The Statists Want to Ban Anonymity on the Internet

This article on HuffPo, Denmark Police Propose Ban on Anonymous Internet Use, shows that there are still people out there, particularly in government, who just do not like the idea of an individual exercising one’s right to question the power of the monopolistic, compulsory State. In many instances, such an endeavor is extremely risky for one who believes in morality and that the actions of the State have been immoral. Sometimes the only real way to protect one’s right to challenge governmental dictates, and challenge the destructive statist doctrines that have been drilled into the heads of the masses, is to express such status-quo challenging with anonymity.

Many anti-Federalists used pseudonyms to protect their identities, because their ideas, the ideas of individual liberty, private property, and freedom of association and contract, go against the wants and desires of the typical government bureaucrat, who wants to use the armed power of the State to take other people’s property, intrude into their homes and businesses, and just plain get off on the wielding of total power over others.

Said government bureaucrats want to use that State power and control to censor any criticisms and exposure of their daily invasive actions, their incompetence and buffoonery, and, especially, their crimes. That is why they want such intrusive control over the average folks’ Internet usage.

Glenn Greenwald on James Risen’s Journalistic Integrity

Glenn Greenwald has this article regarding New York Times investigative journalist James Risen, whose 2006 book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, included revelations of various illegal and unconstitutional Bush “War on Terror” policies, and because of which Risen is now subject to harassment and pressure by the Obama Administration to reveal his sources of information. Risen will not reveal his sources, and is willing to go to jail to protect them.

Thank God for hero journalists like James Risen, who believe in exposing the truth about corrupt politicians who compromise the liberty of their own people. That’s as opposed to the corrupt and cowardly “journalists” who shill and propagandize for these politicians, for the sake of the journalists’ advancing their own careers while aiding and abetting the crimes these politicians commit. The crimes that our “leaders” have been committing against their own people and our liberty and against foreigners have been egregious, and they need to be exposed.

Some Misc. Items for Summer Solstice

Walter Block has this article on LewRockwell.com, “President Ron Paul’s Likely Supreme Court Nominations.” Regardless of whether or not Dr. Paul could actually win the election, the problem with this speculating is the apparent assumption that we should be relying on this Supreme Court for anything.

This is the Supreme Court that constantly upholds expanded and further intrusive police power to break into people’s homes, search people and their property and never be held accountable. But even if we had nine Ron Paul-appointed justices, the problem is that even they will not protect our liberty, especially if the thing upon which they rely for “law” is that Constitution. My main point really is that, given the amount of time that Dr. Block spent on that article, I wish he would spend that much time explaining why a State-monopoly in ultimate judicial decision-making is a bad thing, and why the Supreme Court needs to be abolished.

Given that, in the early years of the United States of America, the states decided to hire a third-party agent to handle foreign conflicts, morally and practically speaking — and in the interests of consistency — each state should have the final say on a legal, “constitutional” (yech) dispute, and should have the right to overrule a Supreme Court decision that the people of whatever state feel violates their liberty and property. The current system of authoritarian rule violates the idea of state sovereignty as well as individual liberty, freedom of association and contract, and private property.

If a state overruled a Supreme Court decision, and there were some people within that state who didn’t like their state’s overruling, then, in an actual free society, they would have the freedom to move to a better state. (“Better” according to them, that is.) They would “vote with their feet,” which is something that most of us Americans are not really able to do, to escape the tyranny of the federal dictatorship. So obviously, this system of choice and freedom is better than the current dictatorial, police-state system.

As I have suggested earlier, even Ron Paul-appointed Supreme Court Justices would still be State employees. When the conflict before them is between an individual or business and some arm of the State or its hired guns, the police, the nine justices will still tend to side with their brethren within the various State compulsory monopolies.

I believe that Walter Block is with me on these ideas, given the previous articles I’ve read by him and his frequent collaboration with Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Speaking of Hoppe, here is Hans Hoppe’s solution to the problem of the State’s monopoly of ultimate judicial decision-making, a monopoly that goes against the people and only strengthens the power of the State and its hired guns, the police (particularly the centralized federal State): Private Law.

If the state, and especially the democratic state, is demonstrably incapable of creating and maintaining social order; if, instead of helping avoid conflict, the state is the source of permanent conflict; and if, rather than assuring legal security and predictability, the state itself continuously generates insecurity and unpredictability through its legislation and replaces constant law with “flexible” and arbitrary whim, then inescapably the question as to the correct – obviously: non-statist – solution to the problem of social order arises.

The solution is a private law society, i.e., a society in which every individual and institution is subject to one and the same set of laws. No public law granting privileges to specific persons of functions (and no public property) exists in this society. There is only private law (and private property), equally applicable to each and everyone. No one is permitted to acquire property by any means other than through original appropriation, production or voluntary exchange, and no one possesses a privilege to tax and expropriate. Moreover, in a private law society no one is permitted to prohibit anyone else from using his property in order to enter any line of production he wishes and compete against whomever he pleases.

Specifically regarding the problem at hand: in a private law society the production of security – of law and order – will be undertaken by freely financed individuals and agencies competing for a voluntarily paying (or not-paying) clientele, just as the production of all other goods and services…

First off, competition among police, insurers and arbitrators for paying clients would bring about a tendency toward a continuous fall in the price of protection (per insured value), thus rendering protection increasingly more affordable, whereas under monopolistic conditions the price of protection will steadily rise and become increasingly un-affordable…

While states, as already noted, are always and everywhere eager to disarm its population and thus rob it of an essential means of self-defense, private law societies are characterized by an unrestricted right to self-defense and hence by widespread private gun and weapon ownership. Just imagine a security producer who demanded of its prospective clients that they would first have to completely disarm themselves before it would be willing to defend the clients’ life and property. Correctly, everyone would think of this as a bad joke and refuse such on offer. Freely financed insurance companies that demanded potential clients first hand over all of their means of self-defense as a prerequisite of protection would immediately arouse the utmost suspicion as to their true motives, and they would quickly go bankrupt. In their own best interest, insurance companies would reward armed clients, in particular those able to certify some level of training in the handling of arms, charging them lower premiums reflecting the lower risk that they represent. Just as insurers charge less if homeowners have an alarm system or a safe installed, so would a trained gun owner represent a lower insurance risk…

The Fascist, Regulatory Police State Continues to Kill America

Eric Peters writes on the latest Fifth Amendment intrusion by our Glorious Leaders Who Want To Protect Us, the forcible drawing of blood without cause for later use against us as a means of forced self-incrimination.

Peters is referring to those random “sobriety checkpoints,” and that a Texas court has upheld the forcible drawing of your blood. So much for that freedom-loving Rick Perry, who wants to be president.

But Peters points out that the real point of this increased police state totalitarianism is not to save us from our own bad choices, or to protect people from drunk drivers, but to reinforce the State’s police power of unquestioned authority and make people submit and be obedient.

