who's your nanny?

Hitler's Halloween

Child sex offenders in Maryland are being forced to stay home tonight, turn off outside lights, and display signs on their front doors that read, "No candy at this residence."

Funny, I've always thought that's what lights off meant.

We shouldn't be too quick to forget that people who find themselves on these sex offender registries are hardly all guilty of violent crimes toward children. Indeed, often they are themselves children -- teenagers who may have been prosecuted for having consensual sex with younger teens; convicted on charges of child pornography for taking naked pictures of each other; or for innocently, if inappropriately, slapping the butts of fellow classmates. And let's not forget that there are varying grades and degrees of abuse even where adults have violated existing laws.

In short, while bona fide sexual predators make me sick, it's not at all apparent to me that the state should be tasked with protecting our children. But even where it has assumed this responsibility, it's one thing to look out for the welfare of kids; it's another thing entirely to act like a frigging Nazi about it.

Aside from the draconian nature of this policy, it carries with it one important side effect that the state has apparently failed to consider: While these "no candy" signs might keep children off the porches of known sexual deviants, they simultaneously encourage kids to let their guard down around people who have no obligation to post them. I'd say we want our kids to be cautious around all strangers, no?

If you want your children to be safe as they trick-or-treat tonight, be a parent and accompany them around the neighborhood. And if anyone tries to take criminal liberties with your kids, pull out your .357 and blow his ass away.

What? Only criminals are allowed to carry firearms in Maryland? Pity that. Guess we'll all have to take our chances and rely on protection from the same people who came up with this ridiculous Halloween policy in the first place.

Maryland's Gambling Fascism

As a resident of Maryland I've been inundated the past couple weeks with snail mail spam urging me to vote next week for Question 2, a proposed amendment to the state's constitution that, according to the language on the ballot, would "authoriz[e] video lottery terminals (slot machines) to fund education."

Here we go again: whoring out the kids so the state can rake in more money.

To wit, the amendment ostensibly "Authorizes the State to issue up to five video lottery licenses for the primary purpose of raising revenue for education of children in public schools, prekindergarten through grade 12, public school construction and improvements, and construction of capital projects at community colleges and higher education institutions."

Given that I generally lead anything but a charmed life, I personally don't make a habit of gambling. However, this doesn't mean I have a right to prevent anyone else from entering into voluntary contract with others around a gaming table. And if I don't have this right, neither does the state.

If Maryland wants to profit from gambling -- notwithstanding the existing government-operated state lottery -- it could simply lift its gambling ban and collect tax revenue from anyone looking to get into this business. Instead, however, the state seeks to establish a quasi-fascist monopoly over this proposed new gambling industry, co-opting a select few private corporations and shutting out anyone else interested in making a few extra bucks off slot machines.

Not a bad gig for those lining up at the trough to take advantage of their political clout, eh?

Apparently, Maryland will allow no more than 15,000 video lottery terminals throughout the state. However, considering the state's only issuing up to five licenses, this means that each location could have, on average, 3,000 gaming machines. In other words, the state's getting into the casino industry at the expense of common citizens who are prohibited from doing so.

It's more than a little ironic that Question 2 is being raised as a constitutional amendment when Maryland's constitution supposedly guarantees equality under the law. But there's nothing about equality that justifies the use of force to compel taxpayers to subsidize initiatives with which they disagree. Whether one is morally opposed to gambling itself or morally opposed to state-sanctioned coercion, Maryland has no moral right to victimize citizens by forcing them to foot the bills for activities they oppose.

But back to the education angle. The state's pitch is to claim that it will be able to keep taxes low if only we credulous folk sign off on this scam. Pardon? One would think taxes would actually have to be low in the first place in order to "keep" them that way. However, one of Gov. Martin O'Malley's first actions upon taking office last year was to usher in $1.3 billion worth of tax hikes.

"It was hard to ask people to do more," the smug thief alleged, "but it would have been irresponsible to not ask the people of our state to choose to make progress.''

Ask people? It's hard to imagine a more audacious, condescending statement. I've never once been "asked" to "do more" for my state. I have, however, been repeatedly forced to surrender my own hard-earned money at the point of a gun.

If Maryland gets the go-ahead to establish a gambling cartel, whether or not the state will spend most of its prospective slots revenue on new schools and education programs remains to be seen, but it's entirely irrelevant in any case. Is there any doubt at all that the state will continue to tax income, property, and consumer products as it simultaneously shovels into its coffers millions -- billions? -- in gambling-related revenue? If anything, the more money the state gobbles up the more it will spend on new government programs, which will demand continuous funding and only lead to more oppressive regulations as the state continues to grow and expand its reach over the rest of us.

The state of Maryland should not be in the business of gambling, or even education for that matter. Yet this debate has been framed from the outset as a tug of war between those who want to see gambling brought into the state in even greater scope (currently slot machines are allowed at select horse racing tracks) and those who don't -- with state oversight and regulation as the common denominator regardless.

Those who favor slots or other gaming have no right to use state violence to impose their will upon others, any more than those who happen to oppose gambling for personal or religious reasons have the right to use the state to prevent it.

