The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
Wage Walls, Not Wars
A “Big League Politics” Interview about paleolibertarianism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: Being a preeminent paleolibertarian thinker today, how would you define paleolibertarianism and how does it differ from standard paleoconservatism?

ILANA MERCER: First, let’s define libertarianism. libertarianism is concerned with the ethics of the use of force. Nothing more. This, and this alone, is the ambit of libertarian law.

All libertarians must respect the non-aggression axiom. It means that libertarians don’t initiate aggression against non-aggressors, not even if it’s “for their own good,” as neoconservatives like to cast America’s recreational wars of choice. If someone claims to be a libertarian and also supports the proxy bombing of Yemen, or supported the war in Iraq; he is not a libertarian, plain and simple.

As to paleolibertarianism, in particular, and this is my take, so some will disagree. It’s how I’ve applied certain principles week-in, week-out, for almost two decades. In my definition, a paleolibertarian grasps that ordered liberty has a civilizational dimension, stripped of which the just-mentioned libertarian non-aggression principle, by which all decent people should live, will crumble. It won’t endure.

Ironically, paleoconservatives have no issue grasping the cultural and civilizational dimensions of ordered liberty—namely that the libertarian non-aggression principle is peculiar to the West and won’t survive once western civilization is no more. Which is why, for paleoconservatives, immigration restrictionism is a no-brainer.

By the way, the statement is not meant to be culturally chauvinistic. There are indigenous tribal people (say, in Brazil) who’re peaceful and pastoral. I mourn their culture’s near-extinction, as well. Where such extinction has been brought about by the West’s chauvinism—it must be condemned.

In any event, paleoconservatives would typically grasp that libertarian principles would not endure in certain cultures. Libertarians, on the other hand, have had a hard time linking civilizational issues with the libertarian axiom of non-aggression. What do I mean? Libertarians will chant, “Free markets, free minds, the free movement of people.” Let’s have ‘em all.

They don’t always explain how these principles are to endure once Western societies are overrun by individuals from cultures which don’t uphold these principles. (From the fact that our own societies are turning out liberty hating individuals—it doesn’t follow we should import more.)

On the other hand, paleoconservatives are far less focused on the state as an evil actor and often appear more concerned with culture wars: gay marriage, cannabis, pornography, abortion. The paleolibertarian rejects any attempts by the state to legislate around the issues of:

Abortion: Completely defund it is our position.

Gay marriage: Solemnize your marriage in private churches, please.

Drugs: Legalize them and stop the hemispheric Drug War.

Wage walls, not wars.

As a creedal paleolibertarian, I see the road to freedom, primarily, in beating back The State, so that individuals can regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will.

Foreign policy—specifically, no meddling in the affairs of other countries!—is the be all and end all of both paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism. Don’t let any of the radio or TV personalities fool you. If he or she liked, justified or rationalized Bush’s Middle-Eastern wars or Trump’s dabbling in Niger—he or she is no paleolibertarian. (Tucker Carlson is a fabulous paleoconservative.)

Both variants are for small government and big society. Again, more so than the paleoconservative, the paleolibertarian is radical in his anti-state position, sometimes even advocating a stateless society.

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: In what ways does your political thought differ from CATO institute libertarianism?

ILANA MERCER: CATO’s political thought is left-libertarianism. I call it “lite libertarianism.” Lite libertarians equate liberty with abstract, lofty ideas, which—against all evidence, historic and other—purport to work magically when applied to every individual in the world.

You can say that the crucial difference between lite libertarians and the Right kind is that, to the former, the idea of liberty is propositional–a value, an idea that’s untethered from the realities of history, hierarchy, biology, tradition, religion, culture, values.

Bluntly put, the principles of American freedoms were not developed by progressive, libertine ladies, marching in pussy dunce caps; by the suffragettes or the LGBTQ community and their program. Are those significant facts? You bet!

The garden variety libertarian, CATO and Reason types, see liberty as a shared, universal quest. They appear to think that inside every Afghani or Yemeni or Iraqi is a Jeffersonian waiting to break free.

In essence, this left-libertarianism is one that underplays, underestimates or just plain refuses to recognize what I just referred to as “liberty’s civilizational dimension.”

Notice how similar are left-libertarians to neoconservatives in the tendencies just described.

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. Lite libertarians also tend to blame governments, principally, less so the individual, for barbarism in certain parts of the world. Your regular libertarian’s attitude to personal wrongdoing often runs to what I’ve characterized as a form of social determinism: “The state made me do it.”

In other words, if for the sins of man the left is inclined to blame society; a lot of libertarians fall into the same methodological error when they implicate the State. The conservatively minded paleolibertarian will recognize humanity’s innate, biblical capacity for evil.

Both factions (left-libertarians and neoconservatives) are short on punishment, individual responsibility and agency, all preconditions for ordered liberty.

RACISM. And this is vitally important: A lot of establishment libertarians have joined the neoconservative and neoliberal establishments in the habit of sniffing out racists. Sniffing out racists is an absolute no-no for any and all self-respecting libertarians.

True libertarians don’t, or should not, prosecute thought crimes or persecute thought “criminals.” Period.

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: Which conservative thinkers resonate most with your beliefs?

ILANA MERCER: John Roanoke, John Calhoun, Edmond Burke, Russell Kirk, Frank Chodorov, Felix Morley, James Burnham (once a leftist), Paul Gottfried, Clyde Wilson, Samuel P. Huntington.

This interview was conducted by correspondent Seth Segal for Big League Politics. A version was published on Nov. 23, 2018

 
Hide 156 CommentsLeave a Comment
156 Comments to "Wage Walls, Not Wars"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Giuseppe says:

    As a creedal paleolibertarian, I see the road to freedom, primarily, in beating back The State, so that individuals can regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will.

    As one sympathetic to the ideals of anarcholibertarianism I say for individuals to regain freedom, The State must be beaten back to nothing, or to practically nothing. We have seen the results of this 200 year old experiment, where Liberty and The State were to exist in a careful tension created by the Founders and maintained by the Constitution. But the chains of the Constitution have not been sufficient for the job. Under the leadership of the power-hungry and the crazed, The State expanded, usurped, encroached, enslaved. This behemoth, this Leviathan is many, many magnitudes worse than the tyranny the Founders faced in His Majesty’s Government of King George III. How can we go on living with even a curtailed form of that?

  2. wayfarer says:

    Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

    Crimes Against Humanity – certain acts that are deliberately committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against an identifiable part of a civilian population.
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

    Fiat Money – currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, but it is not backed by a physical commodity.
    source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp

    Debt Slavery – the pledge of a person’s services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation, where the terms of the repayment are not clearly or reasonably stated.
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage

    Global Debt Clock – the world economy today is an interaction between spreading trade wars and a global debt estimated to be $247 trillion.
    source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

    Rothschild International Banking Cabal – about 99% of the world’s population is controlled by an elite 1%. Evidence indicates the Rothschild family rule everything, even the elite 1%.
    source: https://www.theinvestigative.com/complete-list-of-rothschild-owned-and-controlled-banks/

    Rothschild’s Zionist Political Globalization

    • Replies: @Agent76
  3. Tomaz says:

    Ms Mercer might want to call herself a paleocon as she has always seemed to me to be more of a conservative statist than a libertarian. She may even consider herself to favor “limited government” but this has little to no meaning other than, in most cases, the person wishes government to be limited to doing what they wish government to do using as much force as necessary to accomplish their agenda.

  4. Alden says:

    Off topic There’s a new term for criminals OPC over policed minorities.

  5. swamped says:

    Samuel P. Huntington?! of Vietnam War infamy?! remember ‘strategic hamlets’?! the ‘collapse of domestic authority’ in America?!

    “Foreign policy—specifically, no meddling in the affairs of other countries!—is the be all and end all of both paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism. Don’t let any of the radio or TV personalities fool you. If he or she liked, justified or rationalized Bush’s Middle-Eastern wars or Trump’s dabbling in Niger—[or LBJ’s or RMN’s barbarity in Vietnam]-he or she is no paleolibertarian.”

    Edmond (sic) Burke notwithstanding.

  6. In my recollection this is the first time I read an article here that is complete gibberish to me.
    So incomprehensible that I even feel unable to formulate question that might enlighten me.

    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  7. @Giuseppe

    This article & this comment are typical of one eyed libertarian thinking.
    With their one good eye they (correctly) see the danger of the State. Unfortunately, blind in the other side they fail to see the danger of individual actors, including that of pseudo-states: massive private corporations.
    The fact is that BOTH public & private actors are threats against individual freedom & autonomy. (Indeed, you could argue that, 2018, public & private entities are so interwoven that the terms “public”, “private” organisations are not much more than handy shorthand terms).
    Yes, if it pleases, do say the State is far more dangerous than individuals & huge Co’s. But, remember, in an Oligarchy, which is essentially what the West is, State acts are usually the result of “private” desire & will.

  8. @Giuseppe

    The State must be beaten back to nothing, or to practically nothing.

    Weird, in my opinion only the nation state can protect the citizens.
    We here in Europe now, a bit late, see what happens when the nation state is beaten back to practically nothing, a court in Brussels, resembling Versailles just before the storming of the Bastille, rules us.
    But I suppose the USA experience caused this libertarianism, cannot see the USA as ever having been a nation state.
    My worst fear is that the EU court succeeds in changing the EU into a USA clone.
    Resistance to this change is increasing, more and more populist parties, more and more EU member states ungovernable, the Yellow Vest movement.

  9. polistra says:

    Nonaggression is peculiar to the West? Nonsense. Russia hasn’t started any wars since Finland in 1940. All of the aggression since WW2 has come from the West.

    Every country has gone through periods of imperial expansion. Empire always blows up and destroys the emperor.

    Most countries in the East and South have learned the lesson. US/UK/EU haven’t learned.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
  10. “A lot of establishment libertarians have joined the neoconservative and neoliberal establishments in the habit of sniffing out racists. Sniffing out racists is an absolute no-no for any and all self-respecting libertarians.”

    This is a huge point. “Sniffing out racists” is the modus operandi of Democrat politicians and identity politics (Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” captured the entire mind-set of her campaign). Anyone on the right who tries to compete in the “you’re a racist” arena with a lefty is either a closet lefty or incredibly stupid.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  11. onebornfree says: • Website

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”,”improved”, nor “limited” in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

    “Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.” Albert J. Nock

    “Everything government touches turns to crap” Ringo Starr

    “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic”
    H.L.Mencken

    Regards, onebornfree
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/

  12. onebornfree says: • Website

    A border wall seems to have been subtly implied here [ or am I hallucinating again ?:-) ].

    Two brief real world points for all of the “wall fantasists” here:

    1] All government programs always end up costing at least 10 times more than stated, so $5.7 billion to build/repair what has been reported as being around 200 miles of border wall would inevitably turn into at least $50 billion when all is said and done.

    2] Regardless of final costs, government solutions never work anyway:

    Even if built according “to plan” [an impossibility, of course, given the nature of governments], the border wall would not prevent illegal immigrants, except maybe in the very short term, until people found various ways around its presence.

    A border wall would end up being just another government scam, a worthless boondoggle that would only benefit the contractors and the politicians, just like every other government program throughout history.

    If the effect of practically every other government “solution” to a problem through out history is reviewed, [“solutions” to problems usually originally caused by government in the first place 🙂 ], it seems safe and fair to assume that any new wall will actually have the effect of further increasing illegal immigration.

    And so it goes……….

    Sleazons Greedings, onebornfree
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/

  13. mcohen says:

    I think the pope should pray for rain.The early rains and then the later rains.The prayer is in the shema

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_Yisrael

    There is a section connected to Christians

  14. @onebornfree

    The Chinese Wall, Hadrian’s Wall, the Iron Curtain, all three quite effective.
    Defences are erected where natural borders, sea, rivers, lakes, mountains, marshes, do not exist.
    The Roman empire had defensive systems everywhere, the limes, where natural borders did not exist.
    Mainly in N Africa and the Middle East.
    But big rivers as the Donau and the Rhine of course were preferred to artificial barriers, these are expensive.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  15. Giuseppe says:
    @animalogic

    Unfortunately, blind in the other side they fail to see the danger of individual actors, including that of pseudo-states: massive private corporations.