People who love freedom must step up their challenges of the statists behind these policies, and must continue to challenge their obedient fellow Americans who support such policies. The statist mentality is of those who oppose the ideas and principles behind the making of America — Presumption of Innocence and the Right to Be Left Alone. The same mentality is behind the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror,” that is also based on presumption of guilt, apprehension, rendition and detention without cause or suspicion, and searches and seizures of private property.

Arthur Silber writes on how the victims of the State’s enslavement and intrusions identify with and obey the State’s aggressors and rapists. There are efforts throughout America to undo the damage of the statists thus far, but most of these efforts are aimed at reforming our unreformable system. Silber concludes,

For the moment, think about those people (which is most people, including almost all “dissenters”) who are so deeply committed to “reforming” and “saving” the system. To allow themselves to believe that the system is capable of being “reformed” and “saved,” they must constantly appeal to what they view as the “kindness” of their captors. This must be true, even if that “kindness” is only the alleged willingness of the captors to change and alter course, if only they “understood” and finally appreciated the truth, or some critical element of the truth. The “dissenters” are, of course, eager and willing to explain that truth to them. They must desperately search for their captors’ “good side” to grant legitimacy to their efforts. Of course, this is precisely what the captors want you to do. But what if you’re wrong about your captors’ willingness to change? And again, I ask: If you fight in the manner permitted by those who hold you hostage, how likely do you think it is that your captors will set you free? As I said: they won’t.

The reason our Glorious Leaders in Washington and the slithering state and local bureaucrats (and their hired guns, the police) won’t help us and will only continue to increase their intrusive powers, is because they have all been given a monopoly in a variety of tasks, including national security and local community policing, and, worse, all these government officials have the power to be above the law: They have the power to commit acts of theft and fraud, initiated physical aggression and trespass against others’ persons and property.

This system is unreformable as long as we continue to institutionalize uncivilized behavior. You can’t have a civilized society when TPTB are permitted to act in an uncivilized manner through theft, trespass and physical aggression.

As I wrote in my piece on national security central planning socialism, we need to decentralize the task of national security. Power-hungry bureaucrats in Washington are inherently incompetent, and even the most brilliant amongst them could not  possibly manage the security of 300 million Americans thousands of square miles apart. When we give them that centralized monopolistic power, they will abuse it. Just look at Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Nixon, and the two Bushes especially. They have used their monopolistic powers of national security central planning to deliberately provoke hostilities against us from abroad. They have made us less safe.

And as I wrote in my piece on “Disobeying Dictators,” giving local government bureaucrats an armed monopoly in community policing has given us local tyranny. The level of abuse against innocent Americans by police is constantly on the increase. Many, many more innocents are murdered by police than are police murdered by criminals.

Giving armed agents of the State a monopoly in community policing gives them legal authority over others, which automatically erases accountability under the rule of law. And outlawing competition removes the State’s monopolistic agents’ incentive to achieve and provide actual security, and feeds the State’s agents’ need for power and control. This increasingly dysfunctional monopoly has disarmed and rendered the average citizen impotent toward his own ability to defend oneself from actual criminals. Now, the police are the criminals, as especially reinforced by the irrational and counter-productive War on Drugs and the militarizing of the police.

In fact, Radley Balko writes just today of yet another police adventure ending in the police murdering yet another innocent individual, in yet another no-knock kick-the-door-in raid looking for evidence of non-violent crimes, this time the victim of the police criminals being a sick 69-year man. The combination of irrational drug laws, including prescription drugs, and incompetent, testosterone-overflowing agents of the State’s police monopoly is what gives us these nightmares.

You can’t reform a system that is inherently flawed. A system of compulsion and monopoly is inherently flawed, and that is why our system is doomed. A system of centralization and central planning, State-monopoly, and giving some people the power to trespass and aggress against others, just doesn’t work. It is as much immoral as it is impractical. No reform can possibly make it better. Abolishing this system is the only way to save our liberty, our security and safety (and our prosperity as well).

In a civil and just society, no State-monopoly may be allowed, open competition in all fields must be permitted and protected, and no one may have the right or the power to be above the rule of law, no one may initiate acts of theft or trespass against others’ persons or property.

A system of liberty, protection of presumption of innocence, and equal accountability under the rule of law, should not be too complicated to understand.

Student Loan Debts vs. Independence and Responsibility

Yves Smith has this post on biased studies, one of which the conclusion is that having more debt is helpful to students’ “self-esteem.” Smith is probably correct about the propagandish nature of the study. In actuality, what is probably more helpful to students’ or post-college young adults’ self-esteem is independence and autonomous self-support, with an absence of debt. Absence of debt goes with higher self-esteem and independence because being in debt means that one is beholden to others. Being in debt and beholden to others is more in line with dependence, not independence. But perhaps that is what the propagandists want: mass dependence, especially on the financial elite, TPTB.

Looking at the idea of debt on a larger scale, we can see that the Congressjerks in Washington continuously increase the national debt, for which they have enslaved Americans and future generations, in the name of the Congressjerks’ personal pet projects (i.e. pork), in the name of receiving more campaign contributions from the corporate welfare parasites such as military contractors, Big Pharma, Big Agra, Big Farming, and, of course, the snorting and grunting hogs of Wall Street.

The Congressjerks and their contributors are themselves dependent on the hard labor of the workers and producers of society, from the fruits of whose labor the parasites expropriate and squander with impunity.

Members of the senate and congress are not responsible people. And neither are presidents. The reason these people continually raise the debt ceiling is, because in their obnoxious selfishness, it is not their money nor their debt they need to worry about. These people rarely accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions, and for the consequences of their stupidity, their ill-informed decisions and votes, as well as for their own personal indiscretions. The only reason Anthony Whiner stepped down was not out of ethics or owning up to his lack of judgment in sending photos to young ladies he didn’t know, but to spare his Party further embarrassment — to spare his Party any further tarnishing against its credibility. (Like either Party in Washington has any credibility left whatsoever!)

When we know that George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, costing the lives of 5,000 Americans and causing tens of thousands of wounded young Americans — many disabled for life — as well as hundreds of thousands of murdered innocent Iraqis and a destroyed Iraq, not to mention the trillions Bush had squandered on behalf of military contractors’ fattened bank accounts, when we know that this war was for Bush to finish the job his Dad started and to use toward Junior’s reelection campaign, and that it was all based on lies, fabricated evidence and documentation, but we do not hold this Bush responsible for the consequences of his “high crimes and misdemeanors,” his murderous war crimes, then I suppose that sends a message to America’s youth that you do not have to be responsible for yourself or your bad decisions (or your crimes).

Regarding the students, graduates and their loans and debts, the message used to be that if you defaulted on student loans, then you’ll probably get treated leniently or maybe even be excused from the debt. Now, the feds, going broke and desperate, want the money, and are willing to use police S.W.A.T. teams to break into people’s homes and terrorize families to get that money.

But the culture has encouraged students to get loans for college even if they may not be needing them. And it encouraged the Big Banks to commit mortgage and lending fraud, and foreclosure fraud as well, but lately people are starting to wake up to all this. Americans are finally beginning to question the culture of dependence, debt, and irresponsibility. At least some Americans are.