Gambling, like any other commercial good or service, should be privately available to any consumer interested in contracting peacefully and consensually with any producer. The state simply has no business initiating violence against anyone to either ban or endorse it.

No Time for Truth

As the election for our new dictator slavemaster tyrant president nears, it has dawned on me that the American public is allergic to truth. Exhibit A is Ron Paul. While I still wouldn't vote for him because I don't vote in general, I do admire his courage. He is the only person in the entire governmental apparatus who understands economics; who actually believes in limited government; and who preaches freedom. No one else does this. His presidency wouldn't cure all of our ills because the State would still exist, but its reach into our lives could be rolled back giving us a glimpse of the freedom our ancestors used to have. Nevertheless, his message was rejected by most Americans.

Yet Americans don't want to admit that the next president of this country will be a socialist. McCain and Obama have been trading barbs lately when McCain rightly called Obama a socialist. Of course, McCain is a socialist as well. He may be more of a fascist if I use Jonah Goldberg's definition from his book Liberal Fascism:

Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy.

FDR: America's First Fascist President

Snippet from a tremendous article today by Anthony Gregory:

It is funny that FDR is so universally beloved on left and right. He imposed counterproductive economic fascism, destroyed food while people starved, imposed gun control and drug control at the federal level, created Fannie Mae (which has continued to cause economic troubles), drafted plans to round up rightwing and leftwing activists without due process, conscripted ten million Americans into the military, waged total war on civilians, brought nuclear weaponry into the world, stuck tens of thousands of U.S. citizens into concentration camps, set up a censorship office, palled around with Stalin, turned away exiled Jews back to Nazi control, was all around deceitful in foreign affairs, and did not actually bring America out of the Depression, in terms of economic well-being for the American people.

Wish I Had It All Figured Out at 20

Here's a quick note written by a college kid to Lewrockwell.com:

I'm 20 years old and a political science major at UAB. I started reading your website in 2006 and after John McCain secured the Republican nomination, I started seriously considering your stand on not voting. I decided it was just not worth it anymore. I'll continue to vote occasionally against taxes or in local elections where a few votes can make a difference, but I will never vote to give someone the immense power that is illegitimately vested in the Presidency.

It's funny, I wanted to vote for president my entire life and now that I am able to cast my ballot, I am willingly choosing to sit home on election day.

Incidentally, on the same topic, read this article by LRC's Butler Shaffer, which was written in 2004 but republished today. Just replace Bush and Kerry with McCain and Obama -- or, you know, with Tweety and Thilvethter, or whoever you like. It really doesn't matter.

Bend Your Knee to the State!

Tragically, an 8-year-old Massachusetts boy died last Sunday when he accidentally shot himself in the head while shooting an Uzi under adult supervision at a firing range.

Of course, that isn't stopping the local DA from trying to find someone to pin criminal charges on (my emphasis).

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. - Authorities in Massachusetts are considering whether criminal charges should be filed in the death of an 8-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself with an Uzi submachine gun at a gun show.

Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett said Tuesday he hasn't been able to find any law that would authorize a child to possess or fire a machine gun.

The reason Bennett hasn't been able to find a law that would permit a child to fire such a gun is because laws are generally written to prohibit people from doing things.

It's bad enough that we're legally required to understand the incomprehensible litany of laws that are shoved down our throats by federal, state, and local governments; now, apparently, we're supposed to tiptoe around wondering if the state's deigned to allow us to partake in particular activities that haven't yet been legally outlawed.

(Thanks to Kramer)

Tick-Tock

Here's a link to the U.S. national debt clock. As of today, the public debt exceeds $10.5 trillion, which works out to more than $34,500 per citizen. That means that a family of four, right now, is on the hook for roughly $138,000.

Socialism or National Socialism, Take Your Pick

A couple delicate Examiner readers took offense to my post yesterday in which I referred to Obama as "Comrade Barack." Apparently the vast majority of people in this country want to be lavished with socialist programs, but we're not supposed to admit the United States is a socialist country.

Exactly what is it, then, when America is defined by empire abroad, central banking, public schooling, domestic welfare programs, entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, handouts for the rich and poor, regulation, bailouts, and any form of corporatist subsidy under the sun -- with every thin dime of it funded by money confiscated from American taxpayers?

Go ahead, I'll wait...

As Anthony Gregory points out just this morning, Republicans are no better than Democrats when it comes to installing and perpetuating American socialism. So of course Obama's a socialist, just like McCain. We can rejoice in the fact that our choice is between a socialist and a national socialist. Whee.

Proof We Live in a Police State

When civil liberties groups have to circulate citizens' guides like this.

No Surprise Here...

