The Warlord Argument

Every discussion regarding a free society inevitably turns toward the presumed necessity of police and fire brigades, and a standing military "to keep us safe."

Taken to their logical conclusions, of course, these arguments would justify totalitarianism and all its excesses. Regardless, the argument itself is built upon the foundational premise that society, in the absence of the state, would degenerate into chaos and civil war is flawed, as it presumes that the only thing preventing chaos and rampant violence is the threat of officially sanctioned state violence.




Murphy explores this "Warlord argument" at some length here.

Why own guns?

There is no right that is not rooted in property rights; guns are a means to protect your property against all who would take it. Here is a great article on the subject.

Pledging Allegiance...

I have always found it funny that people get bent out of shape about the omission  or modification of the pledge of allegiance. The pledge is commonly placed on equal par with great works of political philosophy or theological significance; it is neither. I am pretty uncomfortable with the recitation of the pledge, personally, for a couple of reasons.

Here are the original words:

Nothing like giving a little Seig Heil to the Flag!

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Really, it's kind of creepy when you think about it. It's Democratic Republic of North Korea style indoctrination. I pledge allegiance to my flag? Personally, I care little for a flag; that goes beyond nationalism. Concern with a nation's core principles is laudable; but doing homage to a flag is something else altogether.

The message of the pledge is also a betrayal of the ideals of the founders. Indivisible? One nation? Compare that with Jefferson's notion that governments must periodically be cast aside, and that the colonies were "free and independent states." One indivisible nation is not an original idea; the American Republic was intended as a voluntary union of sovereign states.

This misrepresentation makes perfect sense, given the authorship and provenance of the pledge. Francis Bellamy, author of the pledge, was a Socialist. He intended to use the pledge as an "inoculation" against the virus of "radicalism and subversion." By subversion, he apparently meant the still festering notion that the states retained their sovereignty, and Lincoln's brutality had not proven his argument. Lincoln's War between the States essentially ended "the Republic, for which it stands."
He did not prove that "right makes might;" but that, in the minds of posterity is concerned, the converse is often true.


Under God, of course, came 40 years later, in an act of prescient pandering to religious conservatives, who would one day be the most outspoken proponents of Bellamy's pledge.

It just seems odd to me that in the "land of the free," generations of schoolchildren are expected to pledge their fidelity to a bit of decorative cloth that represents a defunct Republic, just to fulfill the dream of a xenophobic hyper-nationalist. The juxtaposition of a mandatory pledge of loyalty with the notion of "liberty and justice for all" is especially obvious when we see students and even public figures harangued and ostracized when they choose to refrain from reciting the mantra. I never thought I'd say this, but I think the Jehovah's Witnesses have got this one right. 

In The War On Drugs, Liberty Dies First

I don't use marijuana, medical or otherwise. I don't plan to take it up. Still, like an increasing number of Americans, I am vehemently opposed to the War on Drugs.

Several powerful arguments can be proffered in support of the notion that drug use is a poor life decision. It has a negative impact on health, like eating too much sugar or using tobacco. It can be well-argued that it is a wasteful way to spend one's time, like playing disc golf; and is mind numbing, just like watching Hannity or Hardball.

All of these choices are harmful to their practitioners (especially watching Hannity and Matthews.) But should any of these decisions, however foolish, be illegal? Any harm they inflict is only upon their practitioners; not abstainers. No matter how much cherry-picked clinical data is used to argue otherwise, no one is harmed by another's ignorance, poor health, or choice of hobbies.

I write from the perspective of someone who has shifted from conservatism to a libertarianism; as such, I am at least passingly familiar with the conservative arguments against legalization, which reveal an inherent contradiction. Many who argue powerfully in favor of a Constitutionally-limited government recoil in horror at the notion that the State might be limited in its war powers; especially as they relate to the War on Drugs. Ron Paul is branded an outlandish, extremist character for daring to suggest that the government should mind its own business every now and then, while those who generally argue for the limitation of the power and scope of government could not more heartily endorse the Drug War; lending tacit approval to the virtually limitless power it grants law enforcement.

It is not legalization, but prohibition, that should be considered outlandish and offensive. This should be apparent toThe Constitutionalists among us define the primary purpose of government as the protection of individual rights. They see, whether accurately or not, the US Constitution as written for the purpose of permanent enshrinement of the Jeffersonian ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Federalist Number 5, ironically, cites an argument by British Queen Anne to contend that the union established by the Constitution would preserve our liberties:

“An entire and perfect union will be the solid foundation of lasting peace: It will secure your religion, liberty, and property; remove the animosities amongst yourselves...It must increase your strength, riches, and trade...We most earnestly recommend to you calmness and unanimity in this great and weighty affair, that the union may be brought to a happy conclusion, being the only effectual way to secure our present and future happiness...”

