The Migrant Caravan Crisis: Another Result of Government Central Planning

Here is my latest article on Activist Post, The Migrant Caravan Crisis: Another Result of Government Central Planning

October 31, 2018

The Pentagon is sending 6,000 U.S. troops to the southern border, to protect Americans from the migrants “invading” from mainly Central American countries. The migrants are fleeing violence and chaos. In an interview with Laura Ingraham (via Economic Policy Journal), Donald Trump says he’s going to have tent prisons built to house the migrants. The U.S. will not build permanent structures. Okay, he didn’t call them “prisons,” I’m calling them that.

But Trump is a typical central-planning-obsessed bureaucrat. And an authoritarian as well. Rather than recognizing that much of what’s causing the violence and chaos in those other countries are U.S. government policies, such as the drug war especially, the Central-Planner-in-Chief will increase the central-planning that will escalate the problems further as well as create new problems. If you think that the 100-mile Constitution-Free-Zone is bad with ICE and border control goons illegally and criminally invading the persons and property of innocent people, Americans or otherwise, then wait until the military is on the border. They probably will not be just on the border but farther within the U.S.

And note the timing of the migrant caravan coming up through Mexico from Central America, just like the timing of the package bombs and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, just weeks before a big election here in the U.S. And I don’t know if the migrant caravan is all Soros-instigated and funded, or if it could be yet another CIA psy-op on behalf of aiding the military in its expanding power and the U.S. government giving the military contractors even further tax-funded extravagances, who knows.

That’s not too far-fetched, given that just in the past 10-15 years as well as the past 50 years our beloved U.S. government has conspired in several government-instigated plots and false flag psy-ops. Even though those events are well documented, many people who love their Washington rulers and who worship the military cannot hear such things, they just cannot accept that their own government can act criminally and be evil. As Jacob Hornberger wrote back in 2013, conspiracies are inherent to the national security state, and he listed 22 real conspiracies just from the 1950s to the 1970s alone.

Regarding the migrants who are fleeing drug war tyranny, drug lords and turf wars, drug traffickers, sex traffickers and human traffickers, if you end the drug war, much of those things will also end immediately. They will naturally go away because there will no longer be a black market in drugs that drug prohibition causes, there will no longer be an incentive for miserable wretches to make a huge profit off the vices, weaknesses and addictions of others.

Aside from the drug war, conservatives suggest that undocumented immigrants are coming to the U.S. to get on welfare, even though most come to get work rather than welfare. Still, this is a case against the welfare state, not against immigration to the U.S.

And Trump and conservatives are suggesting that there are MS-13 gang members being infiltrated in the migrant caravan, as well as Islamic terrorists who want to come here to kill Americans.

MS-13 is in large part a result of the civil wars in Central America, particularly El Salvador. The problem is that the U.S. government took sides there and greatly contributed to escalation of violence.

And those Islamic terrorists also being infiltrated in the migrant caravan (if that really is the case as claimed by neocons and warmongers)? Well, just what incentive would Islamic people from the Middle East have to do bad things to Americans? Could it be that the U.S. military has been invading and bombing Middle Eastern and Asian countries for decades and decades, murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, especially since the end of the Cold War? That was when President George H.W. Bush started the first war of aggression against Iraq in 1991, authorized the U.S. military’s bombing of civilian Iraqi water and sewage treatment centers, caused the Iraqi civilians to have to use untreated water and thus cause skyrocketing rates of disease and, because of the sanctions and no-fly zones, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands by the mid-1990s and hundreds of thousands more by the year 2000. (See James Bovard and Jacob Hornberger for more information on those sanctions.)

Government central planning doesn’t work and only escalates existing problems and/or creates new problems. As far as why the invasive, criminal, murderous actions of the U.S. government, military and CIA overseas for decades have caused further conflicts, violence, terrorism, and radicalized and motivated foreigners to want to come to the U.S. in retaliation, see Who Are the Terrorists? (from 1986) by Murray Rothbard, Terrorism, Anti-Terrorism, and American Foreign Policy (from 1996) by Richard Ebeling, Breeding Terrorism (from 1999) by Sheldon Richman, and Terrorism … or War? (from 2000) by Jacob Hornberger. And see this video from the late 1990s of Congressman Ron Paul warning that such actions by the U.S. government are bound to cause some kind of terrorist attack within the shores of the U.S. Those articles were all prior to 9/11.