In Notes on Democracy, H. L. Mencken argued that what the masses want is not freedom, but security:

They know what they want when they actually want it, and if they want it badly enough they get it. What they want principally are safety and security. They want to be delivered from the bugaboos that ride them. They want to be soothed with mellifluous words. They want heroes to worship. They want the rough entertainment suitable to their simple minds. All of these things they want so badly that they are willing to sacrifice everything else in order to get them. The science of politics under democracy consists in trading with them, i. e., in hoodwinking and swindling them. In return for what they want, or for the mere appearance of what they want, they yield up what the politician wants, and what the enterprising minorities behind him want. The bargaining is conducted to the tune of affecting rhetoric, with music by the choir, but it is as simple and sordid at bottom as the sale of a mule. It lies quite outside the bounds of honour, and even of common decency. It is a combat between jackals and jackasses. It is the master transaction of democratic states.

We see this every day in our airports and now the citizens in the DC metropolitian area get to experience such ostensible security as they board the Metro. Metro officers will now start random searches of passgeners' bags. I'm only surprised that it has taken so long for this to happen. The purpose of this is not really to increase safety, but only the appearance of safety:

Truth Hurts

Comrade Barack doesn't like tough questions. Just ask Joe the Plumber. So when WFTV's Barbara West pressed Joe Biden to explain why Obama's intentions to "spread the wealth" aren't of the Marxist variety, the Obama campaign decided to blackball the Florida television station for the remainder of the campaign.

Which is interesting considering Obama admits to "carefully choosing" to associate with socialists and Marxists as a college student.

Financial Fascism Has Begun

The White House is tired of these bankers who have recently decided to use wise lending standards. Instead they want them to just give people money, as if the State couldn't just print it up and send it out:

An impatient White House is serving notice on banks receiving billions of dollars in federal help to quit hoarding the money and start making more loans.

White House press secretary Dana Perino told reporters Tuesday that the Bush administration is trying to "get banks to do what they are supposed to do," which is lend money. Though there are limits on how much Washington can pressure financial firms, she noted that banks are regulated by the federal government.

Yes, one function of banks is to lend money, but banks are supposed to take wise risks. However, the State believes that since it is giving the money to banks, it should dictate where it should go. This is why you should never do business with the State. Why the State takes such a step is not immediately obvious for it can easily print up the money and just drop from helicopters. Or it can print the money and just walk to random houses and give it to people. But a criminal gang has to launder money somehow. Giving it to banks to lend and then complaining that the banks are being stingy deceives the public; they will now blame the banks and the free market, not the State which created this mess in the first place.

Get Your Guns Now

According to the Washington Post, gun and ammunition sales are thriving despite a depressed economy. What's primarily responsible for this?

Several variables drive sales, but many dealers, buyers and experts attribute the increase in part to concerns about the economy and fears that if Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wins the presidency, he will join with fellow Democrats in Congress to enact new gun controls. Obama has said that he believes in an individual right to bear arms but that he also supports "common-sense safety measures."

In short, people are getting guns while they still can.

According to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, there were 8.4 million background checks from Jan. 1 to Sept. 28 this year, up 9 percent from the same period last year. Ironically, the fact that this data is even available is reason enough to purchase a firearm if you so choose -- federal regulations mandating background checks are unconstitutional, shouldn't exist in the first place, and threaten our right to effective self-defense.

Experts say this surge in gun sales comes as little surprise, as trends indicate this often is the case whenever people anticipate the election of an anti-gun president (both candidates favor gun control) or fear that popular shootings like the Virginia Tech massacre will lead to more restrictions on private gun ownership.

However, while a great many people fear that gun control will simply limit their ability to use firearms for sport or home defense, it shouldn't go unnoticed that restrictions on gun ownership ipso facto translate into an ever more powerful State. A disarmed citizenry essentially is powerless to defend against tyranny, and as the founding fathers understood, it's just as important to have guns to overthrow an oppressive government as it is to beat back the common thug at one's doorstep.

According the State, Envy and Theft Are Virtues

Exodus 20:15-Thou shalt not steal

Exodus 20:17-Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

I have yet to find the passages in the Bible where God makes exceptions for these commandments, such as "Thou shalt not steal, except when your neighbor has a lot more money than you have," or "Thou shalt not covet...except when your neighbor has a lot more stuff than you have." For some reason the citizens of this ostensibly "Christian" nation can't get these commandments correct, because many of them have no problem breaking these commandments if the State does it for them. According to this MSNBC survey, 51 percent of Americans support heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute the wealth. What I infer is that Americans don't even care about the supposed purpose of taxation and that is to raise money for the State to function. Not that we even need a State, but at least such an argument has a modicum of practicality. No, just take money from the rich because they have it. Because we all know that after the rich ruler chose not to obey Jesus and give away half of his possessions, Jesus sent the disciples after him, beat the ruler up, and took all of his possessions. No, wait that doesn't happen in my version of the Bible at all. Perhaps this story is found in the same version with the exceptions to theft and covetousness. I'm still looking for such a version, but if any of you have one, let me know.

We Always 'Target' the Terrorists, Don't We?

But end up murdering the innocent.

Without confirming U.S. involvement, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the group targeted in the raid was responsible for attacks in Iraq, including one recently that killed 13 police officers in an Iraqi village near the Syrian border, the Reuters news service reported.

"Iraq had asked Syria to hand over this group which uses Syria as a base for its terrorist activities," Dabbagh said.