To the minarchist, the protection of these rights is the only legitimate function and purpose of government. Consider Bastiat's argument:

“It is not because men have made laws that personality, liberty and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand that men make laws...(law) is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense...So long as personal safety was ensured, so long as labor was free, and the fruits of labor secured against all unjust attacks, no one would have any difficulties to contend with in the State.” p. 47-48.

In the Rothbardian tradition, government is the primary force which undermines these rights.

“When we look at the State, naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are reprehensible crimes...regardless of popular sanction, War is Mass Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery.” For A New Liberty, p. 31

My purpose for writing is not to discuss, at any length, the differences between these approaches, nor argue for the superiority of one over another. Rather, consider the main thing these approaches have in common: The notion that individual, natural rights are of supreme important. Agorists and proponents of republican, constitutionally limited government have in common, at least, a nominal acceptance of the protection of liberty and property. And, hopefully, a recognition of the truth of George Washington's famous statement on the danger of government: “it is not reason, it is force.”

In light of this, what contribution does the War on Drugs make to the perpetuation of liberty and the protection of property? And at what costs?

The White House Drug Policy website reports a requested budget of $15.5 billion for 2011. For our trouble, we have seen drug usage rates rise, even while prisons are filled with non-violent offenders. In 2008, four of five arrests were for possession, not distribution. Two of five are for marijuana. Violence flourishes, in part because the war on drugs causes prices to skyrocket. Americans pay to support one fourth of the world's prison population, largely because of the drug war. That the drug war is a colossal failure is scarcely debatable, especially in light of the recent pronouncement of the UN. If the UN is calling a multiple government power-grab a disaster, then it's probably a train wreck of unprecedented proportions.

More significant, however, is the damage that this farcical war does to our “Life, Liberty,and Property.”

The War On Drugs, like any war, serves to continually expand the power of the State.

Recently, we have seen virtually limitless expansions of the power of police. They are granted the authority to obviously violate the 4^th amendment “when the exigencies of a situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the 4^th amendment.” In Kentucky vs. King, the exigencies involved were the “smell of marijuana” and “the sound of a flushing toilet.” Woe to the man who has a stomach virus on a day when he burns yard trash!

Recent news reports about the abuse of civil forfeiture laws have further diminished the credibility of the notion that the drug war is about the public good; it seems to be more lining the public coffers.

Above all of this hovers the tragic story of Jose Guerena, murdered and allowed to bleed to death, unaided, in his Arizona home after a fruitless drug raid. They did find guns and body armor; probably rather common for a marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq. His murderers were recently cleared of any wrongdoing. He is just another casualty in another senseless, immoral war; not on drugs, nor some foreign enemy, but on liberty itself.

The War on Drugs consistently leads to the violation of rights. It feeds the growth of government power, at a tremendous cost to the public, based on the spurious notion that government has the right or responsibility to dictate to private citizens their choice of recreational activities. It's time to legalize freedom.

Mainstream Republicans are Whigs

“Paulites see both political parties as responsible for an oversized federal government, and would be content to let Republicans go the way of the Whigs.” -Chet Hardin
Hardin doesn’t know much about Whigs; since at least the time of Lincoln, the mainstream members of the Republican party have been Whigs.

Lincoln said “My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank … the internal improvements system, and a high protective tariff.”

This was, as Tom DiLorenzo points out, nearly perfect Whig doctrinal purity.
A Republican party that supports corporate welfare (TARP), military interventionism everywhere, industrial protectionism (Tariffs, Immigration crackdowns) and believes that only the government can build and maintain infrastructure is not in danger of going Whig; they are Whigs, through and through.

And just as destined for failure, unless they can learn to match their limited government rhetoric with a limited government philosophy.

The problem is not one of language, but of substance. Namely, that there is none. Many conservatives within the GOP are quick to accuse the McCain and Graham wing of being “RINOs,” without pausing to recognize that these RINOs represent the true nature of the Republican Party. Not the soul, and certainly not the brains; but definitely the inheritance handed down by Lincoln.

A true desire to drive back the borders of State power and excess has been in almost as short supply among Republicans as logic has been among Democrats.
This should not be surprising; the Republican party, and even the conservative movement within-which credits the big government, big spending Reagan as its ideological father-loves the language of liberty, but has little use for the actual concept.