Whenever Washington’s bureaucrats get the CIA or military involved in other countries’ conflicts, the conflicts are escalated or worsened. That is what central planning does, whether it’s in the form of drug or alcohol prohibition, medical care, immigration or national security. Read Planned Chaos by Ludwig von Mises to understand the negative effects of central planning.

So, rather than militarism, turning the guns of the U.S. military on immigrants, imprisoning immigrants, continuing the futile attempt to control the movements of millions of people which is impossible, and continuing the futile attempt to prevent people from getting drugs which they continue to get anyway, let’s instead put an end to all that government central planning, end the drug war and the war on immigrants, and end the sick militarism that is extremely unbecoming of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison’s vision of America.

Activist Post | Creative Commons 2018

Trump: The “Fake News” Media (Not Real Journalists) Are the “Enemy of the People”

Once again, the dishonest and ignorant news media are saying that Donald Trump is accusing the “media,” the “news media,” the “press,” as the “enemy of the people.” The Washington Post, Boston Globe, Associated Press et al.

They are once again referring to his tweets later yesterday and this morning in response to their dishonest reporting.

And I‘m not Trump supporter as many readers already know.

Yesterday Trump tweeted, “The Fake News is doing everything in their power to blame Republicans, Conservatives and me for the division and hatred that has been going on for so long in our Country. Actually, it is their Fake & Dishonest reporting which is causing problems far greater than they understand!”

And this morning he tweeted, “There is great anger in our Country caused in part by inaccurate, and even fraudulent, reporting of the news. The Fake News Media, the true Enemy of the People, must stop the open & obvious hostility & report the news accurately & fairly. That will do much to put out the flame…”

So in other words, Trump is not referring to the “media,” the “news media,” “journalists,” or the “press,” as the Boston Globe, Washington Post, et al. are all reporting. He is referring to the “FAKE news media.” And I think that’s a very important difference. And I wrote about all that the previous time with this, in August, with Trump’s reference to the “enemy of the people.”

In July I wrote an extensive article on the real “Fake News” being from government media with many examples of how dishonest many of the so-called “journalists” are in the mainstream news media. Many of them are shills for government powers and for bureaucrats, as well as shills for the military-industrial-complex.

Did You Major in “Politics” Or “Government”?

Some of the Republican candidates in elections this year are typical statist politicians who really believe in government. They are no different from Democrats. Government is the answer to problems, and that is what a lot of people believe, after 12-16 years in the government schools and a life of not really questioning the statist quo. “Let’s use the political system to impose our ways of thinking on others and our design for others for how they must live their lives,” basically is how many people think. But does what people majored in during college say something about them? Perhaps.

Geoff Diehl, who is the Republican Trump-clone running against Elizabeth Warren for U.S. Senate, had a double major in “Government and Urban Studies,” according to Wikipedia. (Who the hell majors in “government“?!) During the 1990s and 2000s this “conservative Republican” was a registered Democrat and voted for Joe Biden and Tom Riley, the Democrat then-attorney general of Massachusetts. That is, until Diehl’s change of heart when he joined the Tea Party movement in 2010 and was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives. A change of “heart”? (Or a change in political strategy? He did major in “government,” after all.)

And there is a third candidate in that race against Elizabeth Warren, by the way, former Republican and current Independent candidate Shiva Ayyadurai, the “Real Indian Not the Fake Indian,” who has been cordially excluded from the debates. Ayyadurai majored in “electrical engineering and computer science,” has a Masters in visual studies and another Masters in mechanical engineering, and a PhD in biological engineering, all from MIT, according to Wikipedia. But that doesn’t mean anything. Or does it?

In New Joysey New Jersey, the Republican candidate opposing Sen. Bob Menendez for U.S. Senate is alleged businessman Bob Hugin, who majored in … “politics” … at Princeton, according to Princeton’s website. “Politics”? Is that any different from majoring in “government?”

Do you think it’s time to elect someone to the U.S. Senate who spent time in college learning about the real world? (As opposed to “politics” or “government,” that is.)

The Libertarian candidate in that race is Murray Sabrin, who majored in history, geography and social studies education at Hunter College, has a Masters in social studies education from Lehman College, and a PhD in geography from Rutgers (i.e. things that matter), according to Wikipedia. And he’s the one with the best views on the issues. People in New Jersey who are fed up with the same old Republicrats and Demopublicans should consider voting for Murray Sabrin.