We need to discourage young people from going into debt, and encourage them to be more responsible and frugal. It is also wise to advise the youngins at age 17-18 to consider working full-time rather then going to college. They can start at age 16 working part-time, and try to turn that into full-time when they graduate from high school.

Of course, for those with the desire to enter fields such as medicine, undergraduate college is probably necessary, what with all the labs for bio and chem that are required. However, ObamaCare is a good disincentive toward entering the field of medicine, unless you desire to be a slave of the State as a government doctor, which is ultimately what ObamaCare will turn the entire medical system into.

Coulter Reveals Her Socialist Love for the State

In her column this week, Get Rid of Government — But First Make Me President!, Ann Coulter is certainly far more critical of Ron Paul than she has been before, such as last year during the CPAC event in which she said she agreed with Ron Paul on everything except foreign policy. Miss Coulter especially bashes Dr. Paul this week for his views on separating marriage and State.

On marriage, Miss Coulter responds to Dr. Paul’s statement that one should not have to get a license by the State to be married. Coulter asks,

If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? How are child support and child custody issues determined if the government doesn’t recognize marriage? How about a private company’s health care plans — whom will those cover? Who has legal authority to issue “do not resuscitate” orders to doctors?…

Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person’s Social Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you’re divorced and able to remarry?…

Miss Coulter seems to think that government officials should decide on who gets to adopt children and who decides on child custody disagreements, and that is why we must “register” our private marriages and marital contracts with the government.

This is the socialists’ argument, the one in favor of the bureaucratization of everyday life, and that insists that the people are owned by the State and therefore must “register” with the State for its high-and-mighty permission so that we may arrange our private contracts and relationships according to the State’s approval in order to live our private lives in “pursuit of happiness.” Socialists like Coulter seem to be terrified of the idea of private contracts and private third-party arbitrators to settle disputes.

Here in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, there is a history of state social workers’ gross incompetence when it comes to overseeing child adoption and foster care. And corruption. (See here, here, and here for examples of the State’s adoption/foster care racket.) Do we really want social workers, agents of the State, to decide on who gets to adopt what children, or who gets to be foster parents? When it comes to who has the allegiance of agents of the State, there is no stronger loyalty than to the State itself, and its pathological hunger for control over the people, especially the children. It’s just like in the government-run schools, only worse.

But the problem is when you give some compulsory State monopoly the power of ultimate decision-making, its decisions will ultimately be bad decisions, and self-serving decisions as well. I wouldn’t trust State-employed social workers with any kids. It is these State social workers, at least here in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, who are best known for repeatedly placing children into abusive families, in which several children have been murdered. And the abusive families tend to be heterosexual couples. (Miss Coulter seems to be worried about gay-married couples adopting children.)

But there would be much less of a need to worry about who gets to adopt or foster-care children when we have a market-based system in place. Private firms that specialized in adoption and foster-care would run on a competitive basis, and based on word-of-mouth, proven competence and so on. To give the State the moral authority as final, ultimate decision-maker to approve or disapprove of these situations is quite totalitarian.

With a compulsory State monopoly, case after case the agents of the State are never accountable and their incompetence and corruption are rewarded, as is the case in any endeavor controlled and managed by the State. In a market-based system, however, private case workers would actually work under scrutiny of the rule of law, and the bad case workers will be weeded out by the free marketplace. (I know, I know, it is a little hard for people so indoctrinated to trust the State’s control over everything to hear “marketplace” combined with “child adoption.” Should we really trust free people to be responsible?)

But if you look at the history of the State’s involvement in these personal family matters, the judgment of the State-employed social workers should never be trusted, because they are… State-employed. Remember, as the old saying goes, “Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach, administrate. Those who can’t administrate, become State-employed social workers.”

As far as marriage per se, it is a private relationship, a private contract, and none of anyone else’s business, and certainly none of the State’s business. Each individual has a right to marry. Yes, it is a right, and it doesn’t matter what the genders are of those involved. Miss Coulter seems to believe that the individual is owned by the State, hence her view that one must “register” with the State and get the State’s permission to marry. However, if you agree with Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, you would agree that the individual owns one’s own life, and has a right to do with one’s own life whatever one wants, as long as one is peaceful, including establishing voluntary contracts with others, in business or pleasure.

Alas, conservative socialists such as Ann Coulter who love the State and believe that the State should have some ultimate authority over the people’s private marriages, child adoption and other private family matters, are in the same camp with the social engineering fanatics of the Left.

Truth, Justice, and the … American Way?

Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell says that terrorism suspects who are arrested in Kentucky should immediately be expelled from the Bluegrass State and transported to military tribunals in the Guantanamo torture hoosegow. Apparently, McConnell has been blowing grass himself, or just flunked his law school class that taught the ideas of due process and presumption of innocence, the main principles behind the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. According to Antiwar.com, McConnell snorted,

“Send them to Guantanamo where they belong,” insisted McConnell, adding that the two suspects don’t deserve civilian trials and should be sent to the notorious island prison for “the justice they deserve.”

Of course, McConnell’s judgment should be taken seriously, given that he voted for the parasitic, tax-funded Wall Street Bailout, for the hysterical, knee-jerk, totalitarian PATRIOT Act, for the Medicare Part D Big Pharma tax-funded boondoggle, and, of course, all the wars that George W. Bush wanted to serve Bush’s reelection bid.

When McConnell is given the information that someone is suspected of crimes, his obvious gut reaction is to presume them to be guilty and to want their rights to life and liberty removed. Without the due process of a trial and actual evidence presented and the case decided by a jury of one’s peers!

However, as I noted in my Tea Partiers May Need the ACLU Soon, the very presumption-of-guilt, police state policies that McConnell supported in that PATRIOT Act, will be used by subsequent administrations, such as the current Obommunists, to go after those that TPTB deem to be seditious, or a “threat” or “terrorists.” To the current administration of police state Nazis, commies, criminals (such as Holder, Cass Sunshine, Elena Caveman, etc.) and so forth, Tea Partiers and others who dissent from the status quo or who challenge the government’s policies, are “terrorists,” and should be treated as such.

That is why we have to protect the right of ALL people to their presumption of innocence, no matter what heinous crimes they are suspected of committing. Yes, including alleged al Qaeda members, believe it or not.

Jacob Hornberger exemplified in a post yesterday very good reasons to support due process and presumption of innocence, with 24 Bahrain doctors and 23 nurses accused of trying to overthrow the government, as many of them complained of being tortured into signing false confessions.

For a long time since the 2008 election, I was willing to give Sarah Palin the benefit of the doubt. But when she responds to WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange with a tweet or Facebook entry that includes referring to Assange as “an anti-American operative with blood on his hands,” and asks, “Why was [Assange] not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?” I conclude that here is yet another individual who does not understand the ideas of presumption of innocence and due process.

McConnell’s latest blurt of ignorance is another reason to cut off Washington, DC and let it float out to sea. We won’t miss it.