"The Wreckage of Socialism"

A fundamental application of libertarian principles, in the words of Bastiat:

"And so, every time we object to a thing being done by government, it concludes that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of education by the state — then we are against education altogether. We object to a state religion — then we would have no religion at all. We object to an equality which is brought about by the state then we are against equality, etc., etc. They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the state."

Romans 13 and Government

Can a Christian engage in civil disobedience, criticize, or otherwise reject the authority of the State? This is a question of increasing importance in our day, as we find ourselves increasingly crushed under the weight of never-ending state expansion.

It is common to cite Romans 13 as a commandment to absolute obedience to the State in all matters, but is that the Apostle Paul's point?

I would argue that a careful reading of the passage says no such thing, for several reasons.

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from  God, and those which exist are established by God. ² Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. ³ For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; ⁴ for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. ⁵ Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. ⁶ For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. ⁷ Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. --Romans 13:1-7

First, the New Testament is filled with those who blatantly disregard the commandments of men in favor of the dictates of conscience and divine law. Jesus, the most notable example, disobeyed every command, religious and otherwise, that He saw as contrary to the will of God. In Acts 5, Peter and the other apostles are specifically ordered by the temple council to stop preaching about Jesus. Peter's response: "We must obey God rather than men."  These two examples will suffice to establish the notion that the divine law trumps human. It may be argued that Christians have, not only the right, but the responsibility to stand against human authority when it stands against divine law.

How do we reconcile this with Paul's statement that we ought to be "subject to governing authorities?" I don't accept the notion that this is simply a contradictory position, or that, after the apostolic age, Christians forfeited their right to judge upon the basis of conscience and revelation the rightness of government actions.

The answer lies in the specificity of Paul's words. We are told to submit, or be subject to governing authorities, but what is meant by this idea. We have already established that there is a higher law which transcends earthly; so what kind of resistance is expressly forbidden? I think the only reasonable answer is to see this as a reference to violent, criminal activity.

Government "is only a cause for fear for (morally) bad behavior." They bring wrath for the punishment of evildoers. You will have nothing to fear if you do what is good. Does this not greatly limit the legitimate scope of State activities? Does it not relinquish its divinely sanctioned authority when it itself becomes an agent of evil or goes beyond the bounds of this sphere of activity? In essence, Government is entrusted with the execution of justice and the protection of individuals. When the State becomes  a persecutor of the good, or engages in immoral behaviors, or extends its authority into realms beyond this notion of punish evildoers, it forfeits  this legitimate authority, and thus any claim it has on the fidelity of Christians.

As the text continues, Paul says that it is for this reason we also pay taxes; taxation, is seen as a means to fund these legitimate purposes. The same principles, then, apply. If the State has failed to uphold its legitimate purpose, then it also loses its divine sanction to tax.

For the Christian, there is a moral right, even obligation, to oppose the actions of the government when those actions violate morality, yet without recourse to violence and aggression. The Rothbardian non-aggression principle is perfectly consistent with Christian values; warfare, imperialism, taxation, and other State activities often are not.

Hate Mail

The Ludwig von Mises Institute posted several essays I wrote related to the subject of immigration policy. I received a great volume of correspondence; most of it positive, but a bit...less than positive. 

What follows is an excerpt from perhaps the least intelligible hate mail I received. I reached out to this individual and attempted to engage him in a meaningful discourse and search for commonalities; instead I received more and more vitriol and unbridled anger. My purpose for posting it is two-fold:

First, it is helpful, when weighing the relative merit of a position, to consider the other views held by its proponents. I do not pretend that this individual is indicative of a universal viewpoint held by those who favor laws against immigration, amnesty, or guest worker programs. I am arguing, though, that he does an excellent job of betraying the root cause of many of the objections to a freer immigration policy; a deep-seated xenophobia and the same impulse toward protectionism and hyper-nationalism that lies at the root of the trade- and economy-destroying policies advanced by unionists and those in favor of crippling tariffs and other anti-growth policies. 

Secondly, let's be honest; this guy is funny. One can only be so belligerent and misguided before they invite a certain amount of laughter. I have edited for length, but otherwise preserved, unaltered, the nascent genius of our Texan friend. Onward, to tap the riches of  to the glorious attack:

You article was a worthless and not worthy of 9th grade and you are working on your masters.  A proud testiment to the sorry education in this country. 

I am certainly no neo-con and 8th generation southern. Here before it started.   You are sir just a fascist/marxist/socialist shill hiding behind a libertarian cover.  I agree with Austrian economics and I don't believe in tariffs either but again I do believe this government/corporate beast has given away the farm and it needs to be fixed and sir you are also absolutely a blithering idiot when it comes to immigration.