But Syrian officials said that only civilians were killed, and on Sunday summoned the top U.S. diplomat in the country, Charge d'Affaires Maura Connelly, to notify her of "Syria's condemnation and complaint of this dangerous aggression," the Syrian Arab News Agency reported.

Iran and Russia also criticized the raid.

Why, again, do they hate us?

NYPD: Criminal 'Crime-Fighters'

A gang of cops allegedly attacked and sodomized a Brooklyn man for allegedly smoking a joint in a subway station.

[Michael] Mineo was walking from his home to the Prospect Park subway station on Empire Boulevard at Flatbush Avenue at about 2 p.m. on Oct. 15 when two uniformed officers spotted him allegedly smoking a joint.

They chased him into the station, and at some point, Mineo allegedly swallowed the marijuana. Five cops tackled him near a token booth, where they beat him and stood on his neck, said [Mineo's attorney Stephen] Jackson and the law-enforcement sources.

One officer then allegedly pulled Mineo's pants down and shoved a police radio's antenna into his rectum.

The cops then hauled a bleeding Mineo into a police car and issued him a desk-appearance ticket before cutting him loose, Jackson said.

They also warned him not to report the incident or they would upgrade his charge to a felony, according to the attorney.

Jackson said his client heard one of the officers yell, "No! Don't do it!" as his pants were being pulled down. His roommate and co-worker, Jason Amolsch, found him yelling that the "cops violated him."

The report notes that this alleged assault is reminiscent of the 1997 police assault on Abner Louima, but whereas Louima was black and his attackers white, Mineo is white and his alleged attackers white, black, and Hispanic.

This difference, however, is largely irrelevant. While there undoubtedly may be racially-motivated attacks by police, much more dangerous is the monopoly on the use of force every single one of them, regardless of race, wields over the rest of us.

It's pretty clear our PC police state has merely given us the pleasure of being beaten by a more colorful contingent of government thugs.

(Via Anthony Gregory)

13-Year-Old Busted for Taking Medical Marijuana to School

Hey, if you're gonna get suspended for having aspirin or broken pencil sharpeners in school, you might as well go whole hog!

Sadly, no doubt the neoprohibitionists will seize on this episode as yet further proof that we need to outlaw the evil, evil plant even when used for legal pain relief. 

Trust the Market, Not Government, To Keep You Safe

Contrary to popular belief, laws and regulations aimed at keeping criminals at bay are largely worthless, or at the very least inferior to measures individuals can (and should) take to protect themselves.

Violating someone's rights to life and property is immoral regardless of whether or not some legislative body passes laws making it illegal, and far too often these laws are used to round up the innocent in addition to the guilty. See sobriety checkpoints for a case in point.

Given the freedom to innovate, private companies will provide products that will keep us safer than the State ever could. For example, there's a new product on the market called TrueCall, a gadget that filters telemarketers' phone calls -- those "cold calls" we often receive at the most inopportune times -- and those attempting to get us to divulge personal information to identity thieves and other criminals.

... TrueCall, created by former telemarketers Steve Smith and John Price, intercepts all your calls and classifies them as either good or bad. Numbers on your 'star' list go through without hesitation every time, while unknown numbers and those on the 'zap' list are put on hold. The system asks those calling from an unknown number for their name, forwards the call to the user's phone, and gives them the option to either take it or reject it.

Much like the innovative detachable faceplate for car stereos did more to prevent car break-ins during the Eighties than anti-theft laws ever did, TrueCall is a market solution that would render government-sponsored "do not call" lists irrelevant.

The One Good Thing About Obama

Is that his presidency might actually precipitate the disintegration of the United States, says the inestimable Will Grigg.

Try as I might, I can't see why this would be a bad thing. Our current configuration is not a reflection of some divinely ordained design, after all. There's no reason why several "Americas" wouldn't be able to share the same continent, engaging in peaceful commerce and otherwise minding their own business. And it's difficult to see how such an arrangement would be "un-American"; those who truly love America would want the world to be blessed with not one, but many of them.

Given the unfortunate outcome last time a group of American states decided to quit the "Union" club, it's clear that the dangers of political fission are great. But remaining artificially yoked together in a bankrupt, increasingly untenable Union would most likely be fatal to liberty.

To the true libertarian, the only appropriate political recourse to tyranny is not a new election but peaceful secession. Of course, as Mr. Grigg points out, the State could hardly be expected to allow the disaffected to simply walk away from it. Think about that plain little fact the next time you try to argue seriously that the government merely exists to keep us safe.

As much as I admire Ron Paul for his adherence to constitutional principles and truly limited governance, and as much as I would love to see the majority of voters embark on a course of sanity instead of the opposite, I do not vote.

Whether my political views are correct or not is irrelevant; I have no right to impose my beliefs and affiliations on anyone else -- least of all through the cowardly practice of doing so through a surrogate so as to be free of the repercussions I would suffer for forcing my will upon others on my own.