    You must have missed the extensive libertarian discussion of crony capitalism, just one of the ways that the state attempts to control the economy. It is this unholy marriage of corporation and the state that has created the oligarchies. We need separation of market and state! The “massive private corporations” couldn’t have become so massive without protection and indeed nurturing from the state, or rather, individuals within the state. Free of the corrupting influence of the state the economy would function organically with a level playing field. Corporations will not become massive if there is no massive state to support them. And I don’t consider myself a libertarian, I’m probably a paleoconservative. I said I was sympathetic to the ideals of anarcholibertarianism, meaning, I admire anarchy, in the sense of medieval Iceland, or Israel for 500 years of its history before the monarchy, as a beautiful idea, but I see no way it can be practically implemented in the modern world with its surveillance and weapons.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @niceland
  16. Giuseppe says:
    @jilles dykstra

    From the standpoint of the Europe you need to beat Brussels back to nothing first.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  17. Mark G. says:
    @polistra

    Russia didn’t invade Afghanistan?

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Che Guava
  18. @jilles dykstra

    In my recollection this is the first time I read an article here that is complete gibberish to me.

    It must also be the first time you’ve read one of Mercer’s screeds.

    I check in now and then not for enlightenment but for amusement. This one started out with a couple of real belly jugglers…

    Being a preeminent paleolibertarian thinker today, blah,blah, blah…

    “Thinker???”

    Preeminent???

    Why not toss in “hero” as well?

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  19. “Abortion: Completely defund it is our position.”

    Yeah, about that …. Abortion has actually worked to Conservatives’ advantage over the years, so they might want to re-think this position.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  20. @Giuseppe

    It is this unholy marriage of corporation and the state that has created the oligarchies. We need separation of market and state! The “massive private corporations” couldn’t have become so massive without protection and indeed nurturing from the state, or rather, individuals within the state.

    Sweet.

    States, in fact, are created by plutocrats in their quest for oligarchies and monopolies, and the constant thirst for liberty is one result.

    Liberty! That was the cry of the captives of Egypt, the slaves of Spartacus, 524 the peasants of the Middle Ages, and more recently of the bourgeoisie oppressed by the nobility and religious corporations, of the workers oppressed by masters and guilds. Liberty! That was the cry of all those who found their property confiscated by monopoly and privilege. Liberty! That was the burning aspiration of all those whose natural rights had been forcibly repressed. [p. 359]

    -Gustave de Molinari, Evenings on Saint Lazarus Street: Discussions on Economic Laws and the Defence of Property (1849)
    https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/gdm-soirees#S11

    And so it goes…

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  21. @Mark G.

    Russia didn’t invade Afghanistan?

    Not lately.

    I think what you’re referring to is the Soviet war on Afghanistan. Some think the breakup of the Soviet Empire was one of the results of it, hence we now have Russia and others instead of the USSR.

  22. @Stephen Paul Foster

    “Sniffing out racists” is the modus operandi of Democrat politicians…

    While that is true, they are not the only ones. They probably saw how effective the spurious charge of “anti-Semitism” has been and decided to extend the bennies to themselves. In any case, it’s all a farce and it’s not limited to the Dumbokrats.

    The two major parties have contended only for public office. American politics, so-called, has been a professional sport, a matter of organization, team-play, and getting votes. Elections have been sporting events, as baseball games are; and Americans, accurately, have regarded them as sport.

    Rose Wilder Lane, Give Me Liberty, (1936)

  23. onebornfree says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    You need to reconsider those examples of what you suppose to be “successful” government-built walls.

    As to your most historically recent example, the “Iron Curtain”, do you really believe that the problem for the then USSR was hordes of civilian illegal immigrants trying to gain entry simply to enjoy a better life there, replete with free housing, free health care etc. etc.? Surely you jest :-).

    The Iron Curtain was primarily about keeping USSR citizens in.

    Both Hadrians Wall and the Great Wall of China stink of being government “make work” welfare projects, just like the Egyptian pyramids, or the Hoover Dam. The official excuse [if they even gave one] for both those walls was probably along the lines of :” we need the wall to keep out invading armies”[ which were, in those days, confined to foot soldiers]. They may have worked in the very short term, but ultimately they obviously failed, as all government “solutions” ultimately do, for reasons I won’t get into here.

    “The World’s Biggest, Most Dangerous Scam Is….The “Government Solutions Work” Scam:”
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-worlds-biggest-most-dangerous-scam.html

    Regards, onebornfree

  24. @jacques sheete

    of the workers oppressed by masters and guilds.

    You obviously know nothing about guilds.

    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  25. @jilles dykstra

    Weird, in my opinion only the nation state can protect the citizens.

    That certainly is a major pretext for its establishment of and it may actually appear to accomplish the feat for a relatively brief period until it gets perverted, inevitably, into a major monster.

    There is no such thing as security for the citizens and there is no Messiah in any form. Never was and never will be.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  26. Che Guava says:
    @Mark G.

    No, the USSR was invited to support the Najibullah govt, and was later met by a massive attack, co-ordinated by the USA and Saudi Arabia, if you are too ignorant to know that, you are just ignorant.

    If you look at old photos of Afghanistan, before the Saudi-U.S.A. setup, you will see girls at school, comfortable without head coverings, at work likewise.

    I am hoping that Trump is firing the Walrus Bolton and similar, I was the first to say ‘Trump gave us all a great Christmas present’ in response to the Syria withdrawal, so many others have repeated it, became a meme.

    Trump needs to employ different people, but I am suspecting that unless he fires Javanka (probably something he will not do), he is screwed.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
  27. @Giuseppe

    The populations of the W European countries for maybe a hundred years were accustomed to governments that were interested in the well being of the average citizen.
    Since say 2000 governments just follow Brussels, the clique just interested in themselves.
    It takes time to understand that there has been a fundamental change, w’re no longer the object, but a means, for power.

    But this understanding is growing, parties that ruled for decades losing power, or even disappearing, populist parties appearing, more and more street demonstrations, no trust anymore in almost anything: politicians, old political parties, MSM.
    Of course the ruling clique is worried, censoring fake news is one of the ways they try to remain in power.

    Macron at present is a sorry figure, he seems to have no clue what to do.
    Yet the possibilities are spelled out for him: resign, dissolve parliament, or hold a referendum.
    In the last case, about what, I wonder, not specified.
    He has chosen for the flight forward, a national debate.
    About what, until now nowbody knows.
    But of course, it may buy him time.

    But even dissolving parliament is no solution, the French voting system guarantees that the old French clique remains in power.
    Before accepting to save France long ago De Gaulle demanded that the constitution was changed.
    Alas,who is the present day De Gaulle ?

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  28. Durruti says:

    Walls are usually signs of weakness. Sometimes the weakness is Moral, sometimes Military, sometimes Societal, or Economic. Walls usually further imprison its already Trapped builders. Often, it is the imprisoned who build these Walls (Palestinians, Mexicans). At least the Russians build their own prisons.

    Mercer raises some nice discussion points. The interview was interesting, but avoided difficult and controversial questions.

    By the numbers.

    1. There is (already), a Wall of varying components & sizes along the Mexican – United States border. I have seen it, Why-Why-Why has not the media (including those supporting, or opposing the wall), not revealed the truth, and posted a few pictures.

    There is a River Border that runs for half of the border. And there is much desert & scrubland on both sides.

    2. The northern half of Mexico was seized (by force and violence & much imperialism), by the United States Government. In truth, Mexicans are traveling back and forth in their own country.

    3. Walls are usually (not always) ugly, and more used to imprison than to keep out.

    4. The largest, and most criminal Wall on the Planet is the Wall that imprisons 4 million Palestinians within their own Homeland. That is the true Wailing Wall. The Wall is continually being expanded and is paid for by American taxpayers.

    5. The Zionist puppet Democrat gangers who pretend to oppose the construction of a wall – pay attention- that already exists, have no problem with a Wall, whose purpose is to Ethnically Cleanse the Palestinian People (genocide them) from their own land.

    6. One man’s wall is another’s prison.

    7. We are walled in by the Zionist Mainstream Media. But you know that!

    I recommend a perusal of American General & President Ulysses S. Grant‘s “Personal Memoirs”
    Penguin Books. He has much to say of the war against Mexico, that he participated in.

    Take the Wall from your Hearts and Minds!

    There is no Race in Republic! It is our Patriotic Duty. We build Liberty for All!

    Arm Yourselves.

    We Must Restore Our Republic!

    Durruti for the Anarchist Collective

  29. @jacques sheete

    Well, it worked here since the middle of the 16th century.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  30. Instead of this interview, I would have preferred to see Ilana Mercer’s nude pictures… Happy Holidays!

    • Replies: @Quebecer
  31. @onebornfree

    The Iron Curtain was primarily about keeping USSR citizens in.

    Sure, it functioned well both ways.

  32. @onebornfree

    as all government “solutions” ultimately do, for reasons I won’t get into here.

    Pity, quite curious, especially from a country where privatisation just made things worse.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  33. @jilles dykstra

    The USA ceased to be a nation state with the passage of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. It is laughable when it calls itself the world’s first “propositional nation,” IOW a nation of immigrants. Left-libertarians, with their infantile belief in open borders, are a huge part of the problem in the USA today. While I used to consider myself a libertarian, I now reject it as some type of 19th century unobtainable academic fantasy, similar to Marxism, with its belief in the “withering away of the state.” Both depend on the Goodness of Man , which centuries of endless war demonstrates is in very short supply.

  34. Mark G. says:
    @Che Guava

    The Afghan government had to “invite” the Russians in because they had no popular support and would have fallen otherwise. I consider that an invasion. When the Russians were “invited” in to crush the 1956 Hungarian and 1968 Czech uprisings those were also invasions.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  35. Che Guava says:
    @jacques sheete

    Heroine, AFAIK in English. Ilana does become a little scattered when attempting to write an article that is not concentrating on avoiding the topic of her and her dad working to unleash the cannibal’s pot.

    As an anecdote, today is the last day of work this year here, for most, and pour moi. So, I come to the office, boot up the computer, hear ‘no, you must have a drink’, I am saying ‘I never drink in the daytime, and do not want work waiting for me after the holiday.’

    So, one very small beer, one sushi, one piece of chicken, back to work.

  36. @jilles dykstra

    You obviously know nothing about guilds.

    And you obviously know nothing of the genesis of monopolies. and you know not that I was quoting Molinari who has tons more credibility than either or both of us together.

    But thanks for your comment; it’s more evidence that it’s futile to attempt to reason with a statist.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  37. anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    What has wedded the corrupt state to the criminal private capital oligarch owned profit-greedy corporate world? 1) monopoly powers are created from thin air by the state, and 2) tangible public federalized resources are both transferred from the public world to a person, party or entity in the the private world.

    The intangibles do not naturally exist. They must be created. The state creates the intangible monopolies by mining its rule of law and the state uses it military and police powers to enforce private ownership and monopoly power in the intangibles it has created .

    In the beginning there was no private property. Private property does not exist. Adam, Even, the Serpent, the trees, water, and air all shared the same property; they were integrated by the common bond of needing each other. Then along came X, he decreed that the land on the North belonged to Adam and the land on the land on the South belonged to Eve, the serpent was appointed to govern Adam invented an apple and patented it, but jealous Eve infringed the patent and eat Adam’s apples, so the Serpent punished Eve, she was made to wear clothes and to pay six million apples to the serpent.

    And so it goes, from thin Air the state exercises its royal powers to make property where before there was none. . Before the state can make laws it needs to make up things, so it decides that future ideas should belong to those with the money to own them. As soon as a first party reduces an idea to tangible form, the idea can be patented and the wealthiest among us can buy it, and own it. Yep law has captured all future ideas and made all ideas yet to be thought of, or discoveries yet to be made, into private property.