Every time one crosses over the boarder or spits one out of there uterus the IQ of the US drops. 

They are thieves...Easily, 90% are drug dealers or try to be.  You can go to anyplace in Texas and walk up to any one of them and if it ain't on them at the moment you have your drugs within the hour.  It is easier than buying tomatoes.

They do steal jobs, they are the biggest criminals but slightly better at getting away with it than there white or black counterparts because they are protected by dunderheads like you.  I certainly sound like a racist, huh.  No, I am not but I don't let fascist/marxist/socialist define terms for me either.  I am talking about real facts not your fairy-tales.    

My first Response:

I would venture to say that you don't know what a Fascist, Socialist, or Marxist is, nor do you understand Austrian economics. Immigration restrictions are inconsistent with a free market, which is dependent on free and open exchanges of labor. I am, if anything, a minarchist and a secessionist. I would urge you to find out what concepts mean before you make allegations.

Furthermore, the point of my piece clearly escaped you. My point was exactly that they were good people searching for answers, if ignorant, but the answer isn't more government, more war, more border enforcement. It is less.

It is the welfare state that encourages illegal immigration, and the vast majority do pay more into the system than they receive. The solution I advocate is a complete dismantling of the welfare system and unrestricted employment-legal, illegal, without artificial wage controls or any other government intrusions.

Your grammar and spelling are an embarrassment to your 'proud southern heritage,' and your overt racism clouds your ability to intelligently consider or discuss any serious matter. I could join the Sons of Confederate Veterans too, but this is of no real significance to the discussion at hand. However, should you wish to calm down and actually discuss the similarities and differences between our views, feel free to contact me again.

Otherwise, I would appreciate if you never waste my time with ignorant drivel about drug dealers and grotesque references to the birth process. They are unsubstantiated anecdotal claims, that can be offset by numerous examples. I can show you a bunch of white wards of the state and criminals. 

Lee:

I certainly do know what a Fascist, Socialist and Marxist are and this government for about 150 years has been that in one form or another.  I do know the basics of Austrian economics and I tend to believe a free flow of goods and services does not mean open borders.  I would agree that the welfare state encourages illegal immigration but that is only a part of it.  I would say maybe only 25% of it.  Certainly, if the Confederacy had prevailed freedom and economic prosperity would likely have spread to our southern neighbors.  The mass migration of former Confederates to Brazil is one of the reasons Brazil learned agriculture to it benefit...

I totally disagree with you concerning they pay more into the system than take out.  Where in the world do you get that information?   You really have no clue if you have not lived in a border state.  These folks do not integrate and they might as well be radical Muslims if you want to judge how much they like you.  And, just like the Muslims they are not here to integrate.

The only religion in the world that believes in freedom and liberty is Christianity and our Latin American neighbors are not Christian (they call themselves Catholic) but as the saying goes "being in McDonald's don't make you a hamburger."  In the last 40 years, Texas went from about 4% hispanic to nearly 40%.

I don't believe in wage control and certainly not government intervention but I am in total disbelief of your lack of understanding about the destruction wrought to the economy and the very social fabric of this country by this immigration.  The destruction by these tribalistic peoples are similar to those being wrought on Europe by the Muslims. So are you willing to sacrifice the American culture to these tribal heathens who know nor care nothing for liberty or freedom?  That is where I get off the boat.

It is true about the drugs, it is true about the degradation of our country intellect and when they go to school they go to government schools and taught to hate everything about our culture and whitey. The color of the skin does not matter to me.  There are criminals in every culture and color.

Have you ever been to Texas and went to a Mexican restaurant and they refused to serve you because you are white?  I have.  The free flow of goods and services does not translate into the free flow of peoples across the border to invade and take over.  Hitler's armies invaded some parts of France with unarmed troops.

Me: 

How do you round up and deport 12 million people?
Moreover, how do you do it and not resort to the tactics the Fascists used in Italy and Germany?
I am not for an open border; I am for unlimited immigration. I have no problem with checking papers at the border. And actually, the border question is one that divides quite a lot of libertarians. My point is just that we crossed that bridge long ago. There is no feasible way to get rid of people illegally here without resorting to the types of tactics that violate conscience and any notion of human decency.

The confederacy/freedom thing is laughable; a third of the population of the South were slaves. I think we both agree that the War of Northern Aggression was about the right to secession and the tariffs that the yankees were going to levy to pay for their railroads; However, to uphold the Confederacy as a beacon of freedom is either dishonest or willfully ignorant. I think the Confederacy was engaged in a noble struggle for state's rights, but that doesn't mean I can pretend that the presence of chattel slavery was not a tremendous sin.

