Should Nancy Lugosi go to Taiwan? Yes. And then she should stay there. Permanently.
For many years two main causes of the immigration problem have been foreign aid and the drug war. So, while ending U.S. government foreign aid to corrupt governments and ending the war on drugs might not resolve the problem completely, nevertheless doing those two things will help a great deal.
The conservatives don’t want to legalize drugs because they believe in the nanny state, and the police state that goes with the unwinnable war on drugs. They certainly don’t want to prohibit alcohol, God forbid. They need their booze.
But conservative statists believe in the nanny state as much as the “liberals.” Both sides believe that the government owns your body.
And it’s really the two choices: If you own your body, then you decide what you will or will not put into your own body, and obviously take responsibility for the consequences of your decisions. If the government owns your body, then of course the government will decide what you may or may not put into “your” body, and enforce its control at gunpoint.
As far as the consequences of statist government policies are concerned, drug prohibition causes a black market or underground market in the drugs, which raises the prices and thus incentivizes lowlifes to get into the business and exploit people’s weaknesses, etc. We don’t see alcohol pushers on the street trying to get people on booze, do we? Duh.
End drug prohibition and you will end the police state, the pushers and traffickers, the cartels, the drug lords and turf wars, and you will be on the way to greatly reduce the people fleeing those Central and South American countries run by corrupt governments that are infiltrated by the drug racketeers.
And no foreign aid to those governments. Government handouts are merely feeding the machine that causes those countries’ inhabitants to flee to the U.S.
In fact, there should be no forced redistribution of wealth schemes in a free society. There should be no forcible taking of one’s wealth or property or income by the government or by anyone. In a free society all transactions are voluntary. To be legitimate all transactions must be by way of voluntary contract. No income “tax,” i.e. government stealing your earnings.
If we didn’t have the income tax/involuntary service to gubmint/enslavement, there would be no FBI entrapment schemes as we saw in Michigan recently. And many of the government’s crimes against the people would not occur, because such crimes require such agencies and bureaus being funded to run them. Who in his right mind would voluntarily pay for these kinds of things? Who in his right mind would voluntarily donate to corrupt foreign governments?
And this applies to government schools as well. I’ll discuss that in my next post.
Here is a voice from the past, the late foreign policy analyst Justin Raimondo, on what’s causing asylum-seekers and migrants to leave Central American countries to come to America. U.S. government interventionism in and foreign aid to Central American governments, and the drug war.
Jon Rappoport: Rejecting Rockefeller Germ Theory Once and For All.
Charles Burris: National Socialism and the Occult
Jacob Hornberger: Biden’s Immigration Crisis.
Donald Boudreaux: Stop the Cartoonish Excuses for Covid Restrictions.
Jon Rappoport: My Original Position on the Non-Existent Virus.
Dave Lindorff: Let’s Stop Pretending Russia and China are Military Threats
Gary Barnett: Power and Withdrawal of Rights by Proxy Equals Terrorism
Children’s Health Defense Team: ‘Vaccine Secrets’: What Parents Should Know Before They Vaccinate Their Kids.
Veronique de Rugy: This Is a Pandemic of Fiscal Profligacy
James Bovard: The Deadly Precedent of the Waco Whitewash.
David Stockman: Sleepy Joe’s $140 Billion Day of Infamy
And Tom Woods: What I Saw in a “Pro-Science” State
Some whining here. I’m still working on several different posts, but lately some things have been difficult to do. Lack of sleep has not been helpful, and an issue with one of my dietary supplements, and the cold weather. I’m in my late 50s and obviously getting old. Another problem I have is that there have been soooo many issues going on now, from the ongoing Covid scamdemic to the growing fascist censorship and cultural lunacy. It’s too much.
So, I will repost an article from 2017 that has been viewed a few times recently in my blog stats. New readers may find this of interest.
June 1, 2017
Thanks to the post-9/11 resurgence in nationalism in America, we have the “national security” apparatus turning against the very people who obediently support it, and we have escalating conflicts caused by the immigration debate.
Nationalism is a very bad thing, in my view. It is a form of collectivism, and in America it has destroyed the very basis of what America was founded on: freedom.
In immigration, for example, we have two sides of anti-freedom statists competing against one another.
On the one side are the leftist immigration extremists who want government-controlled (i.e. taxpayer-funded and approved) “sanctuary cities” and so on.
Sadly, many of these people oppose free and voluntary exchange, and they unfortunately believe in government theft of private wealth and property, who believe in wealth and income redistributionism and want to force workers and producers to have to fund the lives and activities of others involuntarily.
Why not let private charities, churches, business owners, and residents provide for and fund to help immigrants voluntarily?
On the other side are the anti-immigration collectivists and nationalists who don’t want foreigners coming to America, who want to continue the socialist, central-planning scheme of government controlling the movements of millions of people. These socialists or fascists (or social fascists) such as the awful attorney general are siccing the government police (including the federal anti-immigration police, “ICE” etc.) on the immigrants, an extremely anti-freedom way of trying to “protect” the American citizen-slaves from foreigners.
But now it seems the debate is becoming overly contentious. The leftist immigration extremists are beginning to react to the violent police state by themselves committing or threatening to commit acts of physical violence against the anti-immigration True Believer government officials, such as with the confrontations or altercations between Texas state reps Matt Rinaldi (R), Ramon Romero (D), and Poncho Nevarez (D).
Now, Rep. Rinaldi (R) claims on his Twitter profile to be “devoted to the cause of liberty,” but apparently he is one of many, many Americans who believe that only “citizens” have a right to their liberty, but not foreigners.