    Ideas, don’t you know, are made by law into property so third party capitalist can own a first party(inventor or discoverer) ideas. Private ownership is the nature of intangibles, but who wants some else’s idea? Compulsory schools to read, write, operate machinery and team play cooperation produces a market for third party capitalist owned monopoly power. Legislatures invent property rights that make future inventions, future discoveries, and future writings of first party writers and inventors into a class of property known as intangible property so that private third parties can own first party ideas ( ideas that have not yet been thought of ).

    Third parties buy first party ideas in order to get both “monopoly power for the idea copyright, patents” over the use of the first party idea and exclusionary power to prevent anyone, even the first party inventor from competing with the use of the idea, or from competing in a business that uses the idea. Only the monopoly owner can use the idea.

    Why is owning first party ideas so profitable? Because demand for the use of the idea is 100% fulfilled.
    Put that in numbers let us demand for the idea to make shoes is 100 pairs of shoes. If there were no patent,
    many different shoe companies would use the idea. and no one company would sell 100 pairs of shows and the competition for customers wanting shoes would be met by some companies with lower prices and better quality, and within minutes after a buyer decides on the shoes from the lower priced, better quality shoe, all of the other companies would lower their prices and improve their quality in order to sell their shoes to the 100 pair market. But rule of law fixed that, no more price and quality competition , if you want shoes you must buy them from the one company that owns the patent no matter the price or the quality. No one else is allowed to make or sell you shoes.

    Copyrights are worse, a ditch digger gets paid $50 per hour to dig a ditch. spends 100 hours on the job and gets paid $ 5000. A writer spends 100 hours on a writing, sells 1000 copies of his book, copyrights it, sells the copyright to a privately owned publisher for $5000. The printer sells 1000000 copies of the book for $50 and pockets $50,000,000, less 5,000,000 to the writer for 100 hours or work.

    The ditch digger gets paid once, the writer gets paid 1,000,000 times for a singular effort.

    Real estate has no natural ownership boundaries. Rule of law creates those boundaries and makes land within private property, monopoly power (no one else can use it).

    So Jiiles, the question is who does the state protect and who does it abuse.
    When a nation state makes laws that grant private parties monopoly powers it is abusing its citizens for the benefit of a protected private party interest. These property from thin air created by rule of law, basically work to by extracting from the masses a tax ( i call it monopoly tax) and giving the proceeds to the monopoly baron. So I cannot agree that the state protects the citizen.. When protection is needed the state calls on the masses, never the Oligarchs, to defend the threatened turf.

    When a war comes the masses are called to protect the lords, and when invasion of the turf of another takes place, its never the his lordships on the front lines. I think the case for no state at all is strong, very strong.

  38. @jilles dykstra

    Well, it worked here since the middle of the 16th century.

    For whom did it “work?” And how do you know what was responsible for it “working?” I suspect you may be both an employer of, and victim of the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy in this case.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  39. onebornfree says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    “Pity, quite curious, especially from a country where privatisation just made things worse.”

    Unfortunately the term “privatization” is a [deliberate?] misnomer, and has little or nothing to do with free markets and capitalism.

    “Privatization”, as used today, means little more than fascism, that is, it is little more than a minor variation on socialism, or a thinly veiled alternative, if you will.

    In practice”privatization” means the government granting exclusive rights and privileges to certain favored companies and/or individuals, nothing more. Those individuals and companies are then protected [by the government] from free market competitors who want to appeal only to [free] consumer choice, not bureaucrats and their edicts.

    Bottom line: these days “privatization” = fascism = socialism, which is exactly why “privatization” has “just made things worse”, as you correctly observe.

    Regards, onebornfree

    p.s. if you want a brief explanation as to exactly why government “solutions” must always fail, see my the quotes in first post to this thread.

  40. wayfarer says:
    @Durruti

    Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant
    sourc: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4367/4367-pdf/4367-pdf.pdf

    Had family, American expatriates, who lived and worked in Mexico (e.g. Zacatecas), building railroads and developing gold/silver mines. A story was that during the revolution, expatriates would hang the American flag. As the Villistas raided towns, shooting up Federales and even engaging the U.S. Army along our border, they’d typically leave American expatriates alone.

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa

  41. @jilles dykstra

    “Dissolve Parliament?” Not sure what it would entail, but it sounds like that would be a most excellent idea for the crumbling USA. No more Pelosi or Schumer to scuttle every Trump proposal. Sixty votes out of 100 are needed to pass any legislation in the US Senate. With our two monopoly parties at loggerheads, that’s just a recipe for endless gridlock. Too bad that our Founding Fathers failed to include that Executive option when writing the Constitution, which now more resembles a Suicide Pact.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  42. Agent76 says:

    Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous

    A former libertarian abandons his dream of a voluntary world and explains the potential worse case scenario after the overnight disappearance of government. The ending will *SHOCK* you! *DISCLAIMER*: Most libertarians do support such a drastic change, and many might say something like: “liberty is a philosophical evolution, and not an overnight thing.”

    • Agree: follyofwar
    • Replies: @twocalves
  43. Agent76 says:
    @wayfarer

    You should read and verify all information contained in this accurate article as I have done and know the truth.

    September 07, 2016 September 11, 2001: The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of the Century “What Really Happened”?

    New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to be trucked away and shipped to China – an order that constitutes disturbing a crime scene – which is a federal crime.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-15th-anniversary-of-the-crime-and-cover-up-of-the-century/5544414

  44. @follyofwar

    Both depend on the Goodness of Man , which centuries of endless war demonstrates is in very short supply.

    True, but all statist solutions also depend on the goodness of man, especially those in positions of power and that is something else that’s historically been in very short supply. Those who think they have the answers are pretty funny. It’s apparent to me that even G-d himself comes up short in that department. Did he really think that writing 10 basic rules in stone and presenting them to some schmuck would solve anything?

  45. Che Guava says:
    @Durruti

    What Anarchist Collective? You are also ranting about the assassination of Kennedy, and wailing abt. it being the end of U.S.A. constitutional govt.

    Not a U.S.A. person, but it is difficult to not concluding that you are a fantasist.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  46. @follyofwar

    “Dissolve Parliament?” Not sure what it would entail,

    Send them home, elections, new parliament.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  47. @onebornfree

    In practice”privatization” means the government granting exclusive rights and privileges to certain favored companies and/or individuals, nothing more.

    Not here

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  48. @jacques sheete

    Books exists about how the guilds functioned.
    But of course, without having read them you know all about guilds

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  49. @jacques sheete

    Never heard of the man.
    Does or did he know anything about guilds ?
    I do.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  50. @Durruti

    2. The northern half of Mexico was seized (by force and violence & much imperialism), by the United States Government. In truth, Mexicans are traveling back and forth in their own country.

    Excellent points about walls. May I offer a couple of other points?

    I wonder how many ‘Merkins are aware that the Texas Republic was formed by people who were legal immigrants invited by Mexico to enter and populate its province of Tejas who then declared their independence, and they subsequently joined the US. My point is that those who wail about illegal immigrants probably don’t realize that legal ones can be problematic as well. In any case, the immigration issue and talk about walls, etc., have become little more than political football and distraction since it’ll happen anyway because that’s what the big money crowd wants.

    As for the Rio Grande being a barrier, from what I’ve seen it’s but a trickle of its former self and often nothing more than a dry ditch in many places.

  51. trav777 says:
    @Giuseppe

    Freedom?

    JFC…ordinary people are incapable of dealing with freedom.

    Libertardians are myopic spergs who suffer from dunning-kruger. Without boundaries, ordinary people devolve.. .somalia is an anarchist state with no government. A lot of failed states are. You wanna be there? LIBERTY.

    EVERYONE IS NOT THE SAME. They are NOT YOU.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  52. @onebornfree

    It’s certainly refreshing to have you here!

    Excellent points in all your comments.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  53. @Durruti

    “The northern half of Mexico was seized (by force and violence & much imperialism), by the United States Government. In truth, Mexicans are traveling back and forth in their own country.”

    Inaccurate in every way.

    Mexico started a war over retaking Texas. The reasons that Mexico provoked said war is very clear.

    a. they invited US citizens to occupy the Mexican held territory as place holders for Mexico, especially to keep the native populations in check and at bay. The immigrants were to abide the immigration laws of Mexico including bit not limited:

    learning Spanish as the official language
    abiding by the laws of Mexico in full, including (no slaves)
    loyalty to mexico

    b. The immigrants eager for a new life or to recreate a life they had fled agreed to those demands but did not bother obeying them – neither did the Mexicans in the region. Failure to provide substantial enforcement measures led to growing independence from Mexico and eventually a press for separation —

    c. Conflict between the Mexican government and Texas (primarily) led to war. Over confidence by Mexico caused them to take a nap in what was a watery culdesac and while napping, the immigrants – legal and illegal (that’s another tale) attacked the Mexican military’s primary force headed by General Santa Anna – while in siesta (napping) ans routed them — forcing the head of the Mexican State Gen Santa Anna to sign over freedom to the Texans. Texas became a republic that eventually joined the US. Skirmishes along the Texas Republic was one thing, But skirmishes along the border of the US meant war.

    d. The US responded to the old feud, that was now an attack on the US an invite the Texans wholly supported — thus ending any discussion about the states being independent republics. The US won the war. And for whatever reason, paid 15 million dollars for the land they had won in conflict. Said territory was the property of the US.

    Several key lessons:

    1. Don’t invite immigrants unless you intend to ensure there assimilation into your country entirely according to your laws and customs.

    2. If Mexicans had wanted the region they should have come as encouraged – repeatedly to come and toil the land — occupy the space. They did not hence the invitation for outsiders – immigrants, they came in numbers legal and largely illegal, without much challenge by the Mexican government such as to lay challenge to Mexico.

    3. Mexican management of immigrants is an abject lesson in what not to do regarding immigration —

    Current US policy is to ignore that lesson to her loss, one way or another.

    No. Mexicans are not returning home. They are coming to a land they gave away by careless administration, lack of will, “laziness”, risk averse . . . behaviors. And our now seeking to recoup on what other have built with sweat, blood, honesty and treachery, but less by sacrifice and will.

    The same behaviors exhibited in Mexican psyche in the 1800’s regarding ownership is the same being exhibited today — an unwillingness to make the land they have of value to them by not challenging the system in which they live. Instead of acting with courage to change their own space to the better, they seek to undermine that of others. Thereby ending any discussion that Mexicans embody some higher moral standard worth inviting into the US.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  54. Take anything an anarchist says with 2 lbs of salt. Twice as much as is needed for libertarians contentions.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  55. onebornfree says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    “Not here”

    Which is where?

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  56. Ilana wants the Wall, but does Mr. Trump? Ann Coulter, a fantastic writer and talking head, has been blasting Trump remorselessly over his playing politics with the Wall. Coulter, who is also something of a constitutional lawyer in her own right, claims that potus has had the authority all along to build the wall under his executive powers to defend National Security. All he need do is take a few billion from our bloated, wasteful military budget.

    Either Coulter is wrong to think Trump has such powers, he is getting bad legal advice from his legal team, or Trump didn’t really want to build the Wall in the first place. In any case, if the Wall is not under construction with the 2020 endless presidential campaign soon to be invading our living rooms, Coulter says that Trump will go down to an historic defeat as his base stays home. Enter president Kamala Harris.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  57. onebornfree says: • Website
    @jacques sheete

    “It’s certainly refreshing to have you here! Excellent points in all your comments.”

    Thanks. I like your moniker- very subtle 🙂 .

    regards, onebornfree.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  58. ” a preeminent paleolibertarian thinker”

    So that’s the new word for Zionist shill.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  59. onebornfree says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    “Take anything an anarchist says with 2 lbs of salt. Twice as much as is needed for libertarians contentions.”

    Take anything a statist says with 5 tons of horse$hit – but no, wait a minute it’s all pure horse$hit to begin with, so there’s really no need to add any more! 🙂

    regards, onebornfree

  60. Bluntly put, the principles of American freedoms were not developed by progressive, libertine ladies, marching in pussy dunce caps; by the suffragettes or the LGBTQ community and their program.