Revolution? No. Disobey Dictators? Yes.

June 14, 2011

Copyright 2011 LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

As a result of the Federal Reserve’s inflation and the intrusions inflicted against others by Washington’s reactionary statists, we are seeing mass protests and riots across Europe, revolutions in the Middle East, and, in the U.S., the makings for a new extended period of civil unrest. Sadly, some people in the U.S. have been calling for “revolution,” and they don’t mean a revolution of ideas and principles, as Ron Paul has been communicating.

Unfortunately, many of the people who call for “revolution” in America are referring to the use of violence, either directly by mobs and rioting or indirectly by way of government-imposed and police-enforced legislation and regulations. Some are calling for the strengthening of the government’s armed power to take more from the “haves” to give more to the “have-nots.”

These modern revolutionary wannabes do not seem to understand the morality of the individual’s right to own one’s own life, labor, property and contracts. The revolutionaries of the Left love the redistribution extremism of their beloved Obama, but need to be educated in the ideas of Rothbardian ethics and liberty. Then they might better understand that the real, honest and effective revolution will be one of ideas, nullification and secession, and should also include making the criminals of government accountable under the rule of law.

Now, by “disobeying dictators,” I am not advocating violence, but only that people live their lives as they see fit, as long as they do not intrude on anyone else’s equal right to do the same with their lives. So there comes a time when civil disobedience is in order. By civil disobedience, I mean acting in defiance of government-imposed rules and dictates that have nothing to do with protecting life, liberty and property. This includes individual- or state-nullification of federal orders. I believe in the Non-Aggression Principle and oppose the use of aggression as an initiated means toward an end.

Now, there has been a lot of talk about how America is quickly becoming a police state and a dictatorship. The Federal Reserve continues to cause price and food inflation. The federal military bureaucracy continues to provoke foreigners to act against innocent Americans and other Westerners. Various government-monopolized police agencies – federal, state, and local – are out of control, as many agents now are murdering, wounding, trespassing and searching innocent people and criminally breaking into and destroying their property. There has been too much Nazi-like zeal to “enforce” the very bad laws and policies that ignorant, corrupt public officials are ramming down our throats. These politicians and bureaucrats, and their armed agents, are criminally ruining America, and it has to stop.

Like in the old Soviet Union, Obama’s government-controlled medical scheme will not only be harmful medically, but the increasing police state we are experiencing will be used to enforce the controls, and also will be used against individuals who show dissent from the government’s authoritarian dictates.

We The People don’t need all that, and we don’t want it. We want freedom and peace. (At least I do.)

Now, what would happen if doctor’s offices, hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, drug and supplement makers, and insurers just decided to do their business with their consumers – honestly and peacefully, and without aggression or fraud – and totally ignore federal regulations, mandates, fees, licensure laws and other intrusions? Frankly, those intrusions’ only real purpose is to protect established physicians and businesses’ profits from prospective competitors and start-ups. (The medical establishment was already corrupt well before ObamaCare.)

The contracts involved in the relationships between doctors or other medical providers and patients, or between insurers and patients, are private contracts, and third parties such as government bureaucrats sticking their big noses into those private contracts are committing acts of criminality, of trespassing, in my opinion.

Acts of nullification are necessary for Americans to be better served in their medical needs. With freedom, the consumers would determine what is needed, not the government, and the producers would serve the consumers – quality of medical care would then rise and the prices would fall.

And what would happen if, by chance, Ron Paul were elected president and immediately ordered closed all U.S. military bases that have been trespassing on foreign lands, and ordered U.S. government and military personnel to return to the U.S. and to that dreaded private sector? This, of course, would also coincide with individual and corporate income taxes being eliminated, thus incentivizing U.S. businesses to expand and invest considerably, and inspiring and encouraging Americans to start new businesses without fear of being punished by the feds. Such huge economic expansion would create new real jobs, including for those returning military personnel. (Perhaps the U.S. ought to do this anyway, whether or not Dr. Paul is elected, and despite the objections of the parasitic defense contractors and their socialist, central planning elitist neocons in Washington.)

For those who are worried about America’s access to all that important oil from the Middle East, people in the various American states need to nullify and ignore federal energy-related and environmental regulations and restrictions, and explore their own lands and drill for and make use of any oil and gas that they have a God-given right to make use of. If the federal bureaucrats don’t like it, we can provide a suggestion box for them somewhere near the local bar, where many of them tend to frequent.

Regarding the bureaucrats’ regressive attacks on domestic natural resource exploration – supposedly based on “environmental protection” – during the Gulf oil spill last year, President Obama used the force of the federal government to prevent Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal from building berms to protect his state’s coast from the oil spill. In my opinion, the Obama Administration was acting criminally obstructive of Louisiana’s right to be protected from an imminent environmental disaster, and I believe that officials, including Obama, should have been criminally charged and prosecuted.

The same goes for those congressmen and senators who impose their ignorant, anti-progress extremism on people, such as by banning certain light bulbs and forcing everyone to use more dangerous, hazardous, poisonous light bulbs. These public officials are committing far worse crimes than just those of public nuisance or even trespass. These public officials imposing dangerous health hazards on the rest of us, either with light bulbs or by degrading the quality of medical care, should be criminally charged with reckless endangerment. I think it may be the only way for the people to fight back against these hooligans and racketeers.

Further, what would happen if local communities de-monopolized the work of community policing, and started their own competitive policing agencies, all required to be accountable under the rule of law? Currently, the people of American cities and towns obediently and passively allow their government-monopolized police force to be above the law, and thus have paved the way toward the current situation of criminal violence committed by police against innocent people. And, rather than the people having the right and the freedom to videotape police actions, they are punished for it, while it is the monopolized police who have the power to keep surveillance on the people and invade their privacy and trespass on their property with impunity.

As Judge Napolitano says, of course we have a right to videotape police in public places. One very important purpose of cell phone cameras and YouTube is to show the reality of what happens when a society allows community policing to be monopolized by the government: the inevitable lawbreaking and abuse by the police themselves.

Communities need to reverse this Nazi-style police state and decentralize and de-monopolize community policing with open and free competition.

The people need to start such enterprises whether or not they get approval from any local, state or federal bureaucrat. If such bureaucrats and government-monopolists don’t like it, tell them to put a note in the suggestion box in the local Dunkin’ Donuts, and we’ll get back to them.

Incidentally, by “rule of law,” I mean a structure of society in which no one is above the law, no acts of theft or fraud are permitted, no trespassing and no acts of initiated physical aggression are allowed. And that means no police may be above the law or have any authority over anyone else! And the right of the individual to self-defense, including the right to possess the means of self-defense, shall NOT be infringed.

As Hans-Hermann Hoppe has noted, security firms and insurers would reward armed clients.

Current government restrictions on these rights to self-defense are a threat to everyone’s safety. For example, the people of Chicago have a right to defend themselves against the “wilding” youths, and they really had better start protecting themselves, because their government-monopolized police agents sure as hell aren’t going to protect them. (Not when they’re too busy policing Dunkin’ Donuts, they’re not.)