Like many nationalists, Rinaldi seems confused about the concept of unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that all human beings have inherently, rights which preexist the formation of any government, and which thus preexist the formation of the concept of “citizenship.” These anti-freedom types believe in government borders far more than they believe in private property and private property rights which apply to one’s labor, business and capital as well as one’s home or wealth. These people want state governments to impose top-down authority on cities, as much as they want the feds to impose their top-down authority on the states, cities, and all the people.
And I heard Dennis Prager recently on the radio criticizing those who consider themselves “citizens of the world,” rather than citizens of their country. He said that an identity with your country should be first and foremost at the top of the list of people’s self identities. For example, as some people would say, “I am an American first. Then I am Italian, then I am a Democrat, then I am a Catholic,” etc.
Well, I am not an “American” first. I am an individual first. So, I am “me” first. And then I am a member of my family, and then I am a member of my local community. Those are the immediate priorities, in my view.
I don’t understand why people are so anti-internationalist and anti-globalist but then are such faithful and loyal nationalists, like there’s a difference as far as being a faithful member of any large political unit viewed as “important.”
But why stop there? Why is it more important that you identify with the nation in which you live, and not more with your state, town or neighborhood? So I find some inconsistency there. If we reject collectivist, top-down identities, then there isn’t much difference between saying you’re a “citizen of the world,” an “American citizen,” or a “citizen of the European Union.”
In fact, there really isn’t any difference between the European Union and the United States. Both are crumbling and collapsing before our very eyes. Both are centralized collections of nations under the rule of a top-down central-planning authority. In the beginning of the United States of America, or, between the Revolution and the ratification of a Constitution and formation of the U.S. government, the colonies were individual “nations,” or nation-states, without any connecting “national” government ruling over them after they separated from British rule.
In a society in which those unalienable rights to life and liberty, voluntary exchange and free markets, and private property rights exist, any property owner (home or business) can invite anyone else onto one’s own property. Employers would hire whomever they want, with no government permission. Workers can find a job wherever they want. As long as people are peaceful and don’t violate the persons and property of others.
Can you imagine the freedom of living one’s life without having to get a bureaucrat’s permission to do this or that?
Unfortunately, statists, centralists, nationalists, and otherwise authoritarians and collectivists don’t think that way.
And that’s just with the immigration issue.
Another example of why this nationalism and central planning stuff is really bad and very dangerous is the dependence that the masses have on the feds for “national security.”
We now have people such as the “Homeland Security” secretary himself engaging in what I would call a true act of terrorism by saying that if we knew what he knows about terrorists we’d “never leave the house.” What a schmuck, in my view. Talk about a fear-monger. And he’s so full of it, too.
The truth is actually the opposite of what these government propagandists and their media stenographers have been saying, and what most people in America believe about that whole apparatus in Washington. The truth is, U.S. Presidents have been starting wars of aggression overseas, murdering millions of innocents for decades and provoking foreigners to act against innocents in America and the West. “Intelligence” agencies especially in the U.S. and U.K. intentionally radicalize those from an already primitive and barbaric culture in the Middle East. There is plenty of proof of that most recently regarding the Manchester, England bombing. And investigative and spy bureaus have been motivating those hapless patsies within America to commit terrorist acts.
And these government bureaucrats are doing it all on purpose to “create new monsters to destroy,” to justify their government monopolies, their little fiefdoms and power trips, and especially their tax-funded paychecks, benefits and pensions. But after all these decades, they have become careless and so narcissistic in such an extreme that they are now really exposing themselves. That kind of pulling the curtain away is a breath of fresh air, isn’t it? In the end, the truth will set us free, I believe. (I hope.)
Washington bureaucrats and their enforcers are acting more and more treasonously and dangerously. So I find these recent headlines very disturbing:
Is Trump deliberately having ISIS relatives killed? (on Antiwar.com). If so, does this mean that in prosecuting other unjust laws and policies such as the drug war, will Trump have the family members of any suspects killed (as well as having suspects themselves killed, sans due process)?
The reason I’m asking can be understood by another headline: Leaked documents reveal counterterrorism tactics used at Standing Rock to defeat “pipeline insurgencies” (on the Intercept).
The feds, state and local police goons are militarizing local “law enforcement” like they are fixated in another one of their wars that the U.S. government started in the Middle East, apparently.
Besides the anti-immigration fascists and the dangerous leftist college campus purges, the “national security” apparatus has become treasonous as it has used its energies to foment terrorism against its own people. So it is time that more Americans consider a total decentralization, and it is time to stop supporting the ruling criminal racket in Washington. It is time to restore a society of peace and freedom, a society respectful of the individual’s self-ownership, private property and voluntary exchange.
The problem is that so many millions of people are indoctrinated in this nationalism thing that it might have to take an economic collapse to force them to finally let go of their dependence on and obedience to Washington. I wish there were some way to deprogram them.
Activist Post | Creative Commons 2017
Jacob Hornberger: Immigration Pipe Dream at the Los Angeles Times.
Wendy McElroy: “Victim-Centered” Justice Is a Threat to Due Process.
And Veronique De Rugy: Joe Biden’s Plan for Big Government.
Martin Armstrong: Are Masks & Social Distancing Creating Permanent Psychological Damage?
Laurence Vance: What People Say When They Wear a Mask in Their Car
Kelley Vlahos: The Nightmare in Iraq That Americans Largely Sleep Through.
Joseph Mercola: Time to Defund the Forced Maskers
Robert Wenzel: WAR: Peter Schiff Versus His Son Spencer
Jacob Hornberger: My Recent Experience with Immigration Control Tyranny
The Last Refuge: UNITE, Now is The Time – If Not Now, When?
Becky Akers: More Thanksgiving Rebels!