  61. Simply attitude that they are (children, savages, retarded, uncultured, prey to primitive gods etc.) and so they do not know what is good for them, and so we have to teach them by force if necessary, is the highest crime humanity has committed. And is beyond comprehension to me that it is still happening in these days.

  62. @anon

    So I cannot agree that the state protects the citizen.. When protection is needed the state calls on the masses, never the Oligarchs, to defend the threatened turf.

    I understand the first sentence, alas just an opinion.
    As to protection in W European countries, workers were protected, but around 1970 the weird idea came that commercial organisations do anything better.
    Since then globalisation, political power reduced to next of nothing, workers at the mercy of employers.

  63. @jilles dykstra

    I’ve long thought that the Euro multi-party parliamentarian form of governance is vastly superior to the dysfunctional sclerotic monopoly party monster we’re apparently stuck with forever in the States. You guys might even successfully overthrow the EU and go back to the status quo ante. Small homogenous well-educated countries are the ideal. All-powerful multi-national Empires like the USA just suck.

    • Agree: mark green
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  64. @follyofwar

    The President of the US as Commander and/in Chief of the Armed Forces could without question order the ACOE to design, plan and construct a wall using any number of the 600 billion dollar budget to ensure the nation’s borders are secure.

    While I do not share the characterizations of the president that Miss Coulter ascribes is very sharp detail, her position regarding immigration is accurate, in my view.

    I support the wall and more . . . including taking on sanctuary cities, governors, Silicon Valley, Defense contractors and Hollywood/New York entertainers/corporations, Black or White Caucuses, libertarians, Wall Street, and chamber of commerce.

    And of course education . . .

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  65. @jilles dykstra

    But of course, without having read them you know all about guilds

    Again, I offered a quote about them.

    Your comments about my personal knowledge are irrelevant, off topic, classic straw man arguments and no doubt highly boring to the rest of the UR community. Get the hint?

  66. @jilles dykstra

    Never heard of the man.

    Apparently not, but you can rectify that easily, so please do us all a favor and get up to speed. Also please note that any further content-less comments by you on this subject shall be ignored. But feel free to troll away at your pleasure.

  67. @trav777

    somalia is an anarchist state with no government. A lot of failed states are.

    Oh, cut it out. What do you know about Somalia?

    All state are failed in one way or another , so what’s so great about them anyway?

    From comment # 11, above…

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”,”improved”, nor “limited” in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

    He used the word, “Government” but the concept applies to the majority of “failed states” that you’re referring to as well, I think. In fact, from many points of view and sooner rather than later, the term, “failed state” is redundant if the histories of them is any guide.

  68. @onebornfree

    I like your moniker- very subtle

    Yeah, tha’s me; one subtle character. Glad you noticed! 😉

  69. @Bill Jones

    ” a preeminent paleolibertarian thinker”

    So that’s the new word for Zionist shill.

    ROFL. One of the best comments ever!

  70. @onebornfree

    Most people don’t even have a hint of a clue of what an anarchist is; most still react viscerally against the old Commie propaganda vilifying them. They’re further clueless that there are differences between anarchists and Anarchists, but brainwashing tends to do that to people as I’m confident you know well.

  71. Agent76 says:

    The Prussian Connection to American Schooling by John Taylor

    Where did the American school system come from? And what are its true purposes?

    This is an excerpt from John Taylor Gatto’s book, The Underground History of American Education Chapter Seven: The Prussian Connection, Section 90: “The Prussian Reform Movement” and Section 91: “Travels’ Reports”

  72. Tulip says:

    It means that libertarians don’t initiate aggression against non-aggressors, not even if it’s “for their own good,”

    If non-aggressors have the potential to become aggressors, then it would be rational to initiate aggression against potential aggressors before they become actual aggressors, else they might become too powerful by the time they become actual aggressors. [German rearmament started long before Nazi Germany became a geopolitical aggressor, but anyone with some sense should have been able to foresee where it would end up.] Since the most dangerous potential aggressors out there are states, it is necessary to organize a state to defend against other states.

    Speaking of which, it would be the job of the state to insure that if and when it became necessary to initiate aggression, the state would be in a position to best wage war, which entails a state interest in citizens, cultural and economic affairs in order to prepare for war. This presumably would be for the citizens “own good” because if not, they would be vassals of a foreign occupying state.

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all good things, but they have a clear and definite limit when they impede national security and preparation for war. After all, survival is the precondition to the good life.

    Libertarianism always seemed foolish to me in as much as it presupposes the question of geopolitical survival of the “libertarian community”. Yet if a libertarian order couldn’t survive or fend off internal and external threats, it would quickly become a different kind of social order.

  73. @onebornfree

    ” wait a minute it’s all pure horse$hit to begin with . . .”

    I appreciate your sentiment. And while I am no stranger to colorful language, i would prefer to avoid such references when responding to me. I mean no offense, and this is not an attempt to stifle you. And I feel rather silly, but prefer to keep the rhetoric as free of like references as possible — again no offense intended.

    On the content regarding the value. My outlook despite my critiques is more positive, it dos matter. This country has a long way to go before e give up the ghost, as it were. But no small of that has to do with how we manage our state. And I think sovereignty is vitally important.

    I have no idea if Miss Coulter, others or the current president are just having rhetorical political maneuvers for elections or whether they think the US has yet a place and to that end protecting who we are based on the ethos of the constitution.

    And to that end the libertarian stands as an enemy. For their very philosophy would, if sincere, require ending the Constitution as a framework.

  74. @follyofwar

    I wish it was that simple.
    The EU member states in reality now all have a two party system, pro EU and anti EU.
    Quite many careers and institutions are planned and have been planned on in the end the EU as some kind of USA clone, without the present nation states.
    They can remain for for example collecting taxes.

    The problem is that the common people less and less want this super state, they never wanted it, see the 2005 referenda.
    The present Yellow Vest insurrections in my opinion are anti EU; Macron is just an EU errand boy.
    Democratically it seems next to impossible to liberate us from the EU, and get our countries back, as the British are trying.
    The EU clique and institutions do anything to bring Britain into a situation that will prevent that any country again wants to leave.

    Where all this will lead to, I do not know.
    More and more EU member states are becoming ungovernable, Sweden, France, Belgium, internal EU problems are becoming more severe, especially about immigration.

  75. @anon

    I do approve (very much) but only first two sections.
    Rest is hallucinations.
    Conqueror did declare ownership (First it was a land.) and than he divided part of the land to those who helped him to conquer the land. That was the principle of creation of states.

  76. Tulip says:

    I think liberty took a wrong turn when it shifted from a people’s right to self-determination (“Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker” in the German) to an excessive concern with individual rights in the abstract.

    There is no contradiction between the just exercise of state power to effectuate the first, but it seems that any just exercise of state power turns out to conflict with the second.

    All the more confused, because there is no sense in talking about individual rights in the absence of freedom of association, and freedom of association is dead. If you need permission from the government to associate with people, then what individual rights do you actually have? And Gez, in Europe, you can’t even blaspheme Muhammad without the threat of jail.

    “Individual rights” is mostly down to the right to sodomy, the right to kill your fetus, and the right to methadone + an EBT card.

  77. People who call themselves Libertarian are often okay with open borders and tend to view monopolies as success stories. Some are more Randroid than Jeffersonian and therefore proponents of Social Darwinism.

    ….a paleolibertarian grasps that ordered liberty has a civilizational dimension….

    This nod to culture and tradition makes the ideology more humane. But it’s still ideology. A castle in the air. Ideologies can be useful frameworks for thinking. But an ideologue sees only black and white and is subject to make stupid policy decisions.

    A good place to start is with the Anarchists. Of course a stateless people would soon be devoured by the nearest nation state possessing a treasury and an army. Consider the plains Indians. I don’t think it is possible to create an ideal state with flawed humans. A free market for example, will not remain free without a policeman. This is human nature. But we have to keep trying and statelessness is a good point to begin conceptualizing the ideal State.

    My two cents is merely this. If individuals are to be sovereign or even (sort of) free we have a LOT of decentralization to do. In the West our ruling class is determined to create an eternal, universal Feudalism. The Libertarian’s worst nightmare. The sovereignty of the nation state is the last and final obstacle to the Globalist (corporatist) dream. So I am, like Donald Trump, a Nationalist.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  78. onebornfree says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    “I have no idea if Miss Coulter, others or the current president are just having rhetorical political maneuvers for elections or whether they think the US has yet a place and to that end protecting who we are based on the ethos of the constitution.”

    Ms Coulter is no “libertarian”, if that’s what you are imagining here. She’ a “dyed in the wool” big-government statist -just like Trump, the “alt-right” and yourself, in fact

    “And to that end the libertarian stands as an enemy. For their very philosophy would, if sincere, require ending the Constitution as a framework.”

    I’m curious. That statement is based on what “proof”? What “libertarian” has called for abandoning the US constitution, in your opinion ?

    Regards, onebornfree

  79. mcohen says:

    Ilana wrote

    “biblical capacity for evil”

    There was blind johhny playing his concertina
    on edge of the wall,
    The sound a lonely call.
    From a soldier just home from a war,
    He had once saw.
    Cap at his feet a few coins inside,
    Nearby a baby cried.
    A three fingered thief dog in hand,
    Stood nearby feet in the sand.
    When along came a ship
    Sailing to the promised land
    You knew then that freedom
    Was sold by the kingdom
    In ounces and inches of chain
    Just enough to keep you sane.

    Mcohen 2018

  80. onebornfree says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    “Netherlands”

    So…. in your neck of the woods, companies and individuals are not required to “get permission” from the state plus local government just to stay open for business, and are not given special privileges which limit or outlaw free competition against their “exclusive” goods and services? Give me a break! How old are you, 15?

    Regards, onebornfree

  81. onebornfree says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    “I support the wall and more . . . including taking on sanctuary cities, governors, Silicon Valley, Defense contractors and Hollywood/New York entertainers/corporations, Black or White Caucuses, libertarians, Wall Street, and chamber of commerce. And of course education . . .”

    You can support the wall till hell freezes over, but it won’t make any difference, even if it gets built.

    The illegal immigration problem was created by government [ mostly via free housing, health care,welfare etc. for illegals], and building a wall will not prevent these people from finding ways around any new barrier before them to get to the free stuff.

    Most likely, any new wall will increase illegal immigration, if the governments consistent long term record vis a vis its so-called “solutions” to other problems to date is anything to go by

    This just in: Government [i.e . organized crime] “solutions” never work. All any rational person need to do is to look at the historical results of government “solutions” to date in any area you choose.

    For example:

    The war on [some] drugs.
    Public “education”
    The “war on terror”

    And you want more government “solutions” despite its massive failures in these areas, and in many more besides?

    The World’s Biggest, Most Dangerous Scam Is….The “Government Solutions Work” Scam:
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-worlds-biggest-most-dangerous-scam.html

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  82. Durruti says:
    @Che Guava

    I believe the original Che Guevara was also considered to be a “fantasist.” I do not believe he ever was “ranting.”

    For me: A single dream is worth a thousand realities.

    The advocacy of the Restoration of Our American Republic, which was assassinated by the Oligarchs, in a hail of bullets on November 22, 1963, might be called a fantasy, or a dream, or an advocacy.

    You will not find mention of the Anarchist Collective on the front pages of the New York Times. My nom de Guerre is a clue to my politics.

    Had a Belgian Father, and went to school in Mexico. Graduate of Lehigh U, and have a Published History Book. A History of the Puerto Rican Community in Bethlehem, PA:1944-1993.

    https://openlibrary.org/books/OL11738567M/A_history_of_the_Puerto_Rican_Community_in_Bethlehem_Pa._1944-_1993

    I have had Our Flier on this website on several occasions. We have distributed it in the thousands.

    I will include it verbatim (usually placed under MORE).

