Court justices. This is the problem with giving Dear Leader the power to pick who goes on to the bench. As the last few decades have shown, Justices have tended to side with giving the President and the federal government more power (shocking, I know) and fewer and fewer protections of life, liberty, and property.

Just look at Kagan's record.

After graduating from Princeton, she immediately embraced far left-wing causes and outright socialism.

University of Colorado at Boulder law professor Paul Campos described her publication record as "lifeless, dull, and eminently forgettable," and he's got a point. She has written only three law review articles, a few short essays and two brief book reviews. Despite this anemic record, she somehow managed to earn tenure at the University of Chicago Law School and the Dean of Harvard Law School.

In a government briefsigned by Kagan in the case of United States v Stevens, here is this gem:

“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

In other words, only speech that the state approves of is allowed.

And like every good high-level government employee helping tighten the leash around our ankles, she worked for a corporatist ally of the President, Goldman Sachs.

So a rich, slimy, regime lawyer who can interpret the Constitution ANY WAY that she (and most likely the President himself) wants got elected to the Supreme Court, and has the power of the largest coercive instrument in the history of the world to enforce her (and the court's) decisions?

Yawn. Wake me up when the Supreme Court declares itself unconstitutional.