Inside Sources: In Pennsylvania Hearing, Giuliani Makes His Case for Voter Fraud ‘Gone Wild’ (The mainstream “news” media are not reporting on any of this!)
Zero Hedge: “The Fraud Was Executed By Many Means”: Sidney Powell “Releases Kraken” With Dual Lawsuits In Michigan, Georgia (The government media i.e. fake news are not reporting on any of this!)
Revolver: The Definitive Case Proving Donald Trump Won the Election. (Don’t expect WCBS 880 fake news radio to report any of this.)
Mark Sircus: Covid: Forget About Human Rights And Freedom
Jacob Hornberger: Immigration and Healthcare Socialism.
Lew Rockwell: Wisdom From a Master
And Richard Ebeling: Government Policies Have Worsened the Coronavirus Crisis.
Caitlin Johnstone: From Ego To Empire, All Our Problems Stem From The Impulse To Control.
Jonathan Turley: Dershowitz Sues CNN For $300,000,000 In Defamation Action.
Karen Selick: Here’s Why I Wouldn’t Take the Vaccine
Lawrence McQuillan: Immigration, Migration, and the Naiveté of Nativism.
Mandy Smithberger: Trump Was Right to Call Out Defense Industry Influence on the Pentagon.
Moon of Alabama: Fake News About Iran, Russia, China Is U.S. Journalism’s Daily Bread.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Meaning of an Oath.
Michael Rozeff: Antifa Is An Organization
And Nils Nilsen: 12 Steps to Create Your Own Pandemic.
The Republican governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, is considered by freedom lovers to be a tyrant who has abused his office especially when ordering businesses closed and causing economic chaos and job losses, much like the fascists in many other states, based on the scamdemic that we are still suffering. Sununu’s latest act of fascism was ordering the people of New Hampshire to have to wear masks on their faces if in gatherings of over 100 people, despite the studies which show that the face masks do not prevent the transmission of viruses and in fact could cause harm to the individual.
As I have mentioned previously, Sununu has two opponents in the Republican primary this September 8th, Nobody and Karen Testerman. I had written about Nobody, who had his name legally changed to Nobody, in this post.
There was a debate between Nobody and Testerman and, while Chris Sununu was invited to participate, he decided to snub his opponents. The debate between the two opponents was moderated by Mark Edge of Free Talk Live.
The two primary opponents discussed government schools, the drug war, COVID and Sununu’s fascist business closures, recent riots and violence in the cities in Amerika, and the possibility of New Hampshire state secession.
It certainly was a good debate and discussion. Very good points made by both candidates.
Besides Sunono’s fascism with COVID, he is also an anti-freedom-of-speech, anti-private-property, anti-freedom-of-association SJW in his signing the bills banning “discrimination” based on gender identity, and banning so-called “conversion therapy.” So the governor believes there are thought crimes which must be punished. He signed the bills only weeks before his previous reelection as governor in 2018. Conservatives who don’t know about that might want to consider ousting Sunono for those reasons as well as COVID fascism.
The U.S. Supreme Court blocked Donald Trump from dismantling the “DACA” program, or “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals”, which exempts immigrant children from some immigration restrictions. It is not a legislative act, but an unconstitutional executive “memorandum” imposed by Premier Obama. So, it can’t be repealed via legislation, although the legal restrictions being waived could be, I supposed. Premier Trump wants to have another try at dismantling the program.
My view on all this, if you don’t already know, is to repeal every immigration restriction legislatively or by executive order, or just not enforce them, and dismantle ICE and the IRS (and DHS, TSA, FBI, ATF, and all the rest of those fascist agencies that are unbecoming of a free and civilized society).
One of my main points on the immigration issue is regarding this false belief or assumption that many people seem to have that there is some kind of common ownership of the territory as a whole. That is just a myth, an “old wives’ tale,” and not backed by any legal or constitutional basis. It is based on emotion and collectivist ideology, not morality or rationality.
So, there is no such common ownership of the territory because in our society we have something called private property.
In April of 2019 I posted a compilation of excerpts from my past posts dealing with the immigration issue, and I will repost most of that post now because the immigration problem will never be resolved in the U.S. as long as the control over such matters continues to be seized by the idiot moron central planners in Washington.
Here is that earlier post:
In the post, Freedom Matters, I wrote:
In the article, titled “Culture Matters,” the writer Jim Cox compares the U.S. territory and its public or collective ownership to a condominium made up of several buildings with commonly owned areas, in which the condo owners “own the land between the 27 buildings and the pavement in common and own only our individual units separately.”
And he continues: “This is a very analogous situation to US citizens owning private property as well as public property via government. The condominium association has rules about people coming onto the common property.”
In Cox’s example, each condo owner buys one’s own unit with the rules of the condo association in mind.
Already Cox confuses private and public property. The entire territory of a country is not a commonly owned parcel of private property and can’t be compared to that.
Outside of each individually-owned unit, the property of the condo buildings and real estate is commonly owned by the condo owners. But it is still all private property.
In contrast, “public property” is supposedly publicly owned. Actually, as Jim Davies pointed out, public property is unowned. Either no one has actually legitimately homesteaded or honestly acquired it, or it was owned but the bureaucrats of the State have seized and occupy it.
Many individuals, groups and business owners own individual parcels of private property. But it’s more difficult to define who the actual owners of public property are. An intruder onto the condo property is trespassing onto private property. But if the “public” supposedly owns non-privately-owned public property, just which part of the public can be considered an owner or an “intruder”? “Citizens” or non-citizens? Taxpayers or non-taxpayers?
As I asked in this critique of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, what about non-taxpaying citizens, such as those who work but don’t earn enough to be required to pay income taxes? Are they less owners of the “public” property? Are they “intruders”? What about working, taxpaying non-citizens?