In Texas, there’s Sen. Ted Cruz, a “conservative” Rethuglican, who went to Princeton and majored in — get this — “Public Policy“! (Barf!)

“Public Policy”? With “conservatives” like this, who needs socialists?!!

There’s no such thing as a legitimate “public policy,” in my view, only freedom, and the freedom of each individual to make one’s own policy in life, as long as one is peaceful. As Leonard Read would say, Anything That’s Peaceful (.pdf).

The Irrational vs. the Rational of Libertarians

Who knows why some so-called libertarians or conservative libertarians are so hysterical and irrational when it comes to the immigration issue. This one by Bionic Mosquito on LewRockwell.com is another one of those.

It’s like this is an “either-or” kind of thing. We either have an all-private property society, or we have complete government control over borders and immigration into the territory. And because we don’t have an all-private property society, we MUST accept the police state and central planning in immigration, and not complain (so it seems).

Bionic says that, well, “Until there are no state borders, it will be the state that makes the decision on who crosses the borders.  In a world of state borders, every decision regarding immigration is a centrally-planned, state-enforced-at-the-end-of-the-barrel-of-a-gun decision; even a position of open borders.” And that’s that.

So, implied here as well as on many of these kinds of articles is a support for the central planners’ control that they have legally, and a support for the police state.

The libertarian conservatives seem to be frightened by the thousands of migrants from Central America “walking” up to the U.S. southern border. There’s a lot of propaganda out there, though. And I don’t believe that this is all “Soros-funded” and left-wing activist-directed. If you ask me, the “caravan” might very well be another psy-op being caused by the “national security” apparatus in Washington, who wants to fear-monger the people (including anti-“national security” libertarians) into supporting an even further intensified police state at the border and inside the border (and further increased budgets for all the police state agencies “protecting” us from all those bad people). Let’s put the military on the border so we can justify even larger budget increases for the military (in addition to Trump’s new “Space Force”). Yay.

Still, it’s immoral to violate the lives and liberty of innocent people because others have been violent or have been criminals. America used to be about individualism. But the libertarian conservatives seem to have become collectivists now. It is very disappointing to see libertarians engaging in group identity politics, but that is what we have here, in my view. Sad.

I wonder if Bionic supports arresting and caging businessmen for hiring unauthorized foreigners at their businesses, or raids on innocent people’s property, arresting those who have not harmed anyone, and on and on.

Contrasting the hysteria and irrationality with the so-called libertarians who now love the police state and central planning, we have the rational Jacob Hornberger, who writes about Donald Trump’s brilliant political strategy with the caravan “invading” our southern border:

Notwithstanding the fact that none of these refugees is armed and that the group includes lots of women and children, you would think that the United States is about to be invaded by the North Vietnamese, North Korean, Red Chinese, or Soviet armies (which was the official bugaboo throughout the Cold War). Trump has his supporters in a total tizzy. His dramatic decision to send (more) U.S. troops to the border to protect us from the coming “invasion” is nothing less than sheer political genius.

The result of Trump’s strategy? Countless Trumpistas are now quivering and quaking over the fact that the “illegals” are coming to get us. “Please, please, Mr. President, do whatever is necessary to keep us safe. Take away our freedoms and spend whatever you need to spend

The only thing that works and the only thing that is consistent with moral principles is freedom and free markets, which necessarily means free trade, open immigration, freedom of association, freedom of travel, economic liberty, private property, liberty of contract, and privacy. What could be more rational than steadfastly continuing to stand for freedom and free markets and against a police state?

Do the anti-immigration libertarians ever spend as much time criticizing the police state as they do criticizing “open borders”? They don’t seem to spend much time in articles or blogs doing that. Why don’t they spend more time advocating eliminating the welfare state and the drug war as well? I rarely see, “Get rid of DHS, ICE, BTF, FBI, CIA, DEA, Etc., Etc.,” anymore.

So, to me, the libertarians on the right have become quite irrational and have lost touch with libertarian principles, maybe just as much as the libertarians on the left who have lost touch in their obsession with “social justice” and race and gender, and all that crap.

The Package Bombs Sent to Democrats: Not a False Flag?

Regarding the package bombs apparently being mailed to the Clintons and the Obamas’ homes, to George Soros and CNN, Thomas DiLorenzo wrote yesterday on the LewRockwell.com blog:

Another Non-Bomb “Bomb” Discovered . . .

