Monday, June 21, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
A Supreme Court Justice That Understands The Concept of Justice?
My suggestions for the next Supreme Court Justice:
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Roger Roots, JD. PhD
Legal Philosopher Marc Stevens
David T. Hardy
All of these people have impressive bodies of legal writings that indicate a deep respect for the US Constitution, and a deep understanding of it. Contrary to the mental midgets being trotted out by the establishment, they also believe in individual rights.
Of course, since we don't have a government, but instead have Federal Reserve Serfdom, noone who is capable of thinking for themselves will ever be considered for the position of Supreme Court Justice. PLEASE! Scalia thinks that our individual rights "come from god". LOL!! Sandra Day O'Connor (a flaming liberal who supports government "trust-busting" and simultaneously the FDA!) penned a losing dissenting opinion in Kelo!
You have to be "almost a vegetable" combined with "slavishly conformist and servile to authority" in order to even be considered for the job. Chuck Shumer got angry when Roberts wouldn't cave in and agree that "the interstate commerce clause allows the government to do anything it wants to". (Shumer was upset that one out of the nine justices might not believe that the government should have the arbitrary power to steal people's private property, if the legislature deems that they are too small of a minority to defend themselves with the vote! All because Roberts said that the issue that violated Raich's property (marijuana) ownership rights at the Supreme Court level, "was still open to debate"!)
This country is circling the drain, because the judiciary has consumed the jury.
All the people I mentioned believe in "We the People", and "We the Jury".
Hence, they challenge the central bank's supreme oligarchy and whim-based-law, and they will not be considered. Too bad virtually every other poster here is too mentally incompetent and willfully servile to stand up for their rights, and vote libertarian!
Bon Voyage, Suckers! Your Goldman Sachs legislative credit card bill is coming due! It means your kids will grow up as slaves (to the uber-wealthy) who are totally unable to save any money, due to the plummeting value of the dollar. All you had to do was acknowledge the rights of man that Sam Adams and the Founders fought so hard for, but it was too much for your little conformist brains! Enjoy your anchor-ride to the bottom when the rest of the world finally decides to dump its Federal Reserve Notes on us all in exchange for whatever goods and services they can get before it's worthless!
Too bad most people reading this are not even aware of the "Free Competition in Currency Act". If it were passed right now, we might actually get to avoid chaos in the streets. Notice I said chaos, not "anarchy", because with giant government, there is more chaos than there would be with zero government. Sadly, I have to pray for anarchy now, since the sheeple have no understanding of a government that protects private property.
I'd continue my diatribe, but the "thought police" are at my door, I'd better go see what they want...
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Roger Roots, JD. PhD
Legal Philosopher Marc Stevens
David T. Hardy
All of these people have impressive bodies of legal writings that indicate a deep respect for the US Constitution, and a deep understanding of it. Contrary to the mental midgets being trotted out by the establishment, they also believe in individual rights.
Of course, since we don't have a government, but instead have Federal Reserve Serfdom, noone who is capable of thinking for themselves will ever be considered for the position of Supreme Court Justice. PLEASE! Scalia thinks that our individual rights "come from god". LOL!! Sandra Day O'Connor (a flaming liberal who supports government "trust-busting" and simultaneously the FDA!) penned a losing dissenting opinion in Kelo!
You have to be "almost a vegetable" combined with "slavishly conformist and servile to authority" in order to even be considered for the job. Chuck Shumer got angry when Roberts wouldn't cave in and agree that "the interstate commerce clause allows the government to do anything it wants to". (Shumer was upset that one out of the nine justices might not believe that the government should have the arbitrary power to steal people's private property, if the legislature deems that they are too small of a minority to defend themselves with the vote! All because Roberts said that the issue that violated Raich's property (marijuana) ownership rights at the Supreme Court level, "was still open to debate"!)
This country is circling the drain, because the judiciary has consumed the jury.
All the people I mentioned believe in "We the People", and "We the Jury".
Hence, they challenge the central bank's supreme oligarchy and whim-based-law, and they will not be considered. Too bad virtually every other poster here is too mentally incompetent and willfully servile to stand up for their rights, and vote libertarian!