Also, the people need to start private schools and home schools, and ignore government regulations and restrictions in that area, too. The government-controlled schools and colleges are now the statists’ places of socializing experimentation and political indoctrination centers. We are now seeing the education Gestapo breaking into people’s homes and kidnapping them, because of student loan default or fraud. Because of the indoctrination of state-worship now in America, education is a much more totalitarian enterprise, to enrich the government employees and to strengthen the power of the government bureaucrat. Soon, we should expect S.W.A.T. teams enforcing local truancy laws.

No, it is time that the people ignore the State and just educate their kids as they see fit. If the government’s education Nazis don’t like the people taking control of their kids’ own education, tell them to put a note in the suggestion box located in the local school’s air-conditioned television studio and media center complex (or the school’s air-conditioned health spa).

All the laws, regulations, intrusive policies and Nazi police procedures we have now in America, including in medical care, energy, the totalitarian PATRIOT Act, and so forth, are acts of positive legislative law, and not of natural law, or the rule of law that coincides with our inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. These government and police intrusions undermine the rule of law, and are the basis for how government bureaucrats and their hired guns, the police, have become criminals.

And as we have seen with so many court decisions approving of police violence and striking down inalienable rights to life, liberty and property, the Constitution and the government-monopolized judicial system do not protect us.

Rather than a revolution of violence, the only real way to restore freedom in America is by disobeying the dictators, through nullification and civil disobedience, and criminally charging public officials who are committing the real crimes of society.

On the Infantile Behaviors and Motivations of the Statists

Apparently, Anthony Weiner was being “followed by” a 17-year-old girl on Facebook, and maybe vice versa. This, in addition to the other information that has thus far been revealed, makes me wonder just how stupid people would have to be to get themselves in the kind of situation Weiner is in in the first place. Don’t these people ever think about possible consequences before doing something that even those with the most average intelligence would know is extremely questionable?

What we are seeing in Anthony Weiner’s behaviors is an extreme lack of good judgment on his part, which merely reflects that of many people there in Washington. Just what is Weiner thinking when he decides to send photos of himself to others? Doesn’t he know that such behavior might very likely be known and publicized? Couldn’t he anticipate that that would likely happen?

And, aren’t such behaviors typical of people with an extremely immature personality? Do we really want such immature extended-adolescents making the laws of the country that we all must follow?

This kind of personal lacking of judgment and common sense reflects in these politicians’ judgment on things in general, as they insist on making new laws, regulations and schemes to force on the rest of us, and as they destroy so many lives and so much property and wealth in the process.

The reason that Weiner and so many others in Washington are lacking in good judgment and common sense and rational thought is because that federal central government is a place of power, and that centralized power attracts those with that very mindset of infantile, regressive thinking, people who are immature and so lacking in self-worth that they need to make up for it by attaining positions of great power over others. Their judgment, therefore, is also infantile and lacking in rational deliberation.

For example, just look at Weiner’s positions on medical care, as well as “Cap-n-Trade.” Like Obama, Weiner  wants a Soviet-style, government-run medical care system, in which the doctors are government employees and the government is the insurer. It’s not just a matter of lack of historical knowledge regarding other places in which such government-run systems cause disastrous results economically and medically, as well as becoming politically oppressive, such as in the Soviet Union. But it shows that the designers of these schemes would have to be living in an utter fantasy world, totally removed from the reality of how a society’s giving some people (bureaucrats, government doctors, and their enforcers, the police) such intrusive powers — and worse, making it compulsory upon the people — is just like putting the fox in the henhouse. They turn the government, originally to be the “protector” of society, into being the primary violator and predator of society, of the people’s lives, liberty and property.

And in “Cap-n-Trade,” based on fraudulent, bogus “science,” something Weiner also supports, we have policies — again, compulsory upon the people — that are based on outright criminality — forcing everyone to use poisonous, hazardous light bulbs, mandating crappy vehicles that cause accidents, etc., and to give certain favored corporations such as G.E. special government-granted privileges and profits — and based on the childish, infantile, irrational fantasies of these activists, politicians and lobbyists. The poor judgment of these people pushing these policies reflects emotion-driven, unthinking ideological fantasizing and a truly infantile mindset.

However, this immature, infantile lack of good judgment is not just with the people on the left, such as Weiner and Nancy Smelgrosi, but also with the people on the right, such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and other internationalist-globalist central-planning elitists and neocons (such as Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Doug Feith, who ruined Iraq) and their “journalistic” propagandists (such as Irving and Bill Kristol, and Jonah Goldberg).

In their grandiose fantasy world, the neocon socialists set out to design the Middle-East to be how they fantasized it should be. They had designs of what a society ought to be, how it should be formed, and, like the leftists, they set out to implement their dreams and caused nothing but destruction and havoc.

The forming of the current state of Israel was also based on a fantasy, and with lack of good judgment.

Israel is an example of an artificial State in a territory by conquest, based on an unrealistic, grandiose vision and in the name of realizing child-like fantasies as told in the Bible.

Now, there is nothing wrong with people who want to believe in the stories of the Bible, and sorry if I’m offending anyone here.  But there are a lot of things that especially Christian Zionists don’t know about Israel. (For those who are interested in learning more than what our government news media tell us, this post contains a list of links for further info.)

The 20th Century political Zionists used government force and aggression to impose their grand design for a “safe haven for Jews worldwide,” based solely on Biblical scriptures and no other reason, and insisted on Palestine and only Palestine and would consider no other territory anywhere else in the world, even if it meant displacing the indigenous Arab inhabitants of that territory (a procedure going on for many decades, that some people refer to as “ethnic cleansing”).

The Fascists vs. Liberty: U.K. Wants Doctors to Report Patients Who Could Be Potential Terrorists

U.K. Guardian: Government plans to ask doctors to identify potential terrorists

Hey Cameroon, and Obomber: How about not starting wars and invading other countries who did nothing to you, and not murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents, all of which has done nothing but PROVOKE people in those predominantly Muslim countries?

Ya think?

But noooooo, instead of common sense, the retards choose these fascist, 1984-style, Soviet-style policies.

Is ObamaCare going to start this kind of retarded fascist stuff now? Are ObamaCare government doctors going to report people who mention that they went to a Tea Party meeting and don’t support what the federal government is doing?

How about if a patient mentions being opposed to Obomber’s illegal, immoral, murderous, counter-productive (and retarded) wars? Is the retarded government doctor going to report this patient as a “potential terrorist”?

Reporting dissenters as “potential terrorists”?

Listen, the more centralized control people allow bureaucrats, politicians and other imbeciles to have, and the bigger the centralized government is, the more fascist and totalitarian it will be. (That’s an ipso facto thing, you know.)

The only solution to regain our freedom and security (security from government, police, and military intrusions, violence and murder, that is), is decentralization, secession, and nullification. It is the only way to resolve ALL the current problems we face.

The struggle is between Fascism and Liberty. There is no middle ground.