. . . near a business owned by yet another unhinged, hysterically Trump-hating Democrat, this time Robert DeNiro in NYC. I note that the LMS (Lying Media Scum) are now calling these things “suspicious packages.” Surely the people who fabricated the lie that a Supreme Court nominee once ran a drug/gang-rape ring when he was 16 would not stoop to a stunt this low, would they?

UPDATE: This Just In: LMS now reporting another “suspicious package” near the residence of Joe Biden. The Trump-hating FBI is on the scene to investigate and get to the bottom of this. (Unless of course it was the same Trump-hating FBI, the people who concocted the “Russia investigation,” who planted the “suspicious packages” in the first place). Will the FBI shoot and kill a “loner” who they claim to be the culprit with no witnesses in another alleged “confrontation”? Will they then tell us that his computer showed that he frequented “right-wing Web sites”? Will they immediately bury him at sea, bin Laden style?

And now this morning, CNBC reports that a 56-year-old suspect has been arrested.

Investigators were examining a white van plastered with stickers carrying Trump’s name and the presidential seal, according to MSNBC. The network said authorities were looking at “right-wing paraphernalia” found at the scene.

But as I was writing yesterday, who would actually benefit from fake bomb-packages being sent to Democrats just weeks before a big election? WHY would a Trump supporter send those kinds of things to Democrats just weeks or days before a big election? Would Trump and the Republicans actually benefit from such a dumb act? And anyway, we already know that Trump-hating bureaucrats and former bureaucrats with the FBI, DOJ, and CIA have provided enough evidence to show that not only did Trump not “collude with Russians,” and that no Russians (or anyone) “hacked the election,” but that those bureaucrats criminally abused their spying authorities to spy on the Trump campaign to try to dig up dirt on Trump as well as to try to frame Trump in a non-existent “collusions with Russia” or “hacking the election” scheme.

So as I was writing yesterday, false flag much? So, a lunatic apparently loves Trump and is intelligent enough to put some kind of devices together to make it look like they could explode, but is so dumb as to not see that Trump or Republicans could not possibly benefit from such a stunt? Sorry, this one doesn’t pass the smell test, if you ask me.

Speaking of false flags, Washington’s Blog had this great article with example after example of governments implementing false flag ops, especially our beloved U.S. government in Washington, and really for the sake of justifying ever-increasing tax-funded military budgets, national security budgets and bureaucracies, and so forth. The parasites in Washington will always grow in their power and their fiefdoms, and the police state they love to tyrannize their own people with. Sick.

Washington’s Blog notes how the mainstream media (i.e. government media) will not report on any of these false flag matters. They are mostly mouthpieces for the Bureaucracy. Many of them are extremely gullible and naive and they will believe anything that bureaucrats tell them, without any questioning or investigating.

Many of the media are also brainwashed with the political correctness nonsense of today that they are as obsessed with race and gender as the college professors and snowflake students. With today’s news media, it’s not nearly the case in getting actual thorough news reporting out to their readers and viewers.

In fact, race-obsession political correctness is so important at the aforementioned NBC, they are fine with Megyn Kelly leaving NBC with the remainder of her $69 million contract rather than allowing her to “get away with” making some innocent comment about wearing blackface on Halloween. But reporting on false flags or government corruption? (Only if they’re Republicans, of course. And the dishonest media report on “right-wing” violence but rarely left-wing violence. Did you see this huge list of violent attacks or threats against Republicans just in the past few months?)

Anyway, regarding the lack of reporting on false flags, ABC News did report on Operations Northwoods and Mongooose, after those false flag ops or proposals were de-classified.

As Bradley Manning has stated, and he’s correct about this, everything should be de-classified. The government doesn’t “own” any of the information it keeps. ALL government information belongs to the public, and is in the “public domain.”

As Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote, “In the clash between government secrecy and public transparency, the Framers placed a value judgment in the First Amendment . . . An informed public is more likely to make better decisions than an ignorant one…In a free society, knowledge is superior to ignorance. Politicians who would criminalize publishing the truth should be voted out of office.”

Those who say, “Well releasing ‘classified’ information to the public compromises the security of military personnel overseas” are ignorant, authoritarian sheeple who believe the propaganda that gubmint tells them, as repeated word-for-word by the stenographers in the mainstream media (i.e. government media). The actual truth that was revealed at Manning’s kangaroo trial was that not one person was killed, harmed or threatened by Manning’s release of documents to WikiLeaks.