Friday FoodDay: Trevor's Cajun Schmearwich

At the request of my boy Wolf, who's right when he says I haven't posted a recipe in, like, for-everrrr, here's a great gourmet-esque sandwich that'll take the edge off. Also great while you're watching football this weekend.

 

TREVOR'S CAJUN SCHMEARWICH

 

1 loaf ciabatta bread

1 lb. cajun turkey breast (I prefer Boar's Head Cajun or Salsalito turkey)

1 package alfalfa sprouts

6 to 8 slices pepper jack cheese

1 lb. jar roasted red peppers, drained

Trevor's Red Pepper Schmear (recipe follows)

 

Trevor's Red Pepper Schmear:

8 oz. block cream cheese, softened
½ cup sour cream, more to taste
4 tbsp. chopped roasted red peppers
Salt, black pepper, cayenne pepper, garlic powder, paprika to taste

Note: If you're a guy and you're making this sandwich, DO NOT use low fat cream cheese and sour cream or I'll never speak to you again. It's bad enough we're not deep-frying or grilling anything that goes on this sandwich.

1. Slice loaf of fresh ciabatta bread in half lengthwise and spread red pepper schmear liberally on both halves. (If you can't find one large loaf, use 4 to 6 individual ciabatta loaves. A good bakery should have either.) 

 

2. Layer sandwich with pepper jack cheese and cajun turkey breast. Add alfalfa sprouts and remaining roasted red peppers from jar.

 

3. Place top half on sandwich and slice however you like. Yes, it really is that easy.

 

Just make sure your knife's sharp when you go to slice it.

 

UPDATE (10/26): As promised, here are some pics of this sandwich, courtesy of Wolf, who rightly described it as a "BEAST." I suppose I should've pointed that out at some point in the recipe, but most of the dishes I share usually feed at least four people.

 

I enjoy entertaining when I'm at home and cooking for other people who appreciate good food, so it doesn't get much better than compliments like this: "The best endorsement came from my wife who LOVED it! And for her to eat full fat cream cheese and sour cream, well, that just doesn't happen."

 

Nice.

 

   

Oh yeah.

 

And here's one next to a beer bottle to put the size in perspective.

 

 

 

Thanks again to Wolf for putting this recipe to the test and getting some photographic documentation.

A Vote for McBama Is a Vote for Evil

Just so we're clear, if you go to the polls less than two weeks from now and cast your vote for either Obama or McCain, you are in no uncertain terms voting for evil. You will be voting to perpetuate (and increase the scope of) the leviathan state, led by a depraved ruler who will undeniably and most cruelly continue to murder innocent Iraqis and Afghans (meanwhile most likely focusing his sights next on the Persians), all while continuing to destroy the American economy by looting taxpayers to pay for his fascist mandates and socialist wealth redistribution programs.

I don't know if this means you're evil, per se, but it most certainly does not make you virtuous. However, I will say that if you actively support a government that boasts of robbing responsible individuals to subsidize the irresponsible; that points its guns at those who harm no one, but who nevertheless are imprisoned and tortured for failing to conform to your preferred lifestyle; then you are a disgusting, vile human being.

I'd be remiss if I didn't quote the great Arthur Silber, who makes the point thusly:

Most Americans who vote this November, and probably many of you reading this, will vote for one of these war criminals. I no longer care what rationalizations people use to justify such a detestable choice -- that one war criminal is not quite as bad as the other for some unspecified reason, that one of these bastards speechifies more prettily than the other and touches some inchoate, indefinable emotional chord in your stunted soul, that (as a friend recently observed to me privately, in condemning this version of the excuse) we've had white assholes governing this country for so long that it's only "fair" to have a black asshole in charge for a change. I don't give a damn what reason you give yourself for your embrace of evil, for only one fact matters:

If you vote for McCain or Obama, you're voting for a war criminal.

Be sure to read Silber's essay, "A Choice of War Criminals," contained there in the final link.

Maryland: The Domestic Spying State

According to the Baltimore Sun, the Maryland State Police Deptartment's efforts to spy on citizens ranged further than originally thought.

Maryland State Police spied on environmentalists - not just the death penalty opponents and war protesters that officials had previously acknowledged watching and entering into a database of terrorism suspects - a revelation that has intensified calls for new regulations on surveillance of activist groups.

Like clockwork, gullible "critics" call for tighter "regulations." This is like putting a rapist in charge of monotoring an all-girl dormitory. But nothing will change until we abolish government police. So, please, carry on with all the worthless complaining until you're ready to have a serious discussion about how this abuse comes into being in the first place.

I especially like this comment from Brian E. Frosh, chairman of the Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committee, who was appalled -- appalled, I say! -- to find that the police spied on well-known environmentalists (who, after all, probably donate millions to him and fellow Democrats):

"It's insane," the Montgomery County Democrat said. "It's wasteful in terms of police resources, and it obviously is not the kind of political operation one hopes for in a democratic society."

Sorry, Brian, but this is exactly the kind of political operation one can expect to find in a democratic society, where the tyrants can run free so long as they get the permission of the majority.