And what exactly is a “citizen”? As Carl Watner notes, a “citizen” is a “member of the State.” Other sources define citizen as someone who is legally recognized by the government. But who is the government to “recognize” or authorize someone as legitimate?
Sadly, statists look to the ruling government bureaucrats for validation. But just who exactly are the ruling bureaucrats, and what exactly is the State?
The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.
Thus, the State is a coercive criminal organization that subsists by a regularized large-scale system of taxation-theft, and which gets away with it by engineering the support of the majority (not, again, of everyone) through securing an alliance with a group of opinion-moulding intellectuals whom it rewards with a share in its power and pelf.
But there is another vital aspect of the State that needs to be considered. There is one critical argument for the State that now comes into view: namely, the implicit argument that the State apparatus really and properly owns the territorial area over which it claims jurisdiction. The State, in short, arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area — larger or smaller depending on historical conditions, and on how much it has been able to wrest from other States.
If the State may be said to properly own its territory, then it is proper for it to make rules for anyone who presumes to live in that area. It can legitimately seize or control private property because there is no private property in its area, because it really owns the entire land surface. So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property.
So what we have from Cox is the collectivist notion of a common ownership of a territory. He writes: “Until we can shift to a Private Property Society we are stuck with a government handling immigration.”
Unfortunately, “government handling immigration” is the police state that we have now. Bureaucrats empowering border control agents to violate due process rights, arrest innocent people who have not harmed anyone, arresting employers for not getting government permission to hire a worker, arresting workers who are peacefully making a living, an out-of-control “ICE” working to take citizenship away from naturalized citizens, storm troopers ripping whole families apart. All this because the people have gullibly empowered a centralized government to decide who is and who isn’t on the premises legitimately.
And Cox lists “negative cultural traits” of possible immigrants that people wouldn’t want to invite in. He neglects to mention, however, that it’s the government planners (that we are “stuck with”) who are responsible for bringing in the violent criminals he mentions.
But the collectivist-minded writer is putting ALL immigrants into one big group, the “undesirables,” the riffraff and the actual violent criminals, all lumped together with the peaceful people, the hard-working laborers, the honest folks.
Whatever happened to the individualism and free markets that used to be associated with libertarianism? Whatever happened to presumption of innocence? If you don’t suspect an individual of something, leave him alone.
And why would libertarians want bureaucrats to control markets, labor and employment? “We’re all socialists, now”?
Regarding the crime problem, the rapes and assaults, murders, etc., why are the anti-immigration crowd so bent on being dependent on centralized bureaucrats and government police for their protection from criminals? Why don’t they ever bring up the right of the people to keep and bear arms? They only seem to bring that up when the gun control debate is in the news.
When criminals know ahead of time that their prospective victims are armed there would be far fewer rapes, assaults and murders, and attempted rapes, assaults and murders. That would be the same with violent foreigners entering the territory, no?
Is the “culture” stuff actually more important to these immigration critics than their security? So instead of promoting the right of people to keep and bear arms and use the arms to protect themselves from actual criminals, the anti-immigration crowd are more concerned with promoting government-controlled social engineering.
And to say that someone not violating the person or property of another, who is peacefully exercising one’s freedom of movement to find a better life for himself and one’s family, is a “criminal,” is to not understand the libertarian non-aggression principle.
In the post, Walter Williams on Immigration: Very Collectivist-Minded, I wrote:
Walter Williams has been considered very “libertarian” in his thinking and his writing, although a conservative libertarian. He has been great in his essays raking the political correctness crowd and the college hystericals over the coals, and his books Up from the Projects and Race and Economics should be read by everyone, especially the youngins in college if they want to get a dose of reality in life.
However, when it comes to nationalism and immigration it seems he is less libertarian and, unfortunately, extremely collectivist, and his latest article on that subject is no exception. So, I feel I must fisk Dr. Williams on this one, because clarification of the issues, ideas and principles is necessary here.
First, Williams asks,
How many Norwegians have illegally entered our nation, committed crimes and burdened our prison and welfare systems? I might ask the same question about Finnish, Swedish, Welsh, Icelanders, Greenlanders and New Zealanders.
How many U.S. citizens who are here legally commit crimes against others? And who has committed more crimes against the American people, immigrants or the government in Washington (and the bureaucrats of the state and city governments)? (Answer: It’s governments, no contest.)
The bulk of our immigration problem is with people who enter our country criminally from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East. It’s illegal immigrants from those countries who have committed crimes and burdened our criminal justice and welfare systems.
No, the bulk of our immigration problem is that immigrants from those “undesirable” countries are brought in under the control of government bureaucrats in Washington. The bureaucrats have no incentive to strive for better outcomes in their policies because government bureaucrats are not accountable. They have a monopoly in their control over immigration, and monopolists are not accountable.
In the debate about illegal immigration, there are questions that are not explicitly asked but can be answered with a straight “yes” or “no”: Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.? Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country? Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?
“Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.?” This is not a “yes” or “no” question. Everyone has a right to live wherever one finds it to be a better place for oneself and one’s family, as long as one doesn’t violate the persons or property of others. I know, some people have the mistaken belief that the U.S. territory is “our” property, and outsiders entering the territory sans authorization are “trespassing.” Nope. The territory contains many, many parcels of private property. The owners of the private property have the ultimate right to decide who enters and who does not enter their private property, not the community, and not the government. This applies to people’s homes, their businesses, churches, and so on.
“Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country?” Again, not a “yes” or “no” question. Many people believe that Americans as a group, by majority rule, have a right to decide those things, and that the government has the authority (constitutional or moral) to implement those decisions, regardless of a private property owner or employer’s decision to invite someone. If the collectivists’ vision were the case (as it currently is now), then we don’t really have private property rights, and the majority of the territory’s population and the government really are the ultimate decision makers of who may enter private property.
“Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?” Why is there “U.S. border control”? That’s referring to U.S. government border control, which is a police state now. A “100-mile Constitution-free zone”!
And then Williams gets into the cultural aspects of the problems of today:
People who came here in the 19th century and most of the 20th century came here to learn our language, learn our customs and become Americans. Years ago, there was a guarantee that immigrants came here to work, because there was no welfare system; they worked, begged or starved. Today, there is no such assurance. Because of our welfare state, immigrants can come here and live off taxpaying Americans.
Then get rid of the welfare state! THAT’s the answer to that problem. It’s the welfare state that FDR and LBJ (and Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, et al., ad nauseam) have forced on us. Dr. Williams has many times written in his articles that it is immoral to take earnings from one person to give to another, by force. Why doesn’t he say outright here that involuntary contracts and theft (i.e. taxation), Social Security, Medicare and all their spin-offs should be abolished?
There is another difference between today and yesteryear. Today, Americans are taught multiculturalism throughout their primary, secondary and college education. They are taught that one culture is no better or worse than another. To believe otherwise is criticized at best as Eurocentrism and at worst as racism.
Well, that’s because governments in the U.S., federal, state and local government, control education in America! Get the government out of education, completely! And THAT’s the answer to that problem, this “multiculturalism” crapola. You think that an all-private schools system, without any government handouts and without the imposition of monopolistic government bureaucrats’ sick, irrational, kooky claptrap would survive in an educational free market?
Very unfortunate for our nation is that we have political groups that seek to use illegal immigration for their own benefit. They’ve created sanctuary cities and states that openly harbor criminals — people who have broken our laws.
That’s because “sanctuary cities” are run by city governments — THAT’s the problem! Bureaucrats should not be empowered to get involved in bringing in foreigners, unless those actual bureaucrats invite the foreign visitors or workers to live in their homes, the bureaucrats‘ own homes, and they pay for their visitors, not the taxpayers. Sadly, government bureaucrats mainly just want to have as much welfare parasites (and voters) brought in, because getting reelected and expanding their tax-funded racket is what bureaucrats really care about.
And also, it’s not really about “legal” vs. “illegal” with many of today’s anti-immigration conservatives, unfortunately. A lot of this anti-immigration stuff is just coming from a collectivist, nationalist anti-foreigner mentality. “We are all one ‘family,’ and we don’t want ‘them’ invading ‘our’ home,” and all that. I’m hearing that on a constant, daily basis from the conservative talk radio personalities and their dittohead followers calling in.
This immigration stuff is mainly to do with a collectivist nationalism, which is not what “America” is all about. America was all about individualism and private property, NOT collectivism and collective ownership of a territory that overrules the will of the private property owner.
And “America” is also not about central planning as well. Most of the early Americans who founded the country would not have agreed to empowering central planning bureaucrats to have authority over controlling immigration matters. Leave those matters up to Americans themselves, not the government.
And finally, in Immigration and Private vs. Public Property, I critiqued a speech by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in which I wrote, among other things:
Unfortunately Hoppe gets into some confusion between private property and “public property,” and some of his “rights to exclusion” seem quite collectivist, in my view. He seems to advocate a public, collective right to exclusion, whereas the only legitimate right to exclusion is the private property owner’s right to exclusion, and the individual self-owner’s right to exclusion, and the right to inclusion as well.
For instance, Hoppe states: “In a fully privatized libertarian order there exists no such thing as a right to free immigration. Private property implies borders and the owner’s right to exclude at will.”
But he goes on to say that “’public property’ has borders as well.” Wait a minute, the “public property” borders he’s talking about are government-drawn borders, therefore they are not legitimate.
Hoppe states that public property “is not unowned. It is the property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners.”
I have some questions here, using the U.S. as an example. Just how did the taxpayers come to own such “public property”? Did they inherit the property? Was it by way of a voluntary contract? Or was such ownership imposed on them involuntarily along with the tax-thefts that were imposed on them involuntarily?
My answer is that, if there is any ownership at all of so-called public property, and he suggests the owners are the taxpayers, then of course such ownership is involuntary just as are the tax-thefts imposed on them. Therefore, such ownership is lacking in any moral justification.
Some further questions: Millions of undocumented workers’ presence and labor in the U.S. have not received proper bureaucrat-parasite authorization, but they have paid billions of dollars in federal taxes. And while some of their legitimate, honest earnings are withheld by employers to pay the feds the demanded booty, they are nevertheless ineligible for Social Security from those earnings. But they are “taxpayers.” Do they thus share in ownership of U.S. “public property”?
And also, do you divide ranks in “public property” ownership”? For instance, do very wealthy people have a higher percentage of ownership than lower-class workers, and thus have more ownership rights of control than the others? What if many wealthy progressive thinkers have a larger percentage of ownership/control, and want to have marijuana dispensaries, abortion clinics, etc. on “public property,” but a minority of the tax-payers disagree with that scheme? Is that legitimate?
When Hoppe says that public property is the “property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners,” what about domestic non-taxpayers? What about “citizens” (non-foreigners) who do work for a living, but don’t make enough to be required to have to pay income taxes? Are they denied rights of exclusion or inclusion because of this? So in other words, those who don’t pay the feds anything in tax-thefts should have the same denied rights of access to public property as the foreigners/non-“citizens”?
And also, it seems here in Hoppe’s justification of taxpayers’ involuntary ownership of public property he apparently, at least for this topic, accepts the State’s existence. Although he does admit that “the State is a criminal organization,” but its inaction regarding border control “will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry.” Does Hoppe here seem to abandon his description of so-called “fake libertarians” at the very beginning of the speech, in which he says a “fake libertarian” is one who “affirms or advocates” “the necessity of a State” or “of public or State property”?