The government intentionally over-classifies information anyway, to hide its own criminality, its incompetence, and its corruption.

Anyway, even if it might be the case that an actual deranged moron in Florida who loves Trump and hates Democrats sent those fake bombs to Democrats, the case is still hard to figure out. It’s just not believable to me, with all the facts of the case thus far.

Who Sent Package Bombs Made to Not Go Off?

Hmmm, let’s see. All of the package bombs or pipe bombs, whatever they are, that have so far been discovered did not go off, about 10 of them so far. Not one. And they were all mailed to Democrats or their spokespeople such as CNN. As Butler Shaffer asks, who benefits from all this just 2 weeks before a big election?

Hmmm, who do we know of that has experience in plotting to place bombs in areas, but making sure they don’t go off? Well, we know that the FBI has experience in this, in their many, many, many times of finding a young Muslim male patsy to set up in a terrorist bombing plot so that the FBI can then thwart the plot that they themselves concocted and plotted. And we know they have done this many times, with many articles written about it, see Glenn Greenwald, Trevor Aaronson, Petra Bartosiewicz, Craig Monteilh, and Cora Currier on that, as well as books. But just because FBI did that in those cases of setting up patsies to then claim they are protecting us from terrorism, that doesn’t mean they are doing these things now.

So, I’m not saying that FBI engaged in this current package-bomb fiasco, but we do know that they have demonstrated experience in concocting bombs that are intentionally made to not go off. Such as with the “underwear bomber,” who had some kind of explosive device in his underwear that was also made to not go off. (More background.) And we also know that there are some FBI people, such as the ones who have been exposed as being involved in the FISA warrant-abuse to spy on Trump and so on, who have explicitly expressed hatred for Trump and his supporters and in which there’s evidence to prove an attempt to frame The Donald. So there is motive there.

However, for all I know there just may be some wacko out there who is doing this, acting alone, or several wackos who are doing this. They could be far-right alt-right “white supremacist” Trump supporters who believe that violence is the answer (like antifa does) but who don’t know how to make bombs work. Or they or it could be Democrat activists who might be trying to make it look like Trump or his supporters are doing it. Kind of like the black young college-aged people, at least several of them in the news in recent years, who wrote racist graffiti to make it look like white racists did it, or the young Jewish kid in Israel who called in or emailed in all those bomb threats at U.S. Jewish community centers. Remember all those things?

And then there’s the “caravan” from Central America. Who’s behind that thing? And why is THAT going on just 2 weeks before a big election?

Why the “Civil Rights” Act Should Not Apply to Private Property

In my unusually long recent post on the “enslavements of socialism and social justice,” I included some comments on the LGBT “civil rights” issues, such as the bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the transgender bathroom intrusions. And even though that post was a follow-up on an earlier post, I now have this follow-up on the “enslavements of socialism and social justice” post.

Regarding the Christian bakers refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, I wrote that because the business is privately owned the owners have a right to serve or to not serve prospective customers. That’s a part of property rights. And I wrote that the couple being refused service taking the bakers to court and suing them can be considered an enslavement of the bakers, because the prospective customer is using force or coercion to make the businessperson provide something involuntarily. Some people react to my writing that in a negative way, but the actual truth about some things does bother some people.

People have a right that’s a part of property rights to associate with or do business with anyone they want to, as long as it’s voluntary. No coercion is allowed in a civilized society, because using force or coercion against someone is … uncivilized. Laurence Vance explains it all very well in this article and this article. All people, private citizens or businesspeople, have a right to discriminate for or against anyone else, for any reason they have, based on ignorance, prejudice, race, gender, political views, any reason whatsoever. It’s not just to do with freedom of association and property rights, but freedom of thought and conscience as well.

No one has a “civil right” to be served by someone else. No one has a “civil right” to access private property. There are no such “rights.”

Which brings me to the “Civil Rights” Act of 1964, which repealed and prohibited government laws segregating people by race (“Jim Crow” laws), and outlawed government-imposed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That anti-discrimination law applied to all government-run operations such as the schools, parks, city buses and subways, and so on.