The Myth of Free Markets in America

George Reisman has an excellent article on the myth that laissez faire capitalism caused our current economic mess. Even better he explains how the anti-capitialistic mentality of Marx and Keynes inflitrated our educational institutions and the depressing results of having our media outlets and the dictators, slave masters, tyrants euphemistically known as elected leaders indoctrinated by these ideologies. One of our readers wondered just how the media became so anti-freedom and anti-market; look no further than our State educational system. I love this concluding paragraph:

The logical stopping point of this process is that one day everyone will end up being shackled to a wall, or at the very least being compelled to do something comparable to living in a zip code that matches his social security number. Then the government will know who everyone is, where he is, and that he can do nothing whatever without its approval and permission. And then the world will be safe from anyone attempting to do anything that benefits him and thereby allegedly harms others. At that point, the world will enjoy all the prosperity that comes from total paralysis.

The work of the Remnant never ends.

Socialism's a Bitch!

Gotta love Hugo.

SAN FELIX, Venezuela (Reuters) – Despite having some of the world's largest energy reserves, Venezuela is increasingly struggling to maintain basic electrical service, a growing challenge for leftist President Hugo Chavez.

The OPEC nation has suffered three nationwide blackouts this year, and chronic power shortages have sparked protests from the western Andean highlands to San Felix, a city of mostly poor industrial workers in the sweltering south.

All those oil riches, and Chavez still can't seem to figure out how to manage Venezuela's entire economy. Weird!

"With so much energy in Venezuela, how can we be without power?" asked Fernando Aponte, 49, whose slum neighborhood of Las Delicias in San Felix spent 15 days without electricity -- leading him to block a nearby avenue with burning tires in protest.

Mr. Aponte, time to read Mises and LewRockwell.com.

Our Elected Leaders Are Idiots; Let's Continue to Believe in Elected Leaders

Chris Hedges writes about this here. What I find most interesting about analysis such as this is its philosophical inconsistency and unflinching faith in the State. Such writers grasp a very important point regarding the State yet do not come to the conclusion that one ought to arrive at if he would only follow through with his logic. He starts off well:

Our oligarchic class is incompetent at governing, managing the economy, coping with natural disasters, educating our young, handling foreign affairs, providing basic services like health care and safeguarding individual rights. That it is still in power, and will remain in power after this election, is a testament to our inability to separate illusion from reality. We still believe in “the experts.” They still believe in themselves. They are clustered like flies swarming around John McCain and Barack Obama. It is only when these elites are exposed as incompetent parasites and dethroned that we will have any hope of restoring social, economic and political order. 

American Airport Security Is a Joke

I know I'm telling you something you probably already know, but here's some living proof from Jeffrey Goldberg.

New U.S. Logo

Thanks to Kramer, who sends along a little Thursday humor (click on picture for a larger, more readable version):

Considering that the condom's pretty much the best invention known to mankind, you know it would never be used as any country's logo. The government could never come up with anything that useful.

Be Prepared...

For evil in the unlikeliest of places.

John Edison, Jr: Poster Child for Maryland Tyranny

After a month of being blown off by the state of Maryland and forced to languish in a government cage while awaiting continuation of an initial hearing to have his rape case heard in a juvenile court, 16-year-old John Edison, Jr. was officially denied his request to be tried as a minor for the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl.

St. Mary's Circuit Judge Marvin Kaminetz heard two days of testimony about John K. Edison Jr. before ruling that the case should proceed ahead, out of concern for the public's safety.

"The court does consider this against tipping the scale in favor of the defendant," the active retired judge said, noting the administrative handling of two prior assault allegations against the boy, including one where an "authority figure" in the county's school system was the victim.

Edison's arrest last July on the rape charge expanded that pattern, the judge said.

"It's more aggressive behavior, antisocial, scary to the public," Kaminetz said. "I do consider him to be a danger to the public. That tips the scale in favor of the state."

Apparently allegations are now considered proof of guilt in this wonderful American justice system of ours.

Not only has Edison been confined in an adult jail without bond since July 5 on nothing more than a young girl's accusation of rape, but now the state of Maryland is also justifying his trial as an adult by holding previous assault allegations -- not convictions, mind you -- against him.

What's worse, Judge Kaminetz entirely ignored the medical examiner's report that there was no physical evidence found on the girl to suggest she was the victim of a violent physical or sexual assault.

Dr. Pieter Esterhay from the emergency room at St. Mary's Hospital in Leonardtown testified that a listing of the girl as a victim of a sexual assault was based solely on the patient's allegation that it occurred.

Kaminetz said he would not consider the hospital's listing of the sexual assault claim in his decision, and said that he concurred that Edison could be amenable to treatment.

This is sheer insanity. "We've got the robes and the guns," the state seems to be saying loud and clear, "and we don't give a damn what the evidence shows, even if there's virtually none to speak of. We've decided you're guilty and that's all there is to it." This is tyranny writ large.

Even if we assume that John Edison is guilty of rape, it's difficult to explain the state's hard-on for this kid. The prosecution is painting the picture that Edison is some violent menace to society -- even though there is no medical evidence suggesting a crime even occurred, and, in fact, the medical examiner reported the girl's hymen still intact.