As I stated before, anecdotal stories prove nothing. I can point you toward trailer parks and apartment complexes full of welfare dependent, law breaking, drug dealing whites. That proves nothing substantial. I doubt you can eyeball someone and tell what their immigration status is. It's ludicrous that you would suggest such. I have been to Mexican restaurants who scoured the place to find the one menu in English, just so I could order without speaking Spanish. Big deal. It proves that one set of people acted in a certain way. Maybe they realized you irrationally hated them and didn't want to serve you?

As I have pointed out, the answer to the issue of illegal immigrants abusing the welfare state is simple; dismantle the welfare state. Then there will be no reason to immigrate here except work and opportunity; which is the reason immigrants, legal and otherwise, come here anyway. I agree with you about government schools, but schools are just a feature of the welfare state. The American socialists of the early 20th century were the force behind the public school movement, the New deal, and the great society of the 70's.

Your leap from open borders to socialism (by which, I assume, you mean totalitarianism) is completely illogical. Only if you couple open borders with an ever increasing welfare state could that even be an issue. As stated above, open borders without welfare would actually produce the opposite effect. Welfare seekers would move to Canada and Mexico, while people who wanted to work would move here. Sort of a Galt's gulch type of thing, if you've ever read Atlas shrugged.

And one more thing on the drug issue. Why is caviar so expensive? Rarity and difficulty of procurement. Why are marijuana, heroin, and cocaine, the produce of plants that grow wild with little effort, so expensive that they can fund a criminal empire whose GDP outstrips most South American countries? Rarity and difficulty of procurement.

So to bring down the drug lords, we could continue to pour billions of dollars and thousands of lives into the failed drug war, or we could repeal the prohibition and devalue the product so that it wouldn't bring wealth to the criminal types. No one pays 100 bucks for an ounce of wheat, because it's easy to get.

As an aside, none of those examples you cited were examples of anarchy. They were all time periods that represented a struggle between two totalitarian dictators or groups of dictators. When two dictators are battling for primacy, the result will be a dictatorship. 

Lee again:

Achieving the deportation is a tough but easily accomplished task.  I totally reject your bleeding heart human decency bull.  They are criminals.  If I took it to its end then you will be calling God a Fascist when he separates out the sheep from the goats.

Although you put words in my mouth and mischaracterized my motives,  you should really study history before you shoot off your mouth about something you know nothing about.  You are a blithering idiot on the subject whether it be the Confederacy, slavery or history of civilization.

You again have no connective thought because all you spew out of your narcissistic little mind are the last 30 years of brainwashing bull of haters of God and Man or of the Laws of God and the Laws of Nature.

It is good that you are in a seminary because they are white-washed sepulchers anyway as are most of our churches.

The saying goes that the best lies are 90% true.  Well, you may want to hone your game because you are banging around 20%.

You sir are a provocateur and/or a saboteur even if we agree slightly on free trade, welfare and public schools.  All your little red herrings just don't wash. 

And, finally, mercifully, the end of this productive exchange:

You have wasted enough of my time.

You have not responded to a single of my claims with an actual rebuttal or piece of evidence.

I urge you to actually study the issues about  which you hold such strong opinions. Your kneejerk protectionism and nationalism is clearly bred out of pure ignorance. And your mixing of metaphors such as "red herrings just don't wash" is comical.

Still, I wish you all the best.

Unlicensed Lemonade? Yes please.

I go out of my way to buy lemonade from any neighborhood lemonade stand; simply because they are increasingly being cracked down on. War on drugs...war on terror...war on milk...now "war on lemonade?"

“It wasn’t that we were the big hand of county government trying to come down and squash anything…We were attempting to do what a government is charged with doing, which is protecting communities and protecting the safety of people.”- County rep Jennifer Hughes

Libyan Rebels: I don't know who they are...But

But they are very cool.

Immigration Restrictions are Progressive

“There cannot be the slightest doubt that migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labor.” Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, p. 139

One of the prevailing myths of our time is that immigration laws are consistent with a desire for limited government and free markets. The association of border control with conservatism and open borders with modern liberalism is philosophically and historically inaccurate, and it poisons the discussion of what is already a difficult issue. Immigrants are wrongly blamed for the excesses of the Welfare State, leading both sides to foolishly derive their stand on immigration law from their position on entitlement programs. However, this is absurd. The issues, though related, are not mutually dependent. America is a Welfare State whether there are immigrants within her borders or not.