In my view, as long as we have a “publicly-owned” government ruling over all of us, then of course that government (or those governments, in the case of city and state governments), its bureaucrats and enforcers may not discriminate against any citizen based on those kinds of subjective, arbitrary factors. A “publicly-owned” government belongs to the public, which consists of everyone in the public. It does not belong to the bureaucrats in charge or their goon enforcers. So of course this Act should have outlawed such discrimination.

But the Act also outlawed discrimination on privately-owned premises such as restaurants, hotels, cafeterias, movie theaters, concert halls, etc. that were referred to as “public accommodations,” but are nevertheless privately owned and exist mostly on private property. The “Civil Rights” Act of 1964 and subsequent Amendments should NOT have applied to ANY privately owned business, function, place of worship, and other facility that is not owned by the government.

The social activists have eviscerated private property and private property rights, which are the last vestige of a free society and civilization. The social activists began their crusade against private property with the whole progressive movement. In the 19th Century with their intrusions into education by getting local governments to usurp the function of educating children away from parents and neighborhoods, imposed mandates, compulsory attendance laws. They continued with getting local or state governments involved in marriage, in which prior to those times the idea of a government-mandated marriage license would have been seen as absurd.

The social activists then imposed the income tax. Your earnings are no longer “yours,” but from then onward your earnings first belong to the gubmint who will then allow you to have whatever the bureaucrats determine you are allowed to have. Slave.

FDR imposed further intrusions, usurpations, wealth tax-thefts with all the New Deal, “Social Security,” and then LBJ with Medicare and Medicaid, and the aforementioned “Civil Rights” Act.

I think a lot of it also has to do with the institutionalized envy which is what socialism is all about. Some people are making use of their talents and abilities and making a living independently, or are successful with a large company, and the envious don’t like that. There seems to have been this impulse to use the armed force of government to take away from people who are successful. And if that’s not enough, use the armed force of government to intrude into their businesses and property.

Anyway, now that sexual orientation and gender identity have been added to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin among the list of aspects we may not discriminate against, we now have gay and lesbian couples intentionally suing private businesspeople not for those plaintiffs to get their just service that they demand from the businesses (even though most of the plaintiffs were nevertheless able to find someone else to bake their cakes or photograph their weddings), but to exact revenge on their victims who didn’t want to associate with them or do business with them. And who do not accept their particular lifestyles. Narcissists, as I was writing in that earlier post.

Could the people concerned about being discriminated against based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, have foreseen that sexual orientation or gender identity would be added to the list? I think not, because why didn’t they include them at that time? And why stop at sexual orientation and gender identity? I’m sure that, given how the social activism movement on the left has become militant in their attempts to push their non-conforming, odd or deviant lifestyles down the throats of others, they will get legislators to add “lifestyle” or some similar word to “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity,” and so on.

Recent laws also affect private therapists or counselors who are forbidden by law to even discuss “conversion therapy” with gender confused clients who actually want to try to become accepting of their actual gender. So freedom of speech is now being affected by these “civil rights” laws. So is the idea of common decency.

Private properties and businesses who are forbidden to discriminate were initially hotels, restaurants, i.e. actual “public accommodations,” that now include small businesses such as bakeries, florists or photographers, and practitioners such as psychotherapists and other doctors are now affected. Even churches are included. “Houses of worship” are in the list of “public accommodations.” Did people in 1964 see ahead as to where that would all lead to?

But where is all this leading to? If small businesses, a professional’s private practice or “houses of worship” are considered “public accommodations,” then how far away from actual public accommodations such as hotels will the social activists use their new legal powers to impose onto others? Will it eventually include people’s homes?

Remember, there is a difference between “civil rights” and “civil liberties.” “Civil rights” laws should repeal any and all government laws or policies in which the government is discriminating against people. But not private citizens, whether their discrimination is in their personal lives or their economic lives.

But now with “civil rights,” the social activists have proclaimed a “civil right” to access someone else’s private property and a “civil right” to demand to be served by someone else, involuntarily. So with this bunch of stuff, actual civil liberties have been eviscerated as well as private property rights and common decency.

More Articles

An article on Zero Hedge on a judge who has ordered Robert Mueller to prove that the indicted Russian company has meddled in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.

Another Zero Hedge article on the FBI admitting it used multiple spies to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

Jacob Hornberger asks, Which is it for you: liberty or “security”?

Tim Ball discusses the methods and tricks used to create and perpetuate the human-caused global warming deception.