The “Mainstream” Media and Government vs. “Extremists” Who Believe in Freedom

Here is a video of Becky Not-Too-Quick and her Squawking cohorts interviewing Ron Paul. One of the Squawkers repeatedly asked Dr. Paul how he could change his views or rephrase his positions on the issues so they would sound more “mainstream.” Apparently, to these people, rule by knuckle-dragging elitists and police-gestapo is considered “mainstream.”

And also recently, Tom Woods had this video response to the Mother Jones article on Ron Paul’s “extreme” views. Apparently, advocating individual liberty, property rights, free markets, freedom of contract, civil liberties, fiscal responsibility and the rule of law are “extreme” views. (Tell that to Thomas Jefferson.)

The squawker on the first video who asked Dr. Paul a 2nd time to change his views clearly could not get it through his head that freedom could possibly be “mainstream.”

For some reason, the propagandists in the media want us to believe that Congress’s spending like drunken sailors and robbing our grandchildren to pay for their selfish earmarks, political paybacks and luxury junkets, is “mainstream.”

The courts now allowing police to break into people’s homes without warrants and murdering them is now “mainstream.” And one property intrusion and contract intrusion after another, by way of fascist-corporatist regulatory trespasses, is “mainstream.”

And we have the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing regulatory Nazi Cass Sunshine nudging us into a police state. That’s “mainstream.”

Stealing from the workers and producers of society to fund Wall Street‘s bonuses is “mainstream.” Helicopter Ben’s obsessive-compulsive central planning wet-dreams that end up causing the next Greater Depression, that’s “mainstream.”

Do these elitists in the “mainstream” media believe that people don’t have rights anymore? Like the right not to be searched without probable cause or reasonable suspicion or without a warrant, the right to not be assaulted, molested, murdered, trespassed, by neanderthal police, TSA goons, and other parasitic mobsters of the State?

Cass Sunshine and his Obommunist ilk do not like the idea of freedom, the idea of an individual having the right to live one’s life as one sees fit, the right of self-defense, the right to run one’s business and property without intrusion and trespasses by the neighbors, the competition, or the State, and many in the “mainstream” media are with these human-hating criminals.

While it is “extreme” to advocate freedom as Dr. Paul does, it is considered “mainstream” to believe in the Total State, and that the people are owned  by the State. These mainstreamers have contempt for the rights of the individual.

To advocate presumption of innocence and due process is “extreme.” In the name of fighting terrorism, everyone must be considered guilty until searched to prove one’s innocence, even though it has been the U.S. government, in its extremist self-perpetuation lust for power, that has been most guilty of terrorizing the American people.

In 1990-91, President George H. W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, a country that was of no threat to the U.S. whatsoever, based on lies and propaganda, and for the sake of serving his corporatist masters, was “mainstream.” The U.S. military’s intentional destruction of Iraqi water and sewage treatment facilities, followed by sanctions to prevent rebuilding and thus force the Iraqis to use untreated water, leading to skyrocketing disease and cancer rates and the deaths of hundreds of thousands, as well as widespread anti-Americanism, yes, that was “mainstream.”

Oh, and quite “mainstream” was Janet Nazi Reno’s invasion of Waco and the murders of many children as well as adults. “Mainstream.”

And, speaking of communists, rather than repeal each and every price-distorting, economy-slowing medical and insurance-related regulation, bureaucracy, mandate, tax, fee, and otherwise intrusion that already existed, Romney-Obama come in and want to further regulate and mandate us to death with their government UnhealthyCare that will drive many doctors out of the profession and give us only those doctors from government schools and colleges and who don’t mind being government employees and slaves of the State. That’s considered “mainstream.”

But Ron Paul is an “extremist.”

One thing that I’ve heard Dr. Paul state in interviews is that he wants people to “have their freedom.” Can you believe that? A politician who actually wants us to have our freedom? How many other politicians or candidates actually say that they want us to be “free”? That’s because they don’t want us to be free. They want themselves to have power, that’s what they really want. But they are “mainstream.”

Gag. Me. With. A. Spoon.

More on the Unconstitutional Constitution

Gary Barnett has this piece up at LewRockwell.com regarding his still being fed up with Constitution worship (and links to his previous piece on that). I’ve been listening to the Rev. Beck this past week, who has been constantly saying how the Constitution is being attacked from all sides and we have to “get back to the Constitution,” and so on (and, frankly, as with his stated views on Israel, I don’t believe Beck’s sincerity, but that’s for a different discussion.). Well, you bet the Constitution is being attacked — it is worthless.

People really need to free themselves from the burdensome weight of the long-held false assumption that the Constitution was ever a good thing, an assumption that anchors everyone down from their very freedom that the Constitution only prevents.

Barnett links to Bill Buppert’s piece on how the Constitution failed to liberate us from big government, and to Tom Mullen’s piece on the Constitution as the “18th Century Patriot Act.” In that article, Mullen quotes the Constitution: “The Congress shall have the power to…” (Might as well just fill in the blank, because that’s what they have been doing for the last 200 years.)

Some further reading by Mullen also includes “The Constitution Does Not Protect Our Property.” Mullen notes,

By “property,” I do not mean exclusively or even primarily land ownership, although land ownership is one form of property. By “property,” I mean all that an individual rightfully owns, including his mind, body, labor, and the fruits of his labor. It is specifically the right to the fruits of one’s labor that the Constitution fails entirely to protect. In fact, it makes no attempt to do so whatsoever.

And Mullen gets into the Bill of Rights, which does not protect our property, nor does it protect our rights. The Fifth Amendment includes, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” It might as well state: “The government may take your property.” Period.

Other noteworthy articles include Lysander Spooner’s No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, which emphasizes how the Constitution could not be a legally binding contract that future generations must obey. Also, Laurence Vance documents here and here how the Anti-Federalists were right to oppose the centralized federal government and the then-proposed Constitution. And Gary North has this piece on the fraudulent nature of the Constitution.

No, the U.S. Constitution does not protect our liberty, our rights or our property. Instead, it empowers the centralized bureaucracy to invade our property, expropriate the fruits of our labor and enslave us.

As I noted in my piece of March, 2010 on how the November 2010 elections would be nothing but more rearranging of deck chairs (and more recently in my piece, Let Go of the Centralized State), as a society centralizes a government and gives it monopolies that are compulsory and restricts competitors’ right of entry, its power just can’t be controlled, and it will always grow and never shrink, and will be increasingly oppressive toward the people over whom it rules. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe noted, the idea of “limited government” is impossible.

People just can’t resist the power and will become addicted to it, like a drug. They won’t let go and will only want more and more power. And wealth (as they steal it through taxation, the Federal Reserve and other illicit means).

And the Constitution will not protect us from the DC parasites, hooligans and imbeciles, or from their hired guns the police or the military. “But the Supreme Court will protect us. They will overturn bad laws and police procedures that violate our rights.” No, the Supreme Court will not protect us. We have seen that more and more, from the 2005 Kelo decision that allowed the power of the government to be used to steal private property from people to give it to private developers, and, more recently, the 8-1 decision that endorsed greater police power to break into people’s homes without warrants. It was yet another reason to de-monopolize community policing.