Bon Voyage, Suckers! Your Goldman Sachs legislative credit card bill is coming due! It means your kids will grow up as slaves (to the uber-wealthy) who are totally unable to save any money, due to the plummeting value of the dollar. All you had to do was acknowledge the rights of man that Sam Adams and the Founders fought so hard for, but it was too much for your little conformist brains! Enjoy your anchor-ride to the bottom when the rest of the world finally decides to dump its Federal Reserve Notes on us all in exchange for whatever goods and services they can get before it's worthless!
Too bad most people reading this are not even aware of the "Free Competition in Currency Act". If it were passed right now, we might actually get to avoid chaos in the streets. Notice I said chaos, not "anarchy", because with giant government, there is more chaos than there would be with zero government. Sadly, I have to pray for anarchy now, since the sheeple have no understanding of a government that protects private property.
I'd continue my diatribe, but the "thought police" are at my door, I'd better go see what they want...
Friday, May 7, 2010
The Brutality Democrats and Republicans Voted For: Why Prohibition Can't Exist Alongside America
As Radley Balko notes, 100-150 of these style of raids occur every day. The state conducts these raids on people it deems to be drug dealers, users, (or anyone else they don't like, or accidentally target, as in the case of Cory Maye). After all, there is no method of holding prohibition police (DEA, BATFE, FDA) accountable, other than the jury box, and now that juries have been completely eviscerated by the US "legal system" (by "voir dire" 1850-present, judicial instruction 1895-present, "contempt of court" threats to remain silent regarding defenses that question the validity of the law 1960s-present, licensing of lawyers 1832-present), this is what voting Democrat and Republicans buys.
Again: if you vote Democrat and Republican, you are responsible for the police terrorism of this innocent family, and the pointless murder of their pets. You are also responsible for the thousands of innocent people murdered --people not guilty of violating anyone else's rights.
And what would be so bad if this man had been allowed to smoke his pot, in his own home, the way his neighbors are allowed to get drunk? Would it be as bad as his children being turned against the police for life? Would it be as bad as the murder of his pets, and violation of his property rights? Would it be as bad as the loss of American freedom? Would it be as bad as the lucrative black market created by prohibition?
Prohibitionists are shallow, unintelligent conformists who vote for violence that has no legitimate justification. They should be universally held in contempt and socially ostracized, their business and friendship boycotted by decent people.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
All Individuals Have a Right To Travel Freely
The vast body of consistent libertarian work does not care for protecting the USA from "illegal aliens", but rather seeks to protect the rights of the individual ---ANY INDIVIDUAL--- to travel freely. ANY activity of a police state is an affront to individual freedom. What is "deportation" but the police state at its very worst, initiating force against innocent people? (Arguments against the innocence of illegals are red herring arguments, because nothing about immigrating --in and of itself-- creates a victim. In fact, the "unintended consequences" of immigration prohibition are what creates victims. Just like alcohol prohibition created low-grade moonshine dealers that blinded people, the skirting of border police incentivizes human trafficking by creating trafficking victims who cannot legally seek the help of the law.)
Moreover, there can be no deportation without every other kind of imaginable violation of privacy and personal freedom. Like the "war on drugs", the battle against illegal immigration can only be won by a totalitarian police state that sees all, and knows all. How else do you identify "illegals"?, monitor them up to the point of arrest?, avoid wasting law enforcement resources by "going after" the largest groups of illegals? ...There is no way to wage a war on "illegal relocation".
There is pain and suffering caused by breaking apart of families. When "illegal" breadwinners are "deported", the remaining family cries for "relief from that tyranny" and demands compensating welfare handouts that recursively destroy the system. Deportations also undermine the consistency of the message of individual freedom in elections (The very first anti-Ron-Paul website mocked his stance on illegal immigration, and turned away scores of leftists and purist libertarian independents who were otherwise open to his message). Deportations also weaken the economy by removing the source of low-cost entry-level labor that operates at closer to its true value. And, of course, cheap "black market" labor indicates that the minimum wage does, in fact, create joblessness.