Patrick Cockburn says that Trump’s actions in the Middle East will be his downfall.

And Wendy McElroy on crypto anarchism and civil society, the technology is the revolution.

Reading for a New Understanding of the Origins of the Modern Age

Charles Burris provides some background on the “origins of modern science, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and their roots in esoteric knowledge and occult traditions with the religious, philosophical and political implications which are largely unknown to the general public. These scholarly works have revolutionized and transformed how we view the history of the past 500 years and the beginnings of the Modern Age to the present.” Articles and books that also include the ideological and intellectual background on America’s founding.

The Enslavements of Socialism and “Social Justice”

As a follow-up to my recent post on the ignorant socialists on both sides of the same statist coin, liberal and conservative, I wanted to bring up the libertarian view of the non-aggression principle and self-ownership. You own yourself and your life and morally if we want a peaceful, civilized society, then be peaceful, don’t initiate aggression against others. And a part of all that is private property rights. Don’t steal, don’t defraud, as well as don’t commit acts of aggression against others.

But socialism is when the government takes ownership of the means of production, industry and property, and actually consists of the violation of the individual and is when one’s life and labor do not exist for one’s own benefit (or for the benefit of those of one’s voluntary choosing) but for the benefit of others as determined by bureaucrats, by the rulers, against the will of the people. In contrast, actual free-markets (or free-market “capitalism”) consist of not just privately-owned property and industry but voluntary exchange, in which you own your own life and labor. As I wrote in a post that I recently linked to,

“Owning people” doesn’t fit into capitalism. “Owning people” is what the State does under socialism. If by “capitalism” you mean “free market capitalism,” then the “capitalists” do not “own” — nor can claim any kind of ownership of — their workers, their employees. In actual free-market capitalism, no one is forced to have any association with or to do any labor for any employer one doesn’t want to work for. In free-market capitalism, your contracts with other associates or your employers are voluntary, and you are free to go work elsewhere if you don’t like that employer. In a free system, you own yourself.

Claiming actual ownership of others is the enslavement of them. And that’s what socialism does, by the State’s (regardless of its using the rhetorical guise “the public”) seizing ownership of industries, wealth and “the means of production,” which includes the people. The people are the most important amongst the means of production.

And by the State’s “seizing ownership of industries,” I am referring also to control. If the State takes control over your supposedly privately owned business or property (with regulations, mandates, restrictions, etc.) then that is the indirect way of the State’s seizing ownership. If you don’t fully control your own property, and another entity has forcibly seized control over it, then you don’t really own it.

Besides the purpose of forced redistribution of wealth in the name of equalizing inequality, socialism is also used to forcibly advance a social agenda. So some people won’t like my examples here, but that’s because a lot of people have been indoctrinated with social “justice” propaganda, but here goes:

One example is the civil rights stuff that now has expanded to include LGBT “rights” against “discrimination” as well as by race or sex. In recent years we have heard about same-sex couples suing photographers, florists and bakers who didn’t want to do work for the couples’ weddings.

Now, why does the baker or florist have a right to not do business with someone he doesn’t want to do business with? Because his business is his own private property. He owns the business, not the government, and not the “public.” The “civil rights” laws say that the business is a “public accommodation,” but the public does not own the business. And therefore members of the public do not have a right to order the owner of the business to serve those he doesn’t want to do extra labor to serve. It has to do with private property rights and freedom of association.

And it has nothing to do with the religion of the Christian baker, for example, and his religious beliefs regarding homosexuality or gay marriage. It has to do with the self-centered couples using the armed powers of government courts to force the businesspeople to show an acceptance of the customers’ lifestyles. These have been cases of extreme narcissists who believe that they have a right to force others to do extra labor to serve them, period, in my view.

Unfortunately, many conservatives, who have been opposed to the LGBT agenda and have been supporting the private businesses who don’t want to serve same-sex couples, don’t understand the principles of private property rights and freedom of association, and freedom of thought and conscience behind all these cases. It seems to me that the conservatives have also been covetous when it comes to using the powers of government to advance their social agendas.

The conservatives believe that the businesspeople’s religious beliefs are what need to be protected here, and that is not the case. What if an atheist baker refused to serve a Christian couple? I don’t believe the conservatives would support the baker. They would probably support the Christian couple. So the conservatives also believe that in some cases people have a right to use government courts to force businesspeople to serve others they don’t want to serve. No, it has to do with private property rights and freedom of association. If you’re an atheist baker and don’t want to serve a Christian couple, then of course you have a right to refuse to serve them. It’s your business, not theirs.