The question that related to immigration is not whether we favor the Welfare State; it is how enthusiastic we are for the growth of a totalitarian police state. Liberty is incompatible with the restriction of movement. This is conceded even by staunch proponents of immigration controls, creating an insurmountable logical dilemma.

Mark Levin writes: “throughout American history, individuals of all races, ages, and income levels have moved from one state to another, either because they are escaping adverse conditions or because they are seeking greener pastures.” Levin further points out that “mobility is perhaps the most important aspect of federalism.”

Levin sees Federalism differently than do I; he is among the Constitution festishists that see federalism, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, as history’s greatest guarantor of natural rights. It follows, then, that the protection of mobility and the right to seek greener pastures would be a human right worth protecting, not something that would preclude free movement.

In condemning his parody version of statism, Levin indicts himself. He manages to praise the Tenth Amendment while worshipping at the altar of its greatest enemy, Abraham Lincoln. He condemns an overarching Federal Government while endorsing any and every action of the military–industrial complex by which federal power is aggrandized.  In short, he is a statist of the worst sort, demanding you remove the speck of statolatry from your eye while blinded by the Lincoln log protruding from his own.   

Levin’s arguments for immigration restrictions conveniently overlook the important fact that enforcement of a war on immigration, like the all our government’s wars, would require an emboldened and increasingly unaccountable federal apparatus. Conservative calls for increased border security and the construction of a great “sheep fence” are not consistent with Laissez Faire and liberty; they are eerily reminiscent of the most enduring images of totalitarian states. The fence that keeps another out may be used to keep you in. The force and violence that is necessary to round up and deport the millions already here illegally may easily be turned to stifle all voices of dissent. Only fascist, totalitarian states grant such authority to their organs of law enforcement fences.

Is it any wonder that American immigration laws are a product of the so-called Progressive Era? This was the era of Eugenics, Labor Unions, and the creation of the welfare state. Immigration was largely unrestricted in our nation’s history, until the early part of the 20^th century. Labor union agitators recognized that cheap labor posed a danger to their fundamental reason for existence; to drive wage rates above what the market sets. The advocates of Eugenics believed in forced population control; free immigration would undermine this effort. And the New Dealers recognized, even early, that their program was destined for insolvency; a growing population would further derail their utopian fantasies. It is from this environment that the idea of limiting immigration was born.

Free immigration allows labor to flow from areas of surplus to areas of need. It allows the market to set wage rates. In providing inexpensive labor, it lowers the price of goods and services all along the supply chain. It threatens the power of central planners, as it creates a free market for labor; free from wage, hour, and benefit restrictions imposed by law.

Immigration controls are neither Conservative nor libertarian; they are Progressive. They were, and are, part of a larger program to substitute central planning for the market economy. They are enacted for the purpose of gaining political power, and belong to the same class of economic interventionism as tariffs and import/export quotas (Stupid ideas espoused by Donald Trump and other Mercantilists). Their design is to favor a particular labor pool at the expense of society as a whole. Whether such a program is driven by hyper-nationalism, protectionism, or the desire to create a dependent class and voter block, the ultimate end of immigration laws is the aggrandizement of State power at the expense of personal liberty.

Why Primary Debates are a Waste of Time

In a word, television. Commercial breaks and the constant “innovations” that cater to the TV viewer take the focus away from actually discussing the issues.

Any legitimate idea is going to take more than 30 seconds to explain. The vast majority or people don't read Mises or Hayek. The Austrian explanation of the economic collapse cannot be quickly explained, yet it is intuitively accepted by most who do take the time to listen or study the question.
 The modern debate format precludes such explanation; the time constraints imposed by television destroy such meaningful discourse. Candidates are not all asked the same questions, so there is no hope for an apples-to-apples comparison.

Instead, they are asked absurdly insignificant questions like "American Idol or Dancing with the Stars?" Or legitimate questions are asked without a reasonable opportunity to give answers.

“Congressman Paul, explain why the housing market is terrible,  while juggling the collected works of Lord Keynes…Quick, you have 8 seconds…”

The result is that shallow clowns like Herman Cain and Barack Obama rise to the top with empty sloganeering and one-liners, without giving actual answers. Evasive politician-types like Romney and Santorum have just enough time to say "America is the best" and evade any further answer.

The American people continue to be largely ignorant of the views of those who vie to represent them, and cast ballots on the basis of who has the nicest hair or speaks the most eloquently.

Meanwhile. the American Republic is crushed under the weight of an ever expanding Federal apparatus and we are forced to grovel at the feet of our self-appointed dictators.

But hey-If you want to hear an actual explanation of the issues, Here ya go.