Expanding the federal bureaucrats’ power, that they can’t let go of, and feeding the military contractor parasites (which Tom Engelhardt details so well here) is why we have this “War on Drugs” prohibition irrationality and hypocrisy and this terrorism fear-mongering.

And I have already noted several times how the socialist monopolization of national security has done nothing but feed the DC central planners’ hunger for power, as the entire apparatus of government usurpation of Americans’ right of defense has only encouraged DC to provoke foreigners to act against us, as an excuse to further expand the power of the federal bureaucracy and further terrorize the American citizenry.

The Constitution’s language was deliberately vague for the sake of federalists’ expansion of power, beginning with the drooling Alexander Hamilton. This “general welfare” clause we hear about really refers to the well-being of the country in general, not this socialist forced redistribution-of-wealth stuff that the Left seems to like. But how can a government claim to be concerned about its people’s well-being when the government intentionally provokes and harms and acts aggressively against foreigners on the foreigners’ own lands and murders hundreds of thousands of innocent people over there, thus driving widespread anti-American sentiment and provoking anger and retaliation? (And how come so many Americans actually don’t know what the U.S. government had done to people in Iran 30-60 years ago, and to the people of Iraq 20 years ago, 10 years before 9/11?)

Has the income tax, begun in 1913, been helpful or hurtful to out “general welfare,” our general well-being? Has the Federal Reserve, begun in 1914, been helpful or harmful to our well-being? The Fed, by the way, is entirely unconstitutional. Not that it matters, because the federal government has been ignoring and shredding the Constitution for decades, and that Supreme Court is useless to protect our liberty, our rights or our property.

A “Bill of Rights” may having been well-intentioned, but when you empower a “supreme” authority with a monopoly of ultimate judicial decision-making, you are right then and there sacrificing your liberty and your rights to serve the elitist rulers. A monopoly that is protected by the State and restricts free entry into that field immediately corrupts the monopolists, and the ultimate decision by this monopolized authority will not be just, and you will not have real justice. (Note Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s recent article on that.)

No, I say, not only must we get rid of the federal government and let the states be sovereign and independent as they were meant to be by the Founders, also dump the Supreme Court, and get rid of that worthless Constitution that the bureaucrats in DC no longer follow anyway.

What we really need to protect our liberty is just basic laws of society: No theft or fraud, no trespass, no physical aggression (except in actual self-defense).

But also, no individual, group or institution may be above the law, no police may initiate aggression against others or have authority over anyone. Everyone is equal under the law. And no monopoly, either. That includes no monopoly in community policing. No restrictions on the right to bear arms. Let a neighborhood’s people, residents and business owners police themselves,  encourage people to be vigilant and self-protective. (But not paranoid.)

Centralization and monopolization of police and national security, judicial decision-making and money has been harmful to America, and we need to give it all the heave-ho.

Rand Paul Would Throw Someone in Jail for Merely Attending a Political Speech

Apparently, Rand Paul responded to a question about profiling with this:

I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.

Eugene Volokh explains his discomfort with Sen. Rand Paul’s statement on the Ignoramus Sean Hannity Show, and gives some legal history with court decisions on due process and free speech/First Amendment.

And Glenn Greenwald points out that, not only is our right to attend speeches by people advocating the “violent overthrow” of the government protected, but the people’s right to give such speeches is also protected, referring to this Supreme Corpse decision as an example.

Greenwald also cites the American Revolution as an example.It was perfectly reasonable for the “Founders” to give speeches and openly advocate the “violent overthrow” of the then-ruling British regime to break free of tyranny.

This is not an academic question.  The right at stake here is absolutely vital.  It is crucial to protect and preserve the right to argue that a government has become so tyrannical or dangerous that violence is justified against it.  That, after all, was the argument on which the American Founding was based; it is pure political speech; and criminalizing the expression of that idea poses a grave danger to free speech generally and the specific ability to organize against abusive governments.  To allow the government to punish citizens — let alone to kill them — because their political advocacy is threatening to the government is infinitely more dangerous than whatever ideas are being targeted for punishment, even if that idea is violent jihad.

Please read the essay by Greenwald with an open mind. These rights of speech that we have — that are inherent in all of us as human beings — as well as our right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, are all being “violently overthrown” by our government run amok in its drive for always-expanding power and control. We see this every day with the TSA and the police, thanks to the government-monopolization of community policing which is counter-productive to community security because the police are more and more a threat to the people, more than “private” criminals. Thanks in large part to the Drug Socialism and National Security Socialism in which the Supreme Corpse have endorsed total police power of life- and property-intrusions.

Greenwald becomes a little cynical in his essay (although, as I continue to hear on the idiot talk radio shows, the cynicism is justified):

The government “needs to do all it can” in the name of Terrorism:  even targeting its own citizens with assassination without a trial based on the mere suspicion that he’s doing something criminal  — or invading other countries that haven’t attacked us — or dropping a continuous stream of missiles on people’s homes who are purely innocent — or locking people up for life without a trial.  This is the sociopathic mindset of the security fetishist that dominates our political discourse — Terrorism:  the meaningless though all-justifying slogan — and, more than anything else, this is what explains why something as radical and dangerous as the President’s due-process-free assassination program aimed at American citizens triggers so little objection.  ”Washington needs to do all it can” — no matter how violent and lawless — “to reduce the risk of another attack.”  To a militarized, authoritarian, collapsing Empire in a posture of Endless War, security is the only cognizable value.

There is no bigger terrorist organization than the U.S. government, as we have seen in its exploitation of the 9/11/01 attacks for the purpose of expanding federal government power over the people and over the states, and for the purpose of feeding the parasites of the military-congressional-industrial complex.

More crimes are being committed against innocent people by the government than ever before, with the criminal PATRIOT Act and spying on innocent Americans without reasonable suspicion, the police murdering innocent people every day (and yes, sooooo many more people are being murdered by brutes with badges than the other way around, every year, and that’s the truth!), one criminal regulation of private business after another and “insider trading” laws even though congressmen and senators are getting rich off their own insider trading and getting away with it.

And the more centralized the government, the more powerful it is becoming, and the more corrupt and criminal as well, and the more violent as well. There is no way out of this but decentralization and state secession. (Or perhaps when Obomber declares martial law and turns the government guns on us — after having disarmed the citizenry, of course — then maybe then you’ll start to understand what I’m saying.)

Repeal Socialism in Immigration, Employment, and Drugs

June 2, 2011

© 2011 LewRockwell.com. (Link to article)

Recent events regarding the issue of immigration have given more reasons to undo all the immoral socialist policies that have put America into turmoil.

Lew Rockwell writes this week on the Obama Administration’s crackdown on businesses who hire “illegal” immigrants. According to the New York Times, federal immigration officials raided 14 Chuy’s Restaurants in Arizona and California, arresting not immigrant workers but the owners of the businesses.