Every ill ascribed to "illegals" is actually an ill caused by two standards of documentation: one for "documented citizens" and another for "illegals". The incremental cure is simple: unite everyone under one standard, voluntarily offered and voluntarily accepted by all. Those who exist totally outside the system have no access to the system's protections, as "outlaws". (As desribed in the famous youtube video by Schaeffer Cox, "The Plan".) This way, collectivism is shown as being the curse it is, for everyone.
Of course, the standard of justice and private property rights that America is based on cannot support collectivism. Collectivism cannot support influxes of incentivized collectivists (tax eaters). ...But collectivization destroys ANY system! The answer is to eliminate the collectivism, not the influx of new individuals (individuals who will operate as incentivized individualists in an individualist system, and incentivized collectivists in a collectivist system). No welfare state can survive. If illegals pouring into our welfare state hasten its destruction, they actually do us a favor: ask: "Do we want a prolongued depression, or a speedy crash?" In the "prolongued failure" scenario, the police state might survive into an era when it gains powerful computational tools of absolute control over the individual: at that time, the welfare state results in democide ---a terrifying reality! Might it not be better to reap what we've sown --a destroyed socialist state-- sooner? A complete failure's ashes can be built upon, but a burgeoning "big brother" cannot. To that end, I welcome illegal immigrants to our current system, and I preach the message that they are not at any fault, so long as they do not support welfare statism.
...I have created many new libertarians in conversations that way, as have libertarians like Marc Stevens, with his youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrwXYhCU9pQ
The illegals didn't vote for collectivism, year after year, since 1913. But they can and will end it, ...catastrophically. I say, "more power to them!" Let's stop pretending we have a constitutional government, and solely consider strategies toward creating a government that protects individual rights. "Rewinding the clock" cannot work: America was sold to a central bank in 1913. Perhaps we cannot go back to Jefferson's constitution. But we can reinstate free speech, jury trials, and property rights, in their fundamental form.
We can blame illegal immigrants for the fact that the clock cannot be turned back, or we can put the blame squarely where it belongs: on US voters who ignored the birth of the Libertarian political alternative in 1971.
Let's teach illegal immigrants about the ideas of Harry Browne, Samuel Konkin, Marc Stevens, G Edward Griffin, and other libertarian philosophers. After all, they crossed a river, government checkpoints and barricades, drug dogs, and border police, and they have seen the worst of the American police state. (They are our most natural demographic!)
Illegal immigrants are a growth market for libertarian and individualist ideas. By supporting ideological opposition to immigration, we undermine our own message, and set ourselves up for imminent failure by conceding moral libertarian highground to the Democrat and Republican Parties that have caved in (kind of) to allowing (some) illegal immigration.
A supremely intelligent supercomputer would predict that opposing illegal immigration is doomed to failure. If there is a market pressure that rewards immigration, it will happen. Moreover, the purist libertarian position favors free immigration. (Only a narrow market of contrarian quasi-libertarians oppose immigration, because they are marketing to a tiny but vocal market of contrarians.) The purist libertarian position here is winning, but instead of saying "I told you so!" and welcoming thousands of new libertarians into our midst, we allow "La Raza" (a ragtag bunch of collectivists!) to take the moral high ground (and the potential political victory!) that has belonged --unused-- to libertarians for the prior 30 years!
Rather than marching against "La Raza", we should be marching with them, and opposing only the portions of their message that are collectivist. The "the path is over here!" method of political competition is the best. Go to where the crowds are, and show the crowds the message of truth!
Opposition to immigration is another example of the libertarian/individualist movement snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We should be smarter than that.
Moreover, there can be no deportation without every other kind of imaginable violation of privacy and personal freedom. Like the "war on drugs", the battle against illegal immigration can only be won by a totalitarian police state that sees all, and knows all. How else do you identify "illegals"?, monitor them up to the point of arrest?, avoid wasting law enforcement resources by "going after" the largest groups of illegals? ...There is no way to wage a war on "illegal relocation".
There is pain and suffering caused by breaking apart of families. When "illegal" breadwinners are "deported", the remaining family cries for "relief from that tyranny" and demands compensating welfare handouts that recursively destroy the system. Deportations also undermine the consistency of the message of individual freedom in elections (The very first anti-Ron-Paul website mocked his stance on illegal immigration, and turned away scores of leftists and purist libertarian independents who were otherwise open to his message). Deportations also weaken the economy by removing the source of low-cost entry-level labor that operates at closer to its true value. And, of course, cheap "black market" labor indicates that the minimum wage does, in fact, create joblessness.