Beyond the Sphere of Private Property...

"Beyond the sphere of private property and the market lies the sphere of compulsion and coercion; here are the dams which organized society has built for the protection of private property and the market against violence, malice, and fraud. This is the realm of constraint as distinguished from the realm of freedom. Here are rules distinguishing between what is legal and what is illegal, what is permitted and what is prohibited.

And here is a grim machine of arms, prisons, and gallows, and the men operating it, ready to crush those who dare to disobey." -Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, p. 719.

What becomes of us when the dams burst?

What becomes of us when these dams burst? At what point do we hold the line on the growth of this grim machine, or even roll it back? Congress will not. Weep and wail as they may about the aggrandizement of executive power at the expense of congressional, they all recognize this truth: a rising tide lifts all ships. It is often argued that each branch strengthens itself at the expense of others, but this is nonsense. As Nock argued, Government does not grow by cannibalizing itself, but by absorbing the power of the people. As executive power grows, so does the power of the legislature and courts. The proportion of power wielded by each branch may fluctuate, but the total state power is ever-increasing. 


Despite the sincere convictions of most conservatives, the U.S. Constitution cannot restrain this growth. It may be a truism, but if it could, it would. As Lysander Spooner wrote in the appendix of "No Treason:" "whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Spooner contended, as did Rothbard and others, that the Constitution represented a betrayal, not an enshrinement, of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.


Perhaps a return to Constitutionalism is a movement in the right direction; a halfway house between the current trend toward totalitarianism and liberty. I am inclined to think that it is. However, that is a means, not a destination. Even if we could re-establish strict Constructionism tomorrow; If we could burn the Federal Reserve, dissemble the welfare state, abandon military interventionism, and dissolve the myriad departments of the Federal Leviathan, our victory would be but for a day. Another FDR, or Hamilton, or Lincoln, or Johnson would arise...and we would again shuffle down the road to serfdom.

Constitutionalism, then, is a means to a much greater end; a step toward the withering of the State and all its vicious mechanisms.

Original Sources; still the best

We need to get together and decide to quit giving JFK credit for this:

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."


Is it a good line? Sure. Did Kennedy think it up? No. Did he even express it as well as the one from whom it was taken? Nope.

He just dumbed down this brilliant line from Gibbon:

"As long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal praise on their destroyers than on their benefactors, The thirst of military glory will forever be the vice of the most exalted characters."

As an aside, do I believe in Intellectual Property? Nope. I don't think the Kennedys owe the Gibbon estate money, I just think everyone should read Decline and Fall before they buy a paperback of Profiles in Courage.

Bees and Bailouts

Yahoo posted yet another article today that preached about how "taxpayers" should feel blessed that one of the myriad government interventions in the economy (the GM bailout) only lost 10-12 billion dollars. Steven Rattner, Car Czar, proclaims that it was a "great deal," and if you dare question it, your ideas are incomprehensible. 

Setting aside my instinctive revulsion to all that smacks of the fallacious Keynesian notion that the economy's pump can be primed by "government spending," I read the article, and now I want to play a quick game of "this is why they just don't get it."

First, losing twelve billion dollars, (and that's assuming GM shares don't further decline), even in magical government monopoly money land, is Bad, mmmkay? Not positive. Even with the special ability to print money, when you lose billions, you have to print even more to pay for the next bailout or wheel of government cheese.

Second, even Rattner unwittingly concedes that the bailout served to further encourage and perpetuate malinvestments that were contrary to the wisdom of the market. He says "I cannot even understand an argument for what else could have possibly happened," as there was "just no [private] capital" to support GM and Chrysler in late 2008-early 2009." Of course, governmental action having been taken, there is no room to doubt it was the right action. He doesn't stop to consider why, even though that is about the only query any sane person would offer. Why was there no "private capital" to "support" GM and Chrysler? Why is only the government the only entity that didn't run screaming from the idea of making these loans? Because they invested in production facilities in locations where union laws distorted the cost of production, namely labor, to untenable highs. They continued to produce products that consumers weren't buying, from brands (Saturn, anyone?) to models (Gas is $4 a gallon: who wants a Suburban?) Private capital doesn't flow toward companies whose market share looks like this:

And because the government doesn't have to weigh risk as the private sector does; in fact, they don't even have the mechanism to measure such risk, if they wanted to. In the worst case, they will simply fix their losses by the printing press or by taxation; in either case, on the backs of the people.