Of course, those familiar with Barack Obama’s past sympathies with “illegal” immigration might find bizarre his wanting to actually crack down on businesses hiring “illegals,” given how beneficial such a voting bloc would be for Obama’s party, the Democrats. On the other hand, Obama seems to want more socialist government control over businesses and their relationships with employees. And, as Rockwell notes,

Socialist ideology plays a role here, and another authoritarian anti-market ideology, protectionism. But…The unions hate any employee who works for the going market wage…

You can see, then, that this crack down has nothing to do with nationalism or racialism or securing the borders or anything else. It is all about bolstering the power of the state and its unions over the American economy, and making the rest of us poorer.

The supposedly “pro-business” conservatives support laws punishing businessmen for employing “undocumented workers,” and those laws were recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The problem with today’s immigration and border control hysteria is that Americans are going after the wrong people. The problems are not caused by the immigrant workers or those Americans who are hiring them. It is the other socialist controls – the Drug War, mainly – that is the problem, and is causing many people in Arizona and other border states to be victimized and terrorized.

Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger has written on the destructive nature of socialist central planning in immigration and labor:

As Mises, Hayek, and the Austrians showed long ago, central planning can never succeed because the planner can never possess the requisite knowledge to centrally plan a complex market, especially one as complex as an international labor market. All the planner inevitably does is produce chaos, distortions, and perversions into the market process…

(The free market) doesn’t rely on central planners. Instead, it simply uses the price system to enable people to coordinate their activities with others. Farm workers needed in Wyoming? The price of labor goes up. Mexican workers learn of the wage increase and immediately travel to Wyoming to earn the money. No central planner, but instead people planning and coordinating their own lives.

Apparently, the conservatives support central planning socialist government intrusions in employment matters that should be the right of businesses to control. We have seen that recently in New Hampshire’s proposed “right to work” law, in which the conservatives do not really support the right of businesses to control their employment matters.

Unfortunately, some people just seem to think that the State owns both the people who currently live and work in the U.S., as well as those who wish to come here to live and work.

Some questions to ask are: Who owns a business? And who owns the contract between employers and employees? And who owns the life of an individual who wants to work at a job that is available?

Here are my answers: The business is owned by the one who purchased it or built it up from one’s own assets or capital. It is not owned or even partially co-owned by the State, by the community, the neighborhood or by others who did not contribute capital to the business and participate in a voluntarily-agreed-upon contract of ownership with the actual owner. Therefore, economically and morally, the control over the business and every aspect of it is solely that of the owner(s). Any law or ordinance, regulation or mandate, regarding how the owner deals with one’s business or employment contracts, is a property intrusion – a trespass by the State – and is in violation of the businessman’s right of sovereignty over one’s business.

And the contract between employer and employee and the terms of the contract are morally and economically the property of and under the sole control of the employer and employee by voluntary agreement, and no one else. Those matters are no one else’s business. Any intrusions by laws, regulations, or mandates by the government are trespasses, and should be forbidden.

And that brings me to the American Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Each individual has an inalienable, inherent right of ownership of one’s own life, person, labor and justly-owned property, and pursuit of happiness, and the right to be free from the aggression against one’s life by others, including agents of the State. With the right to life and the right to sustain one’s life, each individual has a right to trade his labor with others for a compensation or good in return for such labor, within a voluntary and mutually-agreed-upon contract, as long as one is peaceful and does not interfere with any other individual’s equal right.

Here is where we lose the conservatives. The Declaration of Independence does not state that such rights apply to “only Americans.” No, such rights are inherent in all of us, regardless of where we are on Earth. Unfortunately, some people do not believe that non-”American citizens” possess such rights.

Here is an example of a Mexican who is in need of work, and can’t find a job or get hired in Mexico but does find a job and gets hired at a business in Arizona. Now, as we saw in the Obama regime’s raids at the Chuy’s Restaurants in Arizona and California, some people apparently do not believe that the Mexican here should be permitted by the U.S. government to work at the American restaurant, even though the owners of the business voluntarily hired him and are satisfied with his work, and the happily-paying customers enjoy their food there.

So, who is it exactly that owns the Chuy’s Restaurant in Arizona? Is it the government? In that case, then I suppose it is the government’s right to control the employment status of that business. But if the ownership of the restaurant is of the businessman himself, and not in partnership with the community or with the government, then shouldn’t the businessman have the sole authority over the business, including who works there and who does not? Should his right to decide what’s best for his business and his customers be trespassed by others, including the State?

And does not the individual in Mexico have a God-given right to sell his labor to a voluntarily-contracting employer for a mutually-agreed-upon wage, so the individual can sustain his life and provide for his family? If one believes in the truly moral right of self-ownership, then one must answer yes, because all individuals have a right to work, including Mexicans, and including businessmen who must provide for themselves and their families.

Now, just where do the other members of the Arizona community or the federal government get such authority over the contract between the Mexican worker and the American businessman? The U.S. Constitution? But, as referred to in the Declaration of Independence, all people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But if one is saying that the community or the State shares in the ownership of the business with the business owner, then one must say that, really, the State is the true ultimate owner, because the State out-powers the businessman, and the community or the collective also are the ultimate owners because they outnumber the individual.

Unfortunately, in the socialist conservatives and statists’ belief that the government should prevent non-”American citizens” from entering the U.S., they are really advocating that the government should control labor and employment, and that individuals do not really have sole sovereignty ownership of their lives and that someone’s business is really co-owned by the community and the State.

I know that conservatives and others are concerned about increased crime rates because of “illegal” immigration, especially from the Mexican border. But in their control-freakish hysteria they are neglecting the real problems that need to be addressed: No, the problem isn’t the jobs that are available for immigrants in the U.S. The problems are the tax-funded welfare and social services that attract many people into the country. An even worse problem is the War on Drugs – which many conservatives also support, because they believe in a Nanny Police State, in which we need government officials to decide for us what chemicals we may or may not ingest into our own bodies. Like the 1920s Prohibition against alcohol, the current War on Drugs causes black markets, incentivizing the pushing and trafficking of drugs for huge profits, the corrupting of the police, and the terrorizing of innocent Mexicans and Americans by drug cartel criminals as well as corrupt government criminals.

Instead of repealing drug control socialism and welfare socialism, and thus removing all the problems those policies cause, too many misguided Americans like the conservatives call for more socialism in immigration, and in turn more restrictions on individuals’ and businessmen’s right to work and do business, more restrictions on everyone’s freedom of movement and right to travel (and the right to not be searched and asked, “Your papers, please”).

As we have seen years ago in the U.S. government’s using immigration central planning to turn away Jews attempting to escape from Nazi Germany, and more recently in the U.S. government’s prevention of Americans from leaving the U.S., the more control we allow governments to have over the people, including their right to travel and right to work and do business, and the more power of intrusion we give to the government-monopolized police, the less freedom, security and prosperity we will have.

We must repeal each and every socialist control over our lives and businesses, and that includes not only the drug war, but central planning in immigration and labor.