Now back to Hoppe’s recent speech (as shown at the top), he states that “immigration must be by invitation only,” and that “immigrants must be productive people and hence, be barred from all domestic welfare payments.” But he gets into a lengthy discussion of his proposed rules that seem very central planning-like, in my view.
For instance, immigrants “or their inviting party must place a bond with the community in which they are to settle, and which is to be forfeited and lead to the immigrant’s deportation should he ever become a public burden.”
And with whom in the community will such a bond be placed? Who is to be in charge of that? What if a foreigner peacefully travels to the community and doesn’t give anyone a bond?
So are you saying that the immigrant is morally obligated to pay some third party some payment, without any voluntary, mutually-agreeable contract? What if he finds a room to rent or buys a home, who is it that owns the property? Does the individual landlord or property seller own the property, or does the community share in ownership of those properties? Is the entire community collectively owned by its inhabitants (regardless of separate private property parcels)?
It seems to me that Hoppe is suggesting that the community shares in ownership of property within the community. Not good.
In the just society, each property owner has full, 100% sovereignty over one’s property and its property title that he and only he may decide to whom to transfer, and he and only he may decide to whom to rent, and for whatever reason.
Hoppe continues: “As well, every immigrant, inviting party or employer should not only pay for the immigrant’s upkeep or salary, but must also pay the residential community for the additional wear and tear of its public facilities associated with the immigrant’s presence, so as to avoid the socialization of any and all costs incurred with his settlement.”
Who is going to decide how much “wear and tear” one immigrant has caused or might cause in the future? Who has the authority to charge the employer such a fee and decide how much to charge? Sounds very central-planning, if you ask me.
This all sounds very communal or “private club”-like to me, and seems to abandon the principles of private property and freedom of association. My neighbor doesn’t own my property and has no authority to dictate to me whom to let on my property, quite frankly.
And Hoppe continues: “Moreover, even before his admission, every potential immigrant invitee must be carefully screened and tested not only for his productivity but also for cultural affinity (or ‘good neighborliness’)…”
“Carefully screened”? By whom? The employer? Landlord? Prospective home seller? The community? Who will be in charge of this? Who owns the lives of the immigrants? Do they lose their self-ownership when moving to a new territory, even though they are peaceful and there’s no reason to think they might be a burden on the public? What if some family from a different area just moves into a home they’ve bought or rented and they don’t submit to screening, and there’s no reason to suspect them of not having “good neighborliness”? How about just letting property owners, businessmen and home sellers make those decisions, not by some some preset rules but by random events that take into account multiple, spontaneous factors? Whatever happened to Hoppe’s promotion of “Natural Order”?
So Hoppe’s “right of exclusion” seems to mean that the collective public may decide who gets in and who stays out. But how? By some sort of democratic vote? How else could a large group, such as U.S. taxpayers who supposedly own the public property, be able to come to a decision regarding who gets in and who stays out?
The true free market way is when an individual anywhere in the world who wants to make a better life for himself and his family travels to wherever he sees an opportunity, as long as he doesn’t violate the persons or property of another. He can rent a home or purchase one from a willing landlord or seller. And the property owner who rents out or sells a home is the owner, not his neighbors or the community.
I don’t see any moral obligation to pay the community some advance tribute, as the aforementioned family never entered into any contract with the “community,” only the employer, landlord or home seller, etc.
Especially in the immigration issue.
I was listening to one of the conservative/ultra-nationalist talk radio ditto-heads this morning, and he was once again foaming at the mouth over the immigration issue. The talk host was in full support of Donald Trump’s stepping up the nazi-like immigration police state, in which ICE and “Border Patrol Tactical Unit” storm troopers will take their S.W.A.T. goons into “sanctuary cities” to harass, terrorize, arrest or assault innocent people who have exercised their unalienable rights to freedom of movement and their right to find a better life for themselves and their families.
Regarding government-operated or funded “sanctuary cities,” they shouldn’t exist, because their operation is funded by taxpayers, i.e. involuntarily.
Instead, there should be freedom, in which volunteer organizations, charities, churches, businesses and residents should have the freedom to take people in if they want to. And they would be expected to take responsibility for their refugees, new workers, guests, etc. As long as people are peaceful. As long as no one is violating the persons or property of others, and that’s it.
When there is freedom, such sponsors, employers or benefactors would not be required to ask the government for permission, and their workers or refugees are not required to get government authorization to go to where they want to go. That is what socialist societies (such as Amerika) do. Alas, that is what “conservatives” want.
The police-state supporting conservatives are concerned about immigrants getting on government welfare. But, a society of freedom and free markets would have no government-imposed redistribution-of-wealth schemes. So the newcomers would not get on welfare, because there would be no government welfare redistribution schemes or handouts!
But most conservatives seem to be socialists, and love income taxation and redistribution just as much as liberals and progressives.
And they seem to love government central planning when it comes to labor and employment. In the immigration issue, conservatives are opposed to free markets, and love the idea of the central planners in Washington attempting to control who works where, and who may not work in Amerika or where they may not work, and whom employers may employ and may not employ.
So conservatives, at least the ones I hear on ditto-head radio, love the idea of government central planners in Washington attempting to control the movements of millions of people. Which is impossible. As Perry Como might say, it’s just impossible.
For them, foreign people have to get government authorization to enter “our” country. But that’s socialism, not freedom.
Only in a socialist society are people required to get government authorization to live their lives, have a business and employ anyone they want to employ, or to move somewhere or to work somewhere.