    For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

    [MORE]

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal… governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles…”

    The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

    We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

    The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed our Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and overthrew his government, in a classic Coup d‘état. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

    A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam, conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

    In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

    In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

    In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America’s middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The North American Free Trade Act, NAFTA, supported by both political gangs, pays American corporations to close their production facilities at home, and open them abroad. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation’s Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

    The impoverishment of America’s middle class has undermined the nation’s financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $20trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation’s population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of Bank depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

    The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

    The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Trump/Pence, as with previous administrations such as Obama/Biden, Clinton/Gore, or Bush/Cheney, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured.
    The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act, enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

    The nation’s media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

    The United States is No longer Sovereign

    The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, Congress, and the Judiciary, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts, to name only a few of the best known.

    The Electoral Circuses will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Obama, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

    For Love of Country

    The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its financial controllers. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

    As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

    “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’:”

    “Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it’s course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation.”

    Our Citizens must restore the political centrality of our constitution, and establish a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want “which…means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants…” and freedom from fear “which…means a world-wide reduction of armaments…”

    Restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

    For the Democratic Republic!

    Sons and Daughters of Liberty

  83. MEFOBILLS says:
    @animalogic

    The fact is that BOTH public & private actors are threats against individual freedom & autonomy

    Animalogic, I don’t see how anybody could disagree with your statement, yet they do. The evidence abounds today and throughout history, that man is a rent seeker, and will attempt to self aggrandize to himself or his in-group. Our favorite (((friends))) are examples of this dictum.

    I call libertarians as liber-tards, because of their one-eyed viewpoint. Some call them LoL bertarians.

    Markets aren’t “free” they are man made creations. Money’s true nature is law, not commodity. Reality doesn’t factor too much into paleo-libertarian or left-libertarian ideology. LET’S IMMIGRATE the world, you know … just because of muh ideology. Never mind that free movement of labor lowers labor vale, and thus lowers economic freedom. It also de-racinates populations from their history, and what is the “price” for social instability? What is the future price for low IQ enclaves in the form of social friction and welfare transfers? You cannot fix stupid, it is genetic. Lol bertarians cannot answer these questions.

    With regards to land ownership, all economic activity derives from land and its minerals, which are formed into prices. Aristotle described the rise of Oligarchy which seeks to monopolize the land. Today, Oligarchy is primarily through the “private” finance system of corporate STOCK OWNED banking (credit as money at usury). Yes, Lol bertarians, it is private corporate finance that maneuvered government into backing up its credit with law.

    Hungary had a constitutional kingdom that lasted nearly 1000 years. It didn’t fall due to internal contradictions like Plutocracy. To those of you who have “viewpoints” that are at variance with facts and history, then it is YOU who have to adjust. If past or present circumstances give lie to your ideology, then you need to eject that ideology.

  84. @EliteCommInc.

    And to that end the libertarian stands as an enemy. For their very philosophy would, if sincere, require ending the Constitution as a framework.

    And what would be wrong with that?

    Sorry for posting this yet again, but people ought to consider this.:

    The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d’état.

    It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)

    Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle

    mises.org/daily/4254

    Lysander Spooner expressed similar sentiments in his classic, The Constitution of No Authority.

    Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject [of imposing the Constitution], or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner.

    -Lysander Spooner, No Treason: No. VI, The Constitution of No Authority, p1. (1870)
    http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf

    Here’s one reason such creations are frauds.:

    When we have made our constitution purely democratic, thinks to himself the earnest reformer, we shall have brought government into harmony with absolute justice. Such a faith, though perhaps needful for the age, is a very erroneous one. By no process can coercion be made equitable.

    – Herbert Spencer, Social Statics [1851]. chap 20, The Right to Ignore the State, p 210
    http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spencer-social-statics-1851

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  85. @WorkingClass

    Of course a stateless people would soon be devoured by the nearest nation state possessing a treasury and an army.

    And people with small states have sometimes been devoured by more powerful nation states, and even large, powerful states have been crushed by other ones, so having a state is no guarantee of security either.

    A free market for example, will not remain free without a policeman.

    I don’t know if a free market ever existed on any significant scale, even with policemen. In fact, police apparently exist to tip the scales against small participants in the free market. It goes something like this.:

    In the “City of God,” St. Augustine ( around the 5th century AD),tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. The Emperor angrily demanded of him, “How dare you molest the seas?” To which the pirate replied, “How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor.” St. Augustine thought the pirate’s answer was “elegant and excellent.”

    http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/200.html

    The essentially criminal nature of the state has been noted by Murray Rothbard who called the state, “a bandit gang writ large,”

    – Dan Sanchez, What is the State?, http://www.dansanchez.me/feed/what-is-the-state

    Be it or be it not true that Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression and by aggression. In small undeveloped societies where for ages complete peace has continued, there exists nothing like what we call Government: no coercive agency, but mere honorary headship, if any headship at all. In these exceptional communities, unaggressive and from special causes unaggressed upon, there is so little deviation from the virtues of truthfulness, honesty, justice, and generosity, that nothing beyond an occasional expression of public opinion by informally-assembled elders is needful.1⚓✪

    -Herbert Spencer, The Man versus the State, with Six Essays on Government, Society and Freedom (LF ed.) [1884]

    https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/330#lf0020_footnote_nt_020_ref

    I like libertarians even though most have failed to think their positions through and that makes them somewhat half baked anarchists!

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  86. @follyofwar

    The USA ceased to be a nation state with the passage of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965.

    Well, it wasn’t really a single nation for much of the time before that. Two at the founding (not counting slaves and the indigenous peoples), and it took a bloody war to keep them together in one country. More were added with the annexation of the Southwest and the immigrant waves of the late 19th century. The closest we came to being a single nation with one dominant national culture was when everyone watched the same TV shows and before the Hart-Celler immigrants started pouring in; roughly post-WW2 to 1965.

    Left-libertarians, with their infantile belief in open borders, are a huge part of the problem in the USA today.

    Nonsense. There aren’t enough libertarians of any stripe to be a huge part of anything. I wish it were otherwise, being one myself.

  87. RJJCDA says:

    Mankind’s experience with law appears, at least to me, to be a confrontation with a mystical entity embodied in the state. Without this quality, scoff law is endemic as normal people go about their lives judging that the law only is instituted and utilized by powerful other people. But if deployed by a mystical entity, the “state,” a spontaneous adherence by most occurs.

  88. “sniffing our racism is an absolute no-no for libertarians”

    sez Issacsohn-Mercer.

    that’s odd. I have a back-when e-mail from Ilana on file in which she says,

    “(Haxo), don’t be racist…”

    with reference to some race-realist comments re Jews I put up on her site.

    shortly thereafter she shut down all comments to her site.

    she also de-linked VoxDay when he had his epiphany re Jews.

    the Jewess Issacsohn Mercer is OK with “racism”….

    except when it’s anti-Jew. Then

    she bites and scratches.

  89. @jacques sheete

    Thank you for that bit from Spencer. And the link. I am keen to know more about “small undeveloped societies where for ages complete peace has continued”.

  90. niceland says:
    @Giuseppe

    I have yet to see any indication that “free markets” somehow prevent creation of vast concentration of wealth and power – up to the point of monopoly. I think history shows the opposite. And while our fractional reserve banks and central banks, and our ideas about money for that matter are hardly the peak of human creations – they can’t be blamed for all of this. And neither can bloated governments or their influence onto the “free markets”. Some of it yes, but the basic rules of the game; capital and “time value of money” will guarantee this outcome.

    So there: Even if we separate state and the markets we still have concentration of wealth and power. In some sense we can even use medieval Iceland’s somewhat anarchic society as thought experiment for the ideal “free market” society. Granted crude comparison perhaps but they still had rules to play by. It’s was plutocracy; several wealthy families fighting against each other over land and recourses and the average soul nothing more then a piece on the chessboard. The story of this society is really the miserable and horrific existence of the “masses” in our harsh island with no escape. But yes, not the best example for libertarian thought experiments.

    I think the ideal “libertarian” society with minimum state and “free markets” will become plutocracy right from the start and only get worse after that. Not just that, it will morph into something else rather quickly when the wealthy and powerful will take over control of the minimum state and use it for their own advantages and to further their collective interests. Even if the ideal libertarian thought experiment works, this will be it’s inevitable fate. More plutocracy. Perhaps this will always be the case – no matter what starting point we choose. 🙂

  91. niceland says:

    I used this signature for many years on local forums.

    AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
    QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

    “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
    https://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html

    This is the problem in an nutshell – how can you keep whatever society you create form being overtaken by the wealthy and powerful.

    Even the strongest democracies are vulnerable. I have been looking at Switzerland for many years. Their system is quite unique and it seems to me it’s as “good as it gets”. It’s principle: Power must be divided and distributed. The idea “Capitalism is great servant but terrible boss” is also in place.

  92. renfro says:
    @anon

    I think the case for no state at all is strong, very strong.

    I think you are crazy.

    If you think in states and even democracies you have small chances at good and justice for all because of might makes right and he who has the gold rules—-wait till you get a load of a borderless world. You will be back in the stone ages having to make 101 separate trips to kiss ass and beg for bread and mercy from all the globalist elites floating around.

  93. @jacques sheete

    The libertarian view has no mechanisms by which to enforce fairness. That is why it is a fine theory but utterly useless in process. . Hit you with my car. As per the libertarian codex — you and i work out the issues of fair compensation. That is solely a matter between the two of us.

    I offer to pay for your medical expenses. No time for loss of work. Nothing beyond repairing your broken led —

    pain and suffering ‘fo ged aboud’ it.

    We are in a movie theater and I am expressing myself to high heaven. It really annoys you. And i simply don’t care because my standard of liberty is to express myself to high heaven as nature bestowed upon me. You politely ask me to hush —

    “Take a hike pal, you are you dictatorial anti freedom, facist social norms — . . ., etc.”

    ————————————————

    Sure there are some issues with the document — and certainly our history reflects serious contradictions when it comes to application – no doubt. But libertarians have no answers to the practical hurdles — save for the good will and mutual benevolent intentions one to the other. Suppose my benevolence only extends to the ability of exerting my “free will”. And I have the power to exert said will far beyond your own.

    Libertarian oppose force, but that is utterly false, because libertarians are the first in line to claim property owned by others — because said others are not using said property as efficiently as they think.

    I am going to exercise my experience here, because there is no libertarian standard that is generally applicable, the tendency is to advance theory to very practical and even mundane issues.

    ___________________________

    Few people are generally always the participants — in open processes, and by libertarian standard I would think that you support that. They don’t have to join in.

    But it would be interesting for libertarians create a system in which most people, the majority of people, half the people engaged and the response if only ten showed as is there choice. Sure, there are elitists — that form most of the polity we have. However, should one choose to invest the time and effort they could get a hold of said information. And I know what’s coming:

    all of the societies, groups, secret and open who engage in clandestine cliques to undermine the value of others —-

    save libertarians have no practical solution’s

    Case in point, asking what would wrong with getting rid of the constitution should by definition press one to offer alternative not merely a critique.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  94. Take comment #90:

    “In small undeveloped societies where for ages complete peace has continued, there exists nothing like what we call Government: no coercive agency, but mere honorary headship, if any headship at all. In these exceptional communities, unaggressive and from special causes unaggressed upon, there is so little deviation from the virtues of truthfulness, honesty, justice, and generosity, that nothing beyond an occasional expression of public opinion by informally-assembled elders is needful.”

    Pray tell and example would be nice.

    In the same breath as no coercive agency, he points to the society where the elders — whoa wait a minute — elders, ohh those wise old men who tell every body else what’s what and how much of what’s what is expected of them:

    marriage
    status
    duty
    position

    The description is of a high context society. Apparently unaware that high context societies, demand subjugation of the individual will — personal liberty — to the greater good of the community who are of course instructed, led by the elders. Libertarians advancing a make believe example which upon examination defeats the notion of libertarian mystique in theory and in practice.

    The libertarian utopia — legalizing drugs to dull the pain of real life.

  95. Durruti says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Yipes:

    You through ignorance, or worse, fail to mention The Mexican Revolution of 1909-1919. The revolution was drowned in blood – by the intervention of the US. Army occupied Vera Cruz, and blockaded the revolutionaries, led by Emiliano Zapata, after they had liberated the capital -Mexico DF, from the American puppets.