Even if Edison took things a little too far after he and the girl began fooling around consensually and she suddenly changed her mind, he's nevertheless being treated as if he boasts an existing criminal record for armed rape or robbery, or as if he was actually apprehended after breaking into the home of a random victim and holding her at knifepoint.

Instead of acting like adults and using even a fraction of common sense in reviewing the facts of this case, the state's lawyers and judges are falling for a story concocted by two little girls who were caught hanging out all night and into the wee hours of the next morning with older boys. I know kids have never been known to lie before, but this is absurd in the extreme and almost too ridiculous for words. The state is showing nothing but extreme prejudice against Edison.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the state recently turned up DNA evidence proving that Edison was with the 12-year-old girl, which is unsurprising given that they spent the better part of an entire day together. And no doubt the prosecution will argue that although the girl's medical exam came out negative, it still doesn't "prove" Edison didn't rape her (even though it argues that Edison committed a violent rape). But here's my question: If the medical examiner had testified that the girl's exam indicated she actually had intercourse, would the prosecution insist that that didn't necessarily indicate she'd been raped? To ask that question is to answer it, as the prosecution's job is to obtain convictions, plain and simple.

As it stands, John Edison remains imprisoned in an adult jail awaiting a December trial on charges of second-degree rape and second-degree sexual offense with a 12-year-old girl. I'm not a doctor, and I understand that in some rare cases a female's hymen can actually remain intact even if she is the victim of rape. I also realize that sexual assault can come in a variety of sickening forms -- especially where children are concerned -- and an intact hymen doesn't necessarily mean an assault didn't take place. However, the state of Maryland is arguing that Edison is guilty of a violent rape, which would almost certainly result in at least some bruising and tearing around the girl's vaginal region. And whereas I'm not a doctor, Dr. Pieter Esterhay is, and he has testified that the 12-year-old's exam revealed no indication of abuse.

Sadly, something tells me the state really won't care about this inconvenient little fact as it charges forward with its quest to demolish the life of John Edison.

Stay Healthy: Abolish the State

Wal-Mart has announced plans to institute its own quality standards for products manufactured in China, going above and beyond the largely worthless federal regulations currently in place.

BEIJING (AP) — Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, said Wednesday it will set new quality standards for its suppliers amid a scare over toxic milk products that have sickened tens of thousands of babies across China.

Meanwhile, the United Nations released a report that recommends China increase oversight of its food safety system and hold businesses accountable for their products.

Mike Duke, vice chairman of Wal-Mart's international division, said the company is expecting "greater transparency ... from our supplier partners" beginning next month.

Why would Wal-Mart police itself? After all, aren't private businesses -- to say nothing of global superstores! -- just greedy capitalists out to rip us off?

Wal-Mart has much more to lose than the government does if it sells products that end up killing or sickening its customers. People can simply choose not to shop at Wal-Mart, but they can't so easily remove themselves from the State's clutches.

Don't buy into the myth that the government can keep you safe. Instead, if you value your health, associate as much as possible with those driven by the profit motive. Recall that when Mattel recalled nearly a million toys from China last year that contained lead paint, it didn't need to be forced to do so.

'Change'? 'Maverick'? Gimme a Break!

Anthony Gregory has a superb article this morning explaining that there wouldn't be much difference between an Obama or McCain presidency; that both will carry on the Bush legacy of expanding the welfare-warfare state; and why it would be better just to keep Bush in office four more years.

Given that we will have four more years of Bush anyway, I prefer we keep the real Dubya around. He is distrusted by the masses, an embarrassment to his own party, exhausted from his stint and largely impotent. McCain or Obama will have a mandate. Another genuine Bush term would probably be much less effective – i.e., destructive to liberty and peace.

If you don't vote next month, they can both lose.

Why I Don't Trust Environmentalists

Because they want to kill everyone. Here's the concluding passage:

Just as Nazis and Communists loathed capitalism, so do today’s environmentalists. Greenies hate private property, they hate human liberty, they hate prosperity, they hate modern-day industry, and they hate the free market. They will always choose beavers, trees, and rock formations over people. Environmentalists are using climate change (the big lie), wetlands legislation, the Endangered Species Act, and myriad other legal constraints to slowly choke off capitalism and supplant it with socialism. Of course, their desire is to exercise control over a much smaller population than exists today – Jacques-Yves Cousteau even stated that the ideal human population would be "…limited to 100,000 people, but educated and respectful of nature." So who decides to kill whom? When you sum all of this up, Greenies simply detest the human race. Accordingly, environmentalism is the deepest and broadest form of racism known to mankind.

FAA Considers Arrests Proof of Guilt

One need not look too hard these days to find examples of government abuse of due process rights, and the FAA has just provided another.

According to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the largest civil aviation organization in the world comprising more than 415,000 pilots, the FAA has amended its Form 8500-8 (application for medical certification) to require applicants to "disclose arrests in addition to the current requirement to report convictions and administrative actions involving alcohol-related driving offenses."