So the only thing the bailout did was perpetuate failure. Even if GM and Chrysler once again become competitive, even thriving companies, what could successful the manufacturers with stable or rising market share have done with the increased capital they would have raised had Gm and Chrysler gone under? Built more plants in the US? Brought more jobs toright-to-work States? Maybe even developed viable alternate fuel or high-efficiency vehicles? We will never know, as the broken window has claimed another victim.

But none of this is what is really driving me crazy today. For some reason, I am especially put off by the collectivist language and mentality that is constantly forced upon us. We are “taxpayers,” “the public,” “the elderly,” “the poor.” We’re all part of some hive, differing from one another only in slight, surface ways.

We are not seen as individuals, unique in our goals, desires, and aspirations. Endowed with real opinions and preferences. Only human actors are able to question and reject the ideas and actions of their masters, and so a concerted effort is made to remind us that we are but a small piece of the collective whole. You are a cog, nothing more.

Rebellion and dissent will not be tolerated; therefore the individual must be abolished. Get back to the hive. (Get thee to a hunnery?)

This article takes up a similar theme.

Things have not changed much....

"On hawkish foreign policy, on aggrandizing militarism and the military -industrial complex, on crushing civil liberties and granting unchecked powers to the police, on aggrandizing executive power and privilege-in short, on the major problems of our time, the Conservatives and Liberals are in broad agreement...and so now we face an America ruled alternately by scarcely differentiated conservative and liberal wings of the same state-corporatist system." -Murray Rothbard, The Betrayal of the American Right

The book was written in 1973, that quote in a 1991 revision.

Considering that the last two presidents, with significant bipartisan support, have both passed the Patriot Act and started or perpetuated pointless military actions, I'd say Rothbard pretty well nailed this one.

The Left-Right Paradigm is Obsolete.

Here's a much more accurate visual representation of political positions and their outcomes:

Borrowed, with great appreciation, from Liberty and Life

Which book is not like the others?

That's right, the one without the politician's smarmy mug on the cover. Via Tom Woods

A Government of Momentum, and Not of Laws

This is brilliant, I think. It's not mine, though I wish it were:

A Government of Momentum, and Not of Laws

What's wrong with the State?

It's a very simple proposition. It's not true that anyone living today, with the exception of newly naturalized citizens, willingly entered into a "social contract" of any type, whereby they disposed of some measure of their right to be free from violence to enter into a compact with the government.

Therefore the only apparatus of state power is violence. Near or far, somewhere down the line, state power in enforced, not by social power or voluntary association, but by the threat of violence. Therefore, the state exists and is perpetuated by violence or the threat thereof. It is either explicitly violent (as in the case of police/paramilitaries) or implicitly (IRS).

In fact, the State holds a monopoly on "legitimate" violence.

Violence is evil.

Therefore the State is an attempt to monopolize and legitimized what is evil.

Whether it is better to have a small state or no state for the preservation of individual rights is a matter of some debate, but that is a utilitarian, rather than a moral, question

 Thanks to Albert Jay Nock and Murray Rothbard, from whom this syllogism was more or less stolen.

Faith and the Path Toward Libertarianism

I have had several discussions with people who marvel at my profession that my libertarian tendencies have developed as an outgrowth of my Christian faith.

Christians, you see, are supposed to be imbued with an unshakeable belief in American exceptionalism, the inherent goodness of the federal government, and the justice of our cause. We are supposed to recognize that blind obedience is our patriotic duty, and that unflinching patriotism is the closest thing to godliness.We are supposed to believe that reciting the pledge of allegiance and invoking God's blessings upon our military adventures necessarily grants them divine sanction. We are to construe our Lord's famous exhortation to "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" as an ironclad commandment to submit to every whim and dictate of our earthly overlords without question. We are to believe that it was the Lord, not Woodrow Wilson or William F. Buckley, who commanded us to engage in endless war for the sake of our glorious republic.

We dare not question the legitimacy of America's actions, for she must necessarily be the "city on a hill" of Matthew 5:14. After all, Reagan said so, and fidelity to Reagan is one of the Christian's most sacred duties.

I reject this. I believe we are called to a higher and more fundamental law, so important and universal that it was spoken, not only by Jesus, but also by virtually every major religious leader. It is the principle that underlies biblical Christianity, and it finds expression in the libertarian non-aggression principle. It is the principle, that according to Jesus, is at the heart of God's self-revelation to mankind.

"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you would want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12, NASB

If you would not be stolen from, why steal? If you would not have vengeance visited upon you, do not be eager to seek vengeance on others. If you would not be arbitrarily imprisoned on a whim, how is it that you support the arbitrary imprisonment of others? Upon this "Golden Rule" hangs the message of the Law and the Prophets.