    Diaz Soto y Gama, and other Anarchists were key in writing up Zapata’s Plan De Ayala (a beautiful reform program).

    Zapata was able to unify with Revolutionists in the North, principally Pancho Villa.

    Yes, the Hollywood Movie Viva Zapata! – Zapata performed by Marlon Brando, displays just enough phony sympathy, to parlay a completely false rendering of the Mexican revolution. The movie is RACIST, and depicts Zapata & Villa as somewhat Cute idiots (who had no idea what a typewriter, or electricity was).

    While at school in Mexico, I had Opportunity to speak to a few Ancianos who had fought with Zapata.

    American agents Assassinated Villa, and Zapata, and many other less known revolutionists. This is not the first revolution that America’s controlling Oligarchs Drowned in Blood – nor will it be the last.

    Mexicans were not allowed to complete their Revolution and transform their society. Documents from the time, display that they had an understanding of just what they had to do to move forward. They knew, but there was a roadblock.

    As Mexicans say to this day!

    Estamos cerca a los Estados Unidos, y lejos de Dios.

    Puerto Rico displays a similar hidden history of CIA assassination of its Pro independence Patriots. Puerto Rico’s finest leader, Pedro Albizu Campos was imprisoned for 20 years, and brutally tortured.

    Albizu Campos served honorably in the US Army – 2nd Lieutenant, Grad of Harvard (with Honors) President of its Eamon de Valera Society, and a brilliant Attorney. The day he was arrested in Puerto Rico, he resisted dozens of police, with a gun, and was only captured after being rendered unconscious.

    I could go on-and-on, country after country. But the opiates are wearing off.

    Que Dios te bendiga!

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  96. @onebornfree

    Well there ya go,

    reasonable rational people would respect boundaries. And they would do so whether there was free anything on the other side.

    So in accordance with individual responsibility — your example indicates that you simply are unwilling to hold people who violate immigration laws accountable. And I certainly understand why. Accountability makes one accountable and libertarians are not interested in such strings of personal responsibility.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  97. @Durruti

    I didn’t forget the revolution. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything to the matter of why mexico gave up territory.

    But I can certainly understand why you are whining about it.

    I am happy to let Puerto Rico go their own way. As I suspect most citizens would.
    The revolution as I understand was successful, blaming the US for Mexican success is a rather strange. The role of the US in Vera Cruz was to protect US mining investments. That remains Mexican territory and has nothing to do with our discussions on the acquisition of territory.

    It’s probably a good idea not to assault US communities. It might invite a response, say something like Pershing’s expedition. And that event did not prevent the revolution. No the feudal wealthy elite continued to engage in violence among themselves for power and the people apparently prefer the feudal system in which they are kept on the outside of Mexico’s vast wealth.

    https://www.britannica.com/event/Mexican-Revolution

    Nothing and less than nothing has any bearing on the issues that were previously on the table.

  98. onebornfree says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    EliteCommInc. says:“…..reasonable rational people would respect boundaries. And they would do so whether there was free anything on the other side. ….”

    I agree.

    “All” I have tried to point out in this thread to yourself and others is that a government built, maintained, and policed wall will not work, because government solutions never work, as clearly seen throughout history. I even gave specific examples of it not working.

    The individual can either ignore the vast amount of “in your face ” evidence that supports the simple “in your face” observation that government solutions never work, or, carry on beating their head against the brick wall of reality and vote for or promote the latest hysterically fantasized government “solutions” to problems it can never solve. [ and which, truth be told, it has no interest in solving in the first place 🙂 ]

    It’s their choice. Obviously, you choose to continue beat your head against that “brick wall of reality” and ignore all of the vast amounts of evidence demonstrating that government solutions never work.

    ‘Fine by me – I’ve always enjoyed good, free entertainment 🙂

    “…………….Once we realize that government doesn’t work, we will stop asking what government should do, and notice instead that government can’t do the things we want:

    We may want government regulation to protect us from fraud, but the truth is that government doesn’t protect us from fraud.

    The savings and loan crisis, every class-action law suit, and every financial scandal are testaments to the government’s inability to shield us from fraud or incompetence.

    We may think crime control is a proper function of government, but the truth is that government doesn’t control crime. Our cities are war zones. At most, the government promises only to look for the person who robs, rapes, or murders you.

    We may like to think that government sets the rules of the marketplace and acts as the referee, but in reality the government’s rules are arbitrary, ambiguous, and constantly changing. And the “referee” always seems to side with the team with the greatest political influence.

    Once we realize that government doesn’t work, we will stop dreaming that this or that social problem can be solved by passing a law — or by creating anew government program — or by electing someone who will make Washington more efficient or cost-conscious.

    Once we realize that government doesn’t work, we’ll know that the only way to improve government is by reducing its size — by doing away with laws, by getting rid of programs, by making government spend and tax less, by reducing government as far as we can.

    And once we realize that government doesn’t work, we will know which side of any political issue to cheer for: If the proposal would increase the size, the reach, or the importance of government, it would be a mistake to support it — no matter how honorable its stated purpose. If the proposal would reduce the size, the reach, or the importance of government, it would be an improvement — no matter what its flaws — because it can’t be worse than what it will replace……..”

    From: The World’s Biggest, Most Dangerous Scam Is….The “Government Solutions Work” Scam:
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-worlds-biggest-most-dangerous-scam.html

    See also:”You,Trump,Sanders Etc., Vs “Dictator Syndrome””:
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2015/08/do-you-suffer-from-dictator-syndrome.html

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  99. @onebornfree

    Weird, already shortly after the Dutch Republic had been established foreign visitors visisting this miracle concluded that Dutch butter was of such exceptional quality through government market regulations and oversight.
    What we see is how commercialisation does not work., in public transport, in medical care, in gas distribution, for example

  100. onebornfree says: • Website

    Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion:

    Regards, onebornfree

  101. Sean says:

    First, let’s define libertarianism. libertarianism is concerned with the ethics of the use of force. Nothing more. This, and this alone, is the ambit of libertarian law.

    The ethical use of force by the state. The ethics of individual self defence preexists all theory.”If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly”.

    As a creedal paleolibertarian, I see the road to freedom, primarily, in beating back The State, so that individuals can regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will.

    Foreign policy—specifically, no meddling in the affairs of other countries!—is the be all and end all of both paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism. Don’t let any of the radio or TV personalities fool you. If he or she liked, justified or rationalized Bush’s Middle-Eastern wars or Trump’s dabbling in Niger—he or she is no paleolibertarian. (Tucker Carlson is a fabulous paleoconservative.)

    While it is true that the US state allowed more freedom domestically before it became engaged in an aggressive foreign policy, that was perhaps due to the US having no enemies or threats. I wonder whether a withdrawal from foreign entanglements would bring about an increase in domestic freedom, or create a greater need for state power. Lets take the the other’s reaction into account, and their reaction to being left alone by America might easily be similar those whose house is secured being freed to venture father away from it. Meaning, foreign interference close to the American homeland would greatly increase. Supposing there was an unfriendly foreign military base being built in Mexico by China or Russia?

  102. Quebecer says:
    @Reuben Kaspate

    Dream on..I really don’t know who came up with that canard

    So you have bad manners, but i’ll admit I can understand you lol

    So Happy Holidays to you, too

  103. @onebornfree

    Well,

    your premise is incorrect. The governments policies may have limited and varied levels of effectiveness. But a carte blanche’ contend that government is an total failure all the time in all things is only accurate f you live in a state of such that perfection is some manner of norm. I don’t I live in a state of knowing that programs well intentioned, effective built, and implemented have to be watched as if at any minute a snake, wolf, or something worse or all three at different times or the same time will get into the henhouse. Because once a bureaucracy sets itself to motion it tends to operate in its own interests as opposed to that of the people to its intent. Moreover, it staffed by people. And people regardless o how well intentioned, honest, effective, smart, well versed in scripture or Buddha err for any number of reasons.

    And that is why the state should not be trusted. And as a conservative, I am to have a healthy distrust of the state for those reasons. The Constitution we have is predicated on limiting the powers of the state. And that is a very tension filled dynamic because in order to ensure said freedoms, one needs a mechanism by which to protect it — we have that system outlined in the Constitution and the states have a similar, even first born said systems – predicated largely on the ethos of Great Britain (God Save the Queen) and France, Italy and then others. Most of whome bver time developed the “democratic” systems we now have in place.

    Note: I do not believe that democracy is the best form of polity for all people everywhere — and while democracy is great to advocate for — every democracy must develop to the conditions/environment of the local populations in which their cultural ethos and practices.

    But there are no known societies that did have some form of ordered means by which to maintain and sustain it existence – and I have little doubt that each has it’s problems — anything established by people — and here’s a shocker – is bound to have problems. Including the governance entities and practices of the US. But make no mistake, libertarian ethos invites a system that by the very nature of human beings will be heavily comprised of a serious caste system, not based on merit, but by power — think Silicon Valley completely unrestrained.

    So that said, I certainly grant there are problems in and with the system. But there are also mechanisms for remedy.

    No small matter to rest the marriage between out political class and to to the financial class by completely barring the members of government from owning stock, sitting on the boards of financial institutions, etc. Having very strict rules regarding their family members living in house from the same. Public service, should be a public service, and that is why they paid generous salaries – if that pay is insufficient, they they best eschew serving the public good.

    Nothing unconstitutional about a job description of public service that actually protects the very intent of the same. Similar restrictions should be placed on military command regarding employment in the private sectors, especially regarding suppliers of military products.

  104. The cities in the US are not war zones, certainly not literally. And aside from times of actual war and civil unrest, it is an exaggeration to make the reference.

    The single most important factor in maintaining some sense of civility has been the structural morality built into first

    most families that pass along the issues regarding “rightness” or “wrongness”

    the institutions formal and informal that the same families that make up communities share develop in common.

    establishing those as an ethos for the nation state

    The mechanisms to hold one to account for violations or some manner reinforcement of the community standard are important, but nothing comes close to the power of sound mutual cooperation than one garners from family. Our Constitution is predicated on that understanding.

    And it is a national tragedy that millions of citizens were deprived of that — fortunately they saw to it themselves.

  105. onebornfree says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    jilles dykstra says: “Weird, already shortly after the Dutch Republic had been established foreign visitors visisting this miracle concluded that Dutch butter was of such exceptional quality through government market regulations and oversight.
    What we see is how commercialisation does not work., in public transport, in medical care, in gas distribution, for example”

    So go move to Venezuela, or N.Korea, or China! You’d obviously love it there, government will control almost every part of your life , food, roads,, medical etc etc. 🙂 .

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  106. Che Guava says:

    Don’t worry, I understand what you mean by your chosen u-name, and appreciate many of your comments, also spirit.

    What I cannot see is how that is tied to the Kennedy assassination, which you are so often to state, from my reading, he seems to have been a war hero, then an arsehole as a politician (war monger) and as a human being (massive adulterer).

    Sure, the assassination and the consequential ones (Oswald by Rubenstein, then Rubenstein by unknown) are very mysterious (except for Rubinstein having shot Oswald live on TV) and clouded in mystery, but that is not making J.F.K. a great person.

    From what I have read, his younger brother (of course, also later assassinated) was far more honorable.

    I have read works of Guevara, at least one long one, shorter essays. Sure, a fantasist, look at him playing golf with Fidel, in cosplay battle dress, as one of the new rulers.

    Even now, in many places, people love images of his simian face on tobacco, at times in shop fronts. One shop near my workplace has a rotating collection of, clearly not cheap (they take them out of the windows at closing time, so they have some value that may attract late-night or pre-dawn thieves) portraits, the three are of John Beverly (Sid Vicious), Kurt Cobain, and Ernesto Guevara. What do the three have in common?

    Seven-letter word, starts with s, ends with e.

    Obviously, my u-name is intended as a joke, as the Ernesto cult truly has become, possibly always was, stupid.