Contrary to what the socialist conservatives want, in a free society you just do what you want and you live wherever you want, and you buy or sell property, rent a home or work at a place of employment, as long as you are peaceful. Just don’t trespass onto the private property of others.
But conservatives say that immigrants are “breaking into our country,” and compare the whole territory to a parcel of private property. Someone coming into “our” country without government authorization is “trespassing.”
But the territory as a whole is not a parcel of private property. No one owns the territory.
However, some people say that “we” the “citizens” are the owners. No, such an assertion is a myth and just not true. if someone owns the territory, then where is the deed with our names on it? Where in the Constitution or any law is it written that “citizens” are the owners of the territory as a whole?
And who would be the actual owners? Just taxpayers? Well, what about people who work but don’t make enough to be required to pay income taxes? What about foreign non-citizens who are here and who work but do pay income taxes? Do they share in such “ownership”?
The problem with such an assertion of this communistic territorial ownership by the “citizens” (or by the government on their behalf) is that, if it really were the case, then that would negate the principle of private property. You do not really own your private property if it exists on territory that is owned by a larger population. The parcels of property are no longer individual parcels of private property, and you the “owner” have to obey the orders of the larger community as far as what you may or may not do with or on “your” property.
Therefore, the anti-immigration conservatives are big on government central planning, some kind of communal ownership of property and the police state to enforce it, and not big at all on individualism, private property rights, free markets and voluntary exchange.
So what should conservatives really support in order to extract their irrationality from their hypocritical old noggins?
If the anti-foreigner nationalist conservatives are really concerned about “illegals” getting into “our” country, or criminal gangs such as MS-13, then first get rid of all foreign aid. No more federal tax-funded aid to any other countries or governments. That means no more U.S. funding of terrorist-sympathizing or drug lord-cahooting governments in Central or South America, from which many immigrants are fleeing.
And second, end the drug war. Drug prohibition causes the black market which incentivizes low-lifes to try to get people addicted to drugs and incentivizes such low-lifes to become drug pushers and drug traffickers, and the prohibition is what creates the drug lords, the cartels, the turf wars and gangs and violence that are driving innocent people and victims in those areas to flee to the U.S. Ending the war on drugs puts all that to a stop. No more drug pushers, drug traffickers, drug lords, cartels, turf wars and gangs.
And no more drug war police state, no more immigration police state, and no more Constitution-free borders.
I wish that conservatives would get with it as far as the freedom thing goes. Re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. And maybe some other points I made in this post might help them. But, their support of the police state and socialist government central planning and their opposition to and contempt for freedom is really something we can do without.
Happy New Year, everybody. So Donald Trump decided to start the new year by going into neocon puppet mode and bombing and killing an Iranian general who was allegedly targeting and killing Americans in Iraq. But why are Americans in Iraq in the first place? is the question we must ask.
I’ll get to that a little later. I really wanted to start this with the Democrats and the people on the left. We are in an election year, and, while Republicans are bad enough, the Democrats are quite the cheaters and sore losers. They don’t like the outcome of a presidential election so they aid and abet the national security state’s narrative of Trump-Russia collusions and “hacking the election,” none of which occurred, and they have Congressional investigations, the 2-year Mueller fishing expedition and exoneration, and when that’s not enough they use a CIA flunky in the White House and call him a “whistleblower” which he is not, and do more investigations and even a House impeachment based on a phone call, repeatedly and erroneously describing the phone call with a foreign leader as asking the foreign leader to “investigate a Trump election opponent,” which it wasn’t in any way, and then have an election year Senate trial for no good reason.
And that is just one dirty way that today’s Democrats are cheating, first with trying to overturn a legitimate election of 2016 and then by trying to tarnish the 2020 election with all the aforementioned. But not only that regarding the presidential election but with other elections as well. Democrats won’t allow requiring IDs for voting. They don’t seem to mind requiring IDs for cashing a check or flying, but not for voting. They say that’s “racist,” although minorities are just as capable of providing an ID as others are. No, the real reason is because the Democrat activists want voter fraud and cheating in elections. There are also same-day voting registration and automatic registration with license renewal, etc. Not only those things, but there’s this new scheme called “ranked-choice” voting the latest way for mainly Democrats to complicate voting enough so that the actual winner of the election loses the election.
Republicans are bad too, don’t get me wrong here. Like in the 2000 election when Al Gore won in Florida, but the Republican majority on the Supreme Court rubber-stamped a Bush-Cheney win. Hmm, it seems like that was just yesterday, for some reason. And as I have already mentioned, the two Establishment parties, Democreep and Rethuglican, are both a criminal racket and should be outlawed, in their making laws to restrict the rights of non-DemoRethug candidates to get on ballots.
And what’s the latest with the 2020 campaign? Now I thought I heard that Democrat Cory Schnooker suspended his campaign, but on the Internet it seems that he hasn’t, although he’s currently at about 2-3% on the daily tracking polls as of this morning. But it is the case that Julian Castrate has “suspended” his campaign. He couldn’t even get 2%.
So the Democrat Party is the “racist party” now? Three white men and a white lady are now in the lead, Joe Kinnock, Burning Cinders, Pete Butternutter, and Elizardbeth Warren. (I guess the Democrats don’t want another minority president again just yet after 8 years of Obama?) And no, Liawatha is not a “minority”! Others who are now out of the race also include Kamala Harris and NY Mayor Bill duh Blasio. (See how national security bureaucrats have groomed Mayor Pete for future power-grabbing, and see his road-to-communism economic plan. Yay!)
Okay, okay, I’ll stop it with the making fun of people’s names. It’s Christmas, after all. And New Year’s, etc.