Every ill ascribed to "illegals" is actually an ill caused by two standards of documentation: one for "documented citizens" and another for "illegals". The incremental cure is simple: unite everyone under one standard, voluntarily offered and voluntarily accepted by all. Those who exist totally outside the system have no access to the system's protections, as "outlaws". (As desribed in the famous youtube video by Schaeffer Cox, "The Plan".) This way, collectivism is shown as being the curse it is, for everyone.
Of course, the standard of justice and private property rights that America is based on cannot support collectivism. Collectivism cannot support influxes of incentivized collectivists (tax eaters). ...But collectivization destroys ANY system! The answer is to eliminate the collectivism, not the influx of new individuals (individuals who will operate as incentivized individualists in an individualist system, and incentivized collectivists in a collectivist system). No welfare state can survive. If illegals pouring into our welfare state hasten its destruction, they actually do us a favor: ask: "Do we want a prolongued depression, or a speedy crash?" In the "prolongued failure" scenario, the police state might survive into an era when it gains powerful computational tools of absolute control over the individual: at that time, the welfare state results in democide ---a terrifying reality! Might it not be better to reap what we've sown --a destroyed socialist state-- sooner? A complete failure's ashes can be built upon, but a burgeoning "big brother" cannot. To that end, I welcome illegal immigrants to our current system, and I preach the message that they are not at any fault, so long as they do not support welfare statism.
...I have created many new libertarians in conversations that way, as have libertarians like Marc Stevens, with his youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrwXYhCU9pQ
The illegals didn't vote for collectivism, year after year, since 1913. But they can and will end it, ...catastrophically. I say, "more power to them!" Let's stop pretending we have a constitutional government, and solely consider strategies toward creating a government that protects individual rights. "Rewinding the clock" cannot work: America was sold to a central bank in 1913. Perhaps we cannot go back to Jefferson's constitution. But we can reinstate free speech, jury trials, and property rights, in their fundamental form.
We can blame illegal immigrants for the fact that the clock cannot be turned back, or we can put the blame squarely where it belongs: on US voters who ignored the birth of the Libertarian political alternative in 1971.
Let's teach illegal immigrants about the ideas of Harry Browne, Samuel Konkin, Marc Stevens, G Edward Griffin, and other libertarian philosophers. After all, they crossed a river, government checkpoints and barricades, drug dogs, and border police, and they have seen the worst of the American police state. (They are our most natural demographic!)
Illegal immigrants are a growth market for libertarian and individualist ideas. By supporting ideological opposition to immigration, we undermine our own message, and set ourselves up for imminent failure by conceding moral libertarian highground to the Democrat and Republican Parties that have caved in (kind of) to allowing (some) illegal immigration.
A supremely intelligent supercomputer would predict that opposing illegal immigration is doomed to failure. If there is a market pressure that rewards immigration, it will happen. Moreover, the purist libertarian position favors free immigration. (Only a narrow market of contrarian quasi-libertarians oppose immigration, because they are marketing to a tiny but vocal market of contrarians.) The purist libertarian position here is winning, but instead of saying "I told you so!" and welcoming thousands of new libertarians into our midst, we allow "La Raza" (a ragtag bunch of collectivists!) to take the moral high ground (and the potential political victory!) that has belonged --unused-- to libertarians for the prior 30 years!
Rather than marching against "La Raza", we should be marching with them, and opposing only the portions of their message that are collectivist. The "the path is over here!" method of political competition is the best. Go to where the crowds are, and show the crowds the message of truth!
Opposition to immigration is another example of the libertarian/individualist movement snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We should be smarter than that.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Obama Extends Bush Fascism
In this video, Keith Olbermann points out that the Obama administration has now gone beyong anything that Bush did, in the name of "fighting terrorism". Interestingly, this command now opens the door to Harry Browne's dire warning about the importance of due process even with respect to "terrorists".
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