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  107. @Che Guava

    Rubinstein was a volunteer. He was not shut. He had a terminal cancer, He died in prison a few months after arrest. They were both Jews.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  108. onebornfree says: • Website

    EliteCommInc. says:

    “…The Constitution we have is predicated on limiting the powers of the state. And that is a very tension filled dynamic because in order to ensure said freedoms, one needs a mechanism by which to protect it — we have that system outlined in the Constitution and the states have a similar, …..”:

    Wake up dude! It should be obvious to any half awake person that the constitution was/is a scam.

    Briefly, the “American experiment” fantasy was:

    1] create a wholly criminal network [i.e. the federal government] .

    2] supposedly limit its criminal powers via internal provisions [the so-called “separation of powers” fantasy] plus a so-called “bill of rights” fantasy.

    Apparently, many at the time fell for this scam , in the mistaken belief [ fantasy] that somehow, magically, once the criminal network was created and somehow mysteriously given “legal” authority over all persons and states, that its inherent criminality could be magically contained via a “separation of powers”, a”bill of rights” and other such nonsense written on a piece of paper.

    And yet somehow, here we are today. This just in: you are a slave:

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  109. @Giuseppe

    This is correct and well stated.:

    Under the leadership of the power-hungry and the crazed, The State expanded, usurped, encroached, enslaved. This behemoth, this Leviathan is many, many magnitudes worse than the tyranny the Founders faced in His Majesty’s Government of King George III. How can we go on living with even a curtailed form of that?

    This, not so much.:

    …this 200 year old experiment, where Liberty and The State were to exist in a careful tension created by the Founders and maintained by the Constitution.

    How did you determine that? the Constitution, in fact, was a huge link in the chain around our necks and was meant to secure the rights and property of the “aristocracy” of the time. I highly doubt that any notions of “careful tension” were on anyone’s mind back then. Any reading of the anti-federalists’ arguments shows that there were other motives for imposing the thing on us proles, peasants and peons.

    I know it’s another futile wish of mine, but I would like to see the day when people who feel compelled to expound on the merits of the holy constitution would actually take the time and effort to study its origins. Perpetuating the founding myths does us of lower ranks very little good but serves mainly to perpetuate the evils we live with.

    Constitution or no, the state is probably not our friend and for the reasons you stated.

  110. @EliteCommInc.

    Case in point, asking what would wrong with getting rid of the constitution should by definition press one to offer alternative not merely a critique.

    Getting rid of the constitution is the alternative.

    Those who think that it has to be replaced by something are like the person who gets rid of a case of the crabs and then thinks he needs to replace it with lues instead.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  111. @onebornfree

    So go move to Venezuela, or N.Korea, or China! You’d obviously love it there, government will control almost every part of your life , food, roads,, medical etc etc.

    Thanks for not inviting him to the USA to enjoy the “fruits” of big government. We have enough troubles already in this degenerate Commie cesspool.

  112. @jilles dykstra

    …Dutch butter was of such exceptional quality through government market regulations and oversight.

    Thus “proving” to jyles that government is a boon to civilization or something.

    FYI, butter and practically everything else is attended to by government here in the US and the butter is merely mediocre. The good stuff comes here from Ireland. What does that tell us?

  113. @jacques sheete

    Never having had the irritation you speak of, I have no point of reference.

    And there’s a surprise, — let’s just dump the constitution — never mind the complex issues at stake . Everybody’s on their own —

    Look I get it. The libertarian shtick is not hard to understand after you have enough discussions with libertarians and read the various references

    The community rules, people should govern themselves, honesty, freedom, mutual respect . . . and it’s the constitutions fault that human failings and human mendacity exist, all would be well without an ordered system, because the system would order itself. And I have no doubt that it would, Those with the most freedom to exercise their will rule as to their liking.

    Occupy wall street is the perfect libertarian model — plenty of content, and a mishmash of progress to the agenda such that no progress was made. Even communes have governance. It’s not the Constitution, it’s people.

    —————————

    removing something and leaving the space empty is no an an alternative, it’s an empty space. Dismantle the supposed construction — void of any as libertarian have and its just more circle the band wagon. Which is why no one should take libertarians seriously. A short answer and one that would have made sense — at least as response — is self governing communities by self governed people. That’s the rationale response, not some nonsequitor — ‘nothing is the alternative.’

    accountability matters, integrity matters, substance matters

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  114. @onebornfree

    This is as expected a nonsequitor. Peoples the world over negotiate how they wish to be govern themselves. It is a long and ongoing process. There is magic about the concept of individual identity or the freedom thereof.

    They have been and remain issues of discussion, blood, sweat and tears every day.

    If not the frame of the constitution, then the some other frame would be in place. And I have little doubt that you would be castigating that as fraud because it failed to meet your Utopian expectations of “freedom.”

    I am sure your comments in reference to go live elsewhere has nothing to do with this discussion your references by way of comparison don’t make any sense.

    One’s support for the Constitution is cause to go live in China, or N. Korea, so you are granting that the US in spite of its Constitution, it’s means of governing is more gratifying because they are less controlling. I make the case for less government your response is to go live in China —

    Obviously, those comments are not meant for me.

    a video that opens up with a fallacy is perfect pose for a libertarian. Some human beings want to dominate, some human beings want to exploit. Most human beings want to make a living, feed themselves and their families, enjoy their life and intruded on as little as possible . . . . that ‘s it. Most people in the US not seeking to be kings, rulers, etc. I reject the story of my enslavement as utter nonsense. people live in the real world know there is no absolute freedom — it exists, but certainly on this plan of existence.

    We are bound by biology, others, the environment, etc . . . responsibilities,

    Freedom is always constrained. And while that constraint is not a 360 sameness, regardless of one’s flex — no such thing as absolute freedom. That the playground of the libertarian —

    the constraint, the matter which you call enslavement — that’s what most people call reality.

    And reality is why governance.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  115. Ranger says:

    Ms. Mercer routinely enlightens millions with her insightful, laser-focused and articulate missives. May she ignore self-absorbed hair-splitters beholden to Old Guard thinking and continue to explain and differentiate for the benefit of all. Many of us love the lady and her courage.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  116. onebornfree says: • Website

    EliteCommInc. says:“And reality is why governance”

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”,”improved”, nor “limited” in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature.”

    End of story.

    You , on the other hand, appear to believe that “legal” supposedly “limited” [ i.e “constitutional”] criminality via theft, counterfeiting and violent coercion is a viable [moral?] model for the basis of human interactions.

    Well, “dream on” my friend [ just like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Bush, Obama, Trump etc. etc. etc.]

    Regards, onebornfree

  117. @EliteCommInc.

    Never having had the irritation you speak of, I have no point of reference.

    That is an illogical statement. Sorry. To get the drift, just use your imagination. Ooops, wait, that’s exactly what statists are unable to do and instead mock libertarians, writing, “…and there’s a surprise, — let’s just dump the constitution — never mind the complex issues at stake . Everybody’s on their own —.”

    …because the system would order itself.

    Why would anyone question that concept? It always does, and that’s how societies form. Governments then evolve to parasitize given society largely through the use of force. Then you’re back to …

    Those with the most freedom to exercise their will rule as to their liking.

    Historically, the ones with the most freedom usually wind up being the money bags and tyrants for as long as they last, and it seems to be a perennial problem.

    removing something and leaving the space empty is no an an alternative, it’s an empty space.

    If your neighbor removes his junk car and leaves a clear space, empty of all but air, I’d call that not only an alternative but a highly desirable one. Same concept goes for flushing a commode.

    That’s the rationale response, not some nonsequitor (sic) — ‘nothing is the alternative.’

    Well, there are limits to rationality, and besides if you re-read your comment, you should be able to detect several large deficits of rationality in any case.

    accountability matters, integrity matters, substance matters

    You bet it does and I’d like to see any system of scale that doesn’t wind up negating such desiderata in practice.

    Anyway, I’m not trying to convince you (it’s futile at best); either one gets it or they don’t.

    We’ve been told through the ages that the kings and popes were indispensable too, and they were largely replaced by thugs at least as wretched as themselves, and this occurs repeatedly.

    Everybody’s on their own —

    Guess what? In the final analysis, that’s exactly the case but people refuse to grow up, ( political neoteinia), and accept it but instead prefer myths and keep hoping and scheming to have big momma provide an everflowing mammary and big daddy to protect them forever, and failing that to have some savior deliver them. Good luck with that!

    One last thought; how does one solve the problem, in reality, of “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”

    Bless you.

  118. @EliteCommInc.

    This is as expected a nonsequitor.

    Small, but irritating point. Please quit repeatedly misspelling non sequitur.

    And get someone to explain those present in your own arguments, such as,

    Freedom is always constrained. And while that constraint is not a 360 sameness, regardless of one’s flex — no such thing as absolute freedom. That the playground of the libertarian –

    the constraint, the matter which you call enslavement — that’s what most people call reality.

    And reality is why governance.

    I’ll make allowance for the fact that English may not be your mother tongue, but c’mon, the preaching part is correct for the most part, (no such thing as absolute freedom), but the conclusion is a classic non sequitur. Need I explain?

  119. @Ranger

    Sounds like someone needs a little companionship besides Rosie Palm.

    Keep fantasizing, Dude, but please keep it to yourself.

  120. Not only should the US cease funding the murder of children in the womb, they should ban it outright.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  121. There’s nothing delineating about advancing a philosophy that when implemented undermines the very principles it advances. Because eventually, the use of force will be required. It will be interesting to see the discussion among libertarians what will constitute a legitimate use of force and who is qualified to use it against whom.

    Apparently in keeping with maximizing “freedom” the libertarian in their persistent quest of pushing aside accountability for what is convenient —

    Thinks the force required to murder children is acceptable, as long as they don’t have to foot the bill. making children unable to defend themselves legitimate targets by the powerful.

  122. onebornfree says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    EliteCommInc. says: “Not only should the US cease funding the murder of children in the womb, they should ban it outright.”

    I understand the sentiment, however, do you really seriously wish put your trust in a proven gang of crooks to accomplish this, [or anything else you want, for that matter]?

    Aren’t there other ways to go about this that might stand a chance of actually working?

    “The World’s Biggest, Most Dangerous Scam Is…The “Government Solutions Work” Scam”:
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-worlds-biggest-most-dangerous-scam.html

    regards, onebornfree

  123. onebornfree says: • Website

    EliteCommInc. : “….Because eventually, the use of force will be required….”

    And there it is……. 🙂

    regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  124. @onebornfree

    Your comment makes no sense.

    The comment goes to the libertarian implementation of some policy — if you can explain how you accomplish that without some manner of agency (does not necessarily mean an explicit organizational assignment) of enforcement

    be my guest.

    Always the critique, a personal accusation, some lewd suggestion — but never to the issue. The dance is fine — but substance matters.

  125. @onebornfree

    What nonsense. Government is not by definition a criminal enterprise. The libertarian mind seems incapable of discussion unless they load an argument with adjective descriptors which may be accurate form some part but not the whole.

    Unless, one chooses to live as hermit , there is no escaping placing one’s trust is others. That is the risk of reality. Hence the emphasis on honest dealings to capital free markets — it’s to the trust. One still makes purchases despite the constant threat of being stolen from.

    I bought a rower. It was defective. I informed the seller in less than fifteen days. Seller ignored my communication and then expressed that he had informed me that it was past the deadline — that was an absolute lie in every detail.

    I don’t make the chose to stop buying because that [particular seller is a theft and given to lieing about his theft. No.

    And your comment s utterly ignore my position on trusting government and why. It has withing the very false assumption – regarding full or complete trust.

    I have already dealt with the fallacious advance regarding your ” government working” .

  126. @onebornfree

    Correction:

    I don’t make the choice to stop buying because that particular seller is a thief and given to lieing about his theft. No.

  127. Che Guava says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    By both, whom do you mean? It is hard to believe it of Kennedy, or Oswald.

    Did Rubenstein have the diagnosis before he pulled out his pistol, or did he receive cancer later?

    As for ‘volunteer’, I would agree with you. There is no other sane explanation for motive or presence.

    I have read that he was saying many crazy things in prison, self-destructive, refused treatment for ailments, do not recall the details from reputable sources alluding to such, but have read them. Very murky.