Continuing here. The Republicans are bad too, and communists just like the Democrats. For instance, regionally speaking, in New England there are two liberal Republican governors, Chris Sununu of New Hampshire and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts. As I have mentioned here before, Sununu signed the bills for “transgender rights” and anti-“conversion therapy” into law, just a few weeks before his reelection in 2018. So Sununu doesn’t believe in private property rights or freedom of thought and conscience.
And now, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker — or should I say, Charlie “Half-Baker,” especially more recently in his and his Bacon Hill cohorts’ frantic conniving and scheming to find a way to spend the state’s $1 billion budget surplus! Hmm, they have a surplus of $1 billion and so they are trying to figure out just how to spend it. Doh!
How to spend the people’s money that these bureaucrats stole from the people! Hey, here’s an unusual suggestion: why not give it back to the people! Ya think? It’s their money, and obviously it is a billion dollars more than your already bloated budget calls for, so you in the gubmint don’t need it! (Alas, that never occurs to greedy, power-mad, thieving government parasites. Oh, well.) Like Democrats and leftists, many of today’s Republicans and conservative statists live off the hard labor of the workers.
So with Republicans like these, who need communists? Speaking of communist Republicans, Laurence Vance had this recent post on “Marco Rubio: Republican Communist, Rubio wants the U.S. government to have a ‘pro-American industrial policy’.” (That’s actually more fascism than communism, although in my view they are both the same, with fascism having a slight pretense of private property which isn’t even private property because the real owners are the gubmint and its bureaucrat criminals. But I digress.)
And Charlie Half-Baker is also a fascist, in his constantly banning things, like menthol cigarettes and flavored tobacco and vaping products, banning “conversion therapy” just like NH Gov. Sununu did. Baker also signed a bill restricting opioid drug prescriptions, ordering schools to screen students for addiction risk, and concocting a state “Prescription Monitoring” database. So much for doctor-patient privacy, fascist half-baker.
And nationally, the Republicans are terrible and yes communist-like in their anti-immigration, anti-foreigner drooling. They oppose free markets and private property rights in their wanting not only bureaucratic restrictions and a police state to prevent foreigners from entering “our” country, but an actual physical government wall on the border. You can read all my elaborations on those points regarding the immigration issue in this post, if you are interested.
When it comes to freedom and free markets, in a free society everyone has the freedom to come and go as they please, and everyone has the freedom to buy and sell whatever they want and to and from anyone they want, without any bureaucrat’s authorization required, including one’s labor and employment, as long as they are peaceful, as long as they don’t violate the person or property of others.
Unfortunately, many in the anti-immigration crowd believe in this myth that the whole territory is “property” that is being violated or trespassed by “unauthorized” people, in the same way that someone breaks into someone’s home. But no, the territory as a whole is not a parcel of property, it is just a territory. There is no such common or public or U.S. citizen ownership of the territory as a whole, because that would imply that everything within the territory is commonly owned, and would negate the idea of private property.
And like many of today’s Democrats and leftists, many of today’s Republicans and conservatives are also narcissists and moral relativists. We see that in their being True Believers in the false god of American Exceptionalism, in their blind worship of the national security state and the military.
For instance, most of the “conservatives” I have heard in the past day or so have been showing support for Donald Trump’s bombing and killing of the Iranian general in Iraq. Their rationale is that the general is responsible for “killing Americans in Iraq.” But wait a minute, why are there Americans, specifically U.S. military, in Iraq? Why have they ever been there? Are there Iraqi soldiers here in the U.S.? Of course not. We would see them as … “invaders”! So, if people actually believed in the Golden Rule, they would see U.S. military in Iraq as invaders in the same way, because that’s exactly what they are.
A lot of people are also ignorant, respond emotionally to government propaganda, such as post-9/11, and cheer their government’s crimes on without question. But when someone points out that the U.S. government invaded Iraq in 1991 and occupied and bombed the Middle East prior to 9/11 and that there wouldn’t have been a 9/11 were it not for President George H.W. Bush starting that first Iraq War in 1991, then the obedient sheeple accuse one of “siding with the terrorists,” and all other expressions of their government-worship brainwashing.
That’s an example of the conservative/nationalists’ short-sightedness and inability to question or challenge their believed rulers, and their Dear Leader Donald Trump as well.
Another example regarding this Iran paranoid propaganda stuff is that I hear the national security “experts” and talk radio ditto-heads constantly referring back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution including their taking of Americans hostage, but not to times prior to that.
The conflict with Iran goes back to the 1950s, started by the CIA, which after taking down Iran’s democratically elected prime minister the CIA then supported the Shah’s police state “SAVAK.” (And it’s really all about oil, as well.) So, if the CIA didn’t engage in all that tyranny against Iranians, which reinforced a growing Islamic extremist movement, there probably wouldn’t have been a hostage taking and “Revolution.”
But many people believe in this American Exceptionalism crap, in which the U.S. government may invade and occupy and bomb other countries, but certainly not the other way around. They believe that the U.S. government has some sort of moral authority over those other countries that those other countries don’t have over the U.S. So, rejection of the Golden Rule and belief in moral relativism are the highlights of today’s “conservatives” and the Republican Party. (See Laurence Vance on the madness of the military mindset, by the way.)
So of course the bloodthirsty warmongers who believe in American Exceptionalism support more bombing in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and all points between. I think they really just love the idea of bombing foreigners, quite frankly.
And so in the new year of 2020 we will have another useless election that won’t result in any change for the better, because it is a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, a choice between one criminal or criminal-wannabe and another criminal or criminal wannabe. In USSA Amerika the culture has dumbed down and we have lost the basic sense of morality and common decency, the sanctity of private property and the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression that “America” was founded on. Happy New Year!