Another example is the transgender bathroom/shower controversy. Some states now allow someone who is male but thinks he’s a female to go into the ladies room, and vice versa. In some states, if you complain about it (that is, if you are a lady who doesn’t want males in the ladies room while you’re in there, or if you’re a parent who doesn’t want an obvious male going into the ladies room while your little girl is in there, and so on), you could be fined a lot of money and even arrested and thrown in jail.

And that is just how narcissistic some people are. You see, someone who has this confusion with his gender, he’s a male and thinks he’s a female but rather than causing him to feel uncomfortable going into the men’s room he now has the power to make a bunch of women and girls feel uncomfortable while he goes into their ladies room. So by law they must accept his gender confusion that he has. They must accommodate him.

And all that stuff, as well as all those “civil rights” laws, applies to privately owned property as well as public property or government buildings. So yes, these policies are another aspect of socialism, in which the government is essentially stealing ownership of private property away from the owners-on-paper.

Incidentally, in Massachusetts there is a ballot question this November to repeal such a law that Republican Gov. Charlie Baker signed into law. In New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state, Republican Gov. Chris Sununu also signed a similar bill into law. Sununu is up for reelection as is Charlie Half-Baker.

The same kinds of enslavements occur in other areas of life, such as medical care. Do you have a right to force a medical doctor or private hospital to care for you? No, of course you don’t. No one has a “right” to health care. If you have a right to have something provided to you, then you have a right to demand that producers must do extra labor to serve you.

As I wrote in a 2012 article, “If someone chooses to be a medical doctor, devotes hours and hours every day and years of intensive study and labor toward training to become a medical doctor, then who is it that owns such efforts, labor, energy and the actual career itself? That doctor? One’s neighbors? The government?” I hope the question answers itself.

And why is medical care so expensive, anyway? When did it really start to become expensive? Well, after Medicare and Medicaid were imposed on the people by bureaucrats who wanted to solve a problem that didn’t exist, that’s when!

So here is a list of articles on why socialized medicine doesn’t work, and never will work, and is immoral as well. And they will help to explain why Bernie Sanders’s plans or Evita Ocasio-Cortez’s plans for “single payer”also will not work. Just study the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and, worst of all, the U.K.

And if the government doesn’t outright own all the means of production and industry as in socialist societies, a word for the public’s or government’s seizing control over privately owned property or businesses is “fascism.”

However, as I mentioned above, if you don’t have control over something you supposedly “own,” then you don’t really own it. So the above cases are really varieties of socialism, in which the government has a de facto ownership of all property. Check out Lew Rockwell’s book, Fascism versus Capitalism, as well as Socialism: an Economic and Sociological Analysis by Ludwig von Mises.

The conservatives and nationalists, by the way, also do not understand, or they have an outright contempt for, private property and free markets like the people on the left. With the immigration issue, the anti-immigration crowd says that businesspeople, professionals and laborers must get a government bureaucrat’s permission to move about to get work or establish voluntary contracts to make a living.

So, with such controls in the name of “protecting the nation,” the government has a de facto ownership over people’s lives, property, and contracts. And, like the so-called “progressives” and social activists, these nationalistic anti-property, anti-freedom policies are also out of envy and covetousness.

And that applies to the trade issue as well. Donald Trump and his sheeple are anti-free trade, and they want the U.S. government to determine who may buy what and for how much and from whom. So this government-controlled trade stuff is also fascist, and thus a part of socialism. You don’t really own your money or your contract that you would have with a seller, the seller doesn’t really own his goods or services that he’s selling. The government has the ultimate, de facto ownership.

Otherwise, in a free society without those governmental intrusions, you would buy something from Sweden, China or Iran and at whatever price the seller is selling it for, and no third party interferes with that contract. That’s the free market, baby. Crony protectionists like Donald Trump don’t like that kind of freedom.

And by the way, if American producers don’t like consumers buying stuff from other countries, then produce better stuff and lower your prices! And if the prices have to be higher to afford the costs of production because the government imposes taxes and regulations, then tell the government to remove those taxes and regulations!

The consumers are essentially enslaved by the bureaucrats in charge and their cronies whose profits are protected by the armed force of government.

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started