  128. Che Guava says:
    @Mark G.

    Not comparable cases and, in Czechoslovakia, there was no invitation, only post facto, some kidnapping, sure (Dubcek, others).

    Hungary, since they most definitely had an old-school Jewish-Bolshevik leadership at the time, which everybody else there hated, I suppose there was some kind of invitation from those creeps.

    If only Stalin had survived the doctor’s plot, he may have had a better solution beforehand, like having the majority of top officials actually be Hungarian?!

    • Replies: @Mark G.
  129. Mark G. says:
    @Che Guava

    Well then if there was no invitation from Czechoslovakia and they invaded then doesn’t that invalidate your original statement that Russia never invaded anyone after 1940?

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  130. onebornfree says: • Website

    EliteCommInc. says: “What nonsense. Government is not by definition a criminal enterprise. ….”

    Like I say elsewhere, “dream on”. It’s your mind, your life.

    If you believe that institutionalized , compulsory [i.e. “legal”] theft and counterfeiting is both “moral”, and the way to a better world, then “go ahead, make my day” .

    After all , 99.9% of the population believe the exact same thing, so you must all be correct, right? 🙂

    “You are a slave Neo” :

    Regards, onebornfree

  131. Laughing

    Nothing quite like highlighting your point wit h a fictional film about a fictional world about a fictional world.

    Laughing that sounds very libertarian ethos, indeed.

    Have fun reaching the bar of government by definition is equivalent to a criminal enterprise. Looking forward to seeing that spoon bend.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @onebornfree
  132. Che Guava says:
    @Mark G.

    I made no such statement, nor would have. What a nasty thing, to be awake on the first morning of 2019 and have a troll biting at the heels.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
  133. Che Guava says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Well, you just grab it by the stalk, then grab the lip, then exert a little force.

    For stage magic, Uri Geller was a little good.

    The Matrix was never great. Some good parts.

    The animation episodes, mainly great, except the parts that were adverts for a game (poor) and the origin story (not much good).

    The brothers Warchowshki are both now parading about as third-rate trannies, I really do not know what that is about.

  134. Mark G. says:
    @Che Guava

    Commie apologists deserve all the trolling they can get.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  135. onebornfree says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    EliteCommInc. says: “Have fun reaching the bar of government by definition is equivalent to a criminal enterprise. ”

    Yadda yadda yadda.

    Tell you what, why don’t you “have fun” and get back to watching your government/CIA approved cable TV er, “programming”, on CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc. etc. , or read your CIA approved New York Times, Wall St. Journal or other similar fake news outlets, and take a nice big handful of your government approved pharmaceuticals to go along with your viewing/reading “experience” while you’re at it, so you can get back to your [ultimately self induced] coma world where the government is your friend and keeps you/us all safe from the bad guys, builds magic walls, and so on and so forth.

    Be a good little zombie….run along now…..you’ve become very tiresome indeed.

    Regards, onebornfree

  136. Allow me to help you here.

    It might have been a good idea to actually read my position on government. And what my conservatism means to that end.

    Furthermore, it’s clear you have not been a party to my discussions regarding US policy, domestically or internationally.

    My position regarding US sovereignty is fairly clear and simple.

    But I will respond to the comments regarding pharmaceuticals. I use supplements, natural. I am not sure they have any positive benefits, but as long as they contain nothing such marijuana or other mind altering substances —

    I have not taken aspirin in more than thirty years. I did not even avail myself of “narcotics” when being treated for my accident injuries, except locals for stitches of the unfinished dental care. I encourage people to avoid medications unless they are natural, though I have no strong advocacy against them. I am delighted whatever other failings I have. I have never been intoxicated and I don’t drink. If alcohol disappeared tomorrow, I would but bat an eye.

    While the FDA as with almost all government entities,has it problems, it has provided helpful guidance to millions of US citizens.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
    , @anonymous
  137. All systems of government or even systems claiming to have no governance (wry smile) are comprised of people — as previously noted people can behave unethically, selfishly, can be error prone, unknowledgeable, devious, forgetful . . . and the host human frailties that accompanied humans from the garden.

    As such systems will have their built in and human imposed imperfections, some great and disastrous, others but a mere annoyance.

  138. Che Guava says:
    @Mark G.

    I am no Commie apologist. That is a bizarre comment. Explaining, if you like.

    Have also been posting here for some years, not trolling.

    As for a troll, you are not very good at it, would expect you to soon vanishing from the site, and joining the hordes of anons who are so dull (excepting former Priss, and others who are using anon to saying something they are not wanting tied to their u-name).

    • Replies: @Mark G.
  139. onebornfree says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    EliteCommInc. says: “While the FDA as with almost all government entities,has it problems, it has provided helpful guidance to millions of US citizens…..”

    Yeah right, all those great guys at the FDA. I’ve heard it all before :

    “…a landmark review (July 26, 2000) in the Journal of American Medical Association, by Dr. Barbara Starfield, found that, every year in the US, FDA approved drugs kill 106,000 people. Extrapolating to a decade, that would be a million deaths….”:

    “New study: FDA-approved drugs are dangerous”:
    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/new-study-fda-approved-drugs-are-dangerous/

    “..The situation at the FDA isn’t correctable with a few firings. This is an ongoing criminal enterprise, and any government official, serving in any capacity, who has become aware of it and has not taken action, is an accessory to mass poisoning of the population…..”:

    Reminder: murder at the FDA:
    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/09/22/reminder-murder-at-the-fda/

    Bottom line: the FDA is just another criminal subset of the larger criminal org. otherwise known as the US government.

    But by all means carry on with your tired little fantasy of all those “good guys” at the FDA etc. etc. , and all that is really needed is just a few more laws to “make it all work right”.

    WTF do you smoke, and where can I get some? 🙂

    Regards, onebornfree

  140. As indicated,

    systems have issues. People err. That is not the same thing as government being a criminal enterprise by definition. You are of course once again invited to make that case.

    You remind of so many who operate in the spaces of mythical belief as if reality is something foreign to you. Back to the rower,

    Despite informing the seller that the rower was defective in some manner the fist coupe of days. I also made iit clear – I was interested in a replacement — however, despite the rowers defect(s). I found that it was still useful in accomplishing my goals — primarily to restore my body. Walking woukd have been a nice choice, but I was making some dangerous walking choices on the road. OI was fortunate to avoid being hit — again.

    The point is that despite the slipping and the peculiar angling during pulls — the machine has been helpful in improving my overall health.

    It is flawed. It does not operate as it should. I hate it — yet, despite its malfunction — it works. Now I could claim that it doesn’t wok based on

    1. the utter lack of integrity of the sellers
    2. the angle pulling off center – that’s really strange
    3. the slippage – which damages the efficiency an therefore the effectiveness of the machine.
    4. the slack results in jerking as if lifting weights – hard on the back

    There were issues I could correct and adjust to — the four above remain issues

    It’s a chore every ride — however, my body coordination, and mobility is vastly improved. I have some concerns about the constant jerking motion’s impact on my back.

    The point: reality

    Recognizing the flaws, and the areas that would improve the mechanisms effectiveness does not by definition mean the device is doesn’t work. It could stand improvement(s).

  141. @animalogic

    “massive private corporations” You say?

    Created by what mechanism, guaranteed how? All those boards and reports and rules and stock markets governed by…? Internationally even?

    Please don’t complain about free markets, by citing NOT free markets.

  142. @anon

    Ha. Two year old children understand property. My dog understands property. Adam Smith understands property. If you think you don’t believe in property, go try and make a living somewhere in Africa. When the local warlord comes in and takes your stock and burns your store you spent 10 years building, then let me ask you then why private property is so obvious and natural that every child gets mad when their sister knocks down their blocks. Are there subtleties? Of course. Rigged at times? Sure. But don’t be silly.

    By the way, don’t waste 10 years of your life energy building that store–the warlord is just going to knock it down. And you wonder why Africa is poor and the west is rich?

  143. Mark G. says:
    @Che Guava

    Oops. I thought I was responding to the person who claimed that Russia never invaded anyone after 1940 but instead was responding to the person who claimed that Russia never invaded Afghanistan. My apologies for having trouble telling you two apart. Communism was an evil ideology that caused the deaths of millions. There are no justifications in any way, shape or form for it. To try to justify it, as you did, by saying Afghan girls could go to school without headscarves is ludicrous. Yes, it is good girls can go to school but you have to look at the overall picture of what is happening. Otherwise, you are like the person who says fascism is good because Mussolini made the trains run on time. For a government to be legitimate, it needs to protect the freedom and individual rights of the people living under it. The communist Afghan government was not a legitimate government. Therefore, it could not extend a legitimate invitation to the Russians to enter the country. So when the Russian army crossed the border they were invading.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  144. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Sir/Madam:

    I see your comments in many of the threads on this website. You come across as a B+ troll, a “conservative” mutant of the “liberal” Corvinus. The affected banal faith in the Establishment, disguised with occasional, mild dissidence around the edges, is intended to draw others into interminable debate.

    I hope so, anyway.

  145. onebornfree says: • Website
    @anonymous

    anonymous says: “…a “conservative” mutant of the “liberal” Corvinus. The affected banal faith in the Establishment, disguised with occasional, mild dissidence around the edges,…”

    I would have thought that a “conservative” [ if that is what he claims to be] would at least point out the fact that the FDA is an entirely unconstitutional agency, as is all Federal funding of [and laws allowing ] abortion through Planned Parenthood, Medicaid and similar, but no, not a whisper from this person to date about the unconstitutionality of either.

    So lord only knows which label to apply to this particular “mutant”.

    And don’t get me wrong, I know the constitution is [unfortunately] a dead letter, however the average “conservative” still usually rants and raves about “unconstitutional” this and that.

    Regards, onebornfree

  146. @anonymous

    I respond to comments as they come. It might be a wise choice to stay out of conversations you have no clue or will to place a stake in. This conversation pertains to the theory of Libertarian and its practical value as a means of social construction.

    I have no idea what you mean by troll.

    Anyone paying attention would note the nexus of agreement between myself and the other commenter you refer to is a mighty thin thread. now if you care to tackle the the issue of explicating how government by definition is a criminal enterprise, —

  147. onebornfree says: • Website
    @anonymous

    He [EliteCommInc. ]now asks you to “.. tackle the the issue of explicating how government by definition is a criminal enterprise..”

    I wouldn’t bother trying if I were you.

    I have already done so on several occasions here, and its a case of “ships in the night”, I’m afraid.

    For this loser, theft is not criminal, and neither is counterfeiting , as long as his beloved government does it.

    And let’s not even get into the overt criminality of the FDA – it just has a few “minor problems” after all. 🙂

    And so it goes……

    Regards, onebornfree

  148. Oy veh.

    “1] create a wholly criminal network [i.e. the federal government] .

    2] supposedly limit its criminal powers via internal provisions [the so-called “separation of powers” fantasy] plus a so-called “bill of rights” fantasy.”

    In short,

    a position based on this level of analysis is referred to as a circular argument. A circular model does not explicate a condition, it merely restates the a position using the intended goal as evidence for the same.

    I would encourage that one first examine the definition of criminal. No further help will be coming from me on this matter. If one sees all governance as criminal — then all governance must by definition be criminal. While that at least has some sense to it, It is not accurate. And that makes means

    it is false. Nor does it explicate the matter.

    I think the record clear enough.

  149. Che Guava says:
    @Mark G.

    Sophistry.

    Mussolini and his crowd had some good ideas. Japan, until the ’90s, was running an economy much like the ideal of Italian fascism, it was working very well, departure from it has been bad for many.

    … but the trains still run on time, most of the time. Strong winds, earthquakes, suicide, drunks walking on the tracks, signal trouble, sure, delays at times.

    It is a shame that Italia does not have much of the required discipline, they certainly did bad work of being allies before my lifetime, and I would guess, commuter trains don’t run on time now, if they have any.

  150. onebornfree says: • Website

    To all attendant worshipers of the state [ you know who you are!]:

    “Freedom Frauds: Fantasy-Based Political Philosophy”:

    Regards, onebornfree

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?