The FAA's new policy requiring disclosure of any history of mere arrests on its application for certification of medical fitness -- without which pilots are forbidden to fly -- robs individuals of the presumption of innocence, as noted by John Yodice, legal counsel for the AOPA, in a letter to Federal Air Surgeon Frederick E. Tilton.

... there are critical differences between an arrest and a conviction, most notably that an arrested individual has not been afforded due process of law.

As Yodice points out, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" dates back more than a century and is the very cornerstone of American jurisprudence. That the FAA apparently fails to distinguish between arrests and actual convictions should be unsettling for everyone, not just pilots current and prospective. While this policy could most immediately serve as grounds to prevent thousands of innocent people from becoming pilots, it also has the long-term effect of increasing the scope of the State, which will ultimately impact us all.

As important as Mr. Yodice's opinions are to the preservation of civil liberties, I'm wondering if the AOPA doesn't hurt its own cause with the following caveat in its letter (emphasis mine):

It is easy to appreciate the importance of disclosing potential alcohol abuse and reckless behavior as they may relate to FAA airman medical certification. [...] Such disclosures have been relevant in an analysis of whether an applicant is qualified to receive an FAA-issued airman medical certificate and we support the FAA's efforts to ensure safety and responsibility in general aviaion.

I appreciate the suspected need to "play nice" with the czars -- you get more bees with honey than with vinegar -- but the State nevertheless exists to control us. The FAA is among the most overbearing regulatory agencies in the country -- if not the most -- and admitting to supporting federal measures to "ensure safety and responsibility" will ultimately be the death knell of any organization.

In plain truth, the AOPA itself epitomizes how private organizations would police themselves even absent the State.

Representing two-thirds of all pilots in the United States, the AOPA probably has enough clout to get this latest FAA requirement properly removed. But it might also want to reassess its relationship with the FAA if it seeks to enjoy longevity as an organization championing the freedom of air travel. Despite the benefits that "compromises" can appear to provide, capitulating in any degree to one's rulers always results in incremental reductions in personal freedom.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics

Via Jeffrey Tucker at the Mises blog. I have seen parts one and three so far. Part three is about New Orleans, Katrina, and how people have had so much trouble rebuilding precisely because of the all the State regulations. Mayor Ray Nagin quite honestly admits that the private sector does a better job of helping people than government. When Stossel asks the mayor why he doesn't get out of the way and let the private sector take care of this problem exclusively, he responds that government has to do something. To paraphrase, he says that the government issued thousands of building permits after Katrina. The better question is "Who are you people to tell us how we can rebuild our own *^*&%& property???????"

As I posted yesterday, among the many problems of the State, one is that the agents and supporters of the State cannot deal with deal people doing things on their own. The agents believe that they just have to order people around and run their lives. Among the questions concerning freedom which confront Americans today are "Who are these people that we give them such power over our lives?" "Why do we have no faith in ourselves as free people to direct our own futures?" "If we truly fear for our safety in a state of anarchy because we believe that others will attack us, why on earth do we think that life would be better if we create an entity with the power to tax and the power to make laws without consent and a monopoly on aggression to enforce these powers?" "Why do we think that these same untrustworthy people will suddenly become saints when they gain power in an entity which has no restraints on the very desires to rob, murder, and oppress which we created this monstrosity to protect us from in the first place?"

It is truly an outrageous proposition to submit to the rule of someone else. Who wants to be told what to do all the time and threatened with physical violence for disobeying even the most trivial of laws, such as seatbelt laws? It makes me wonder that perhaps if slave owners had allowed the slaves to choose their masters rather than the other way around, slavery would have been more palatable to the public and the slaves. For aren't the slaves choosing their future? Aren't we slaves really ruling ourselves now that we can choose our own masters? Isn't it wonderful that through our own resources the State can destroy our money, pass laws restricting our disposal of our own property, force us to be educated in its schools, stop us without a warrant or even probable cause, provoke foreign States to hate us, use our own eyes to spy on us, and our own hands to beat us for disobeying laws meant to "protect us"? Isn't democracy great? Something to keep in mind Nov. 4.

More Statist Journalists

Here's another article on MSNBC which illustrates my point that mainstream journalists are unflinching statists. Christopher Elliot is complaining about the airline industry. His solution, of course, more government:

So how can air travel become more American? First, at the risk of repeating myself, I’m not objecting to the over-the-top amenities like ergonomic leather seats or in-flight showers. If there’s a market for it, then why not? But there ought to be minimum standards set by the government that require air carriers to treat their customers better than cargo.

As I wrote earlier, most journalists are not philosophical statists; in fact, they don't think much about anything philosophical at all. Let me expound on this point using this quote:

Remember the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution — the one about unreasonable searches and seizures? It doesn’t apply at the border. The government can ask for your password and hold your laptop or personal digital assistant for as long as it wants. That attitude seems to extend to the plane and the airport, too. Airlines want to block certain Web sites that contain objectionable material. It’s only a matter of time before airports start barring access sites with content they disagree with. Oh, wait — they already do. I was logged on to one airport’s public Wi-Fi network last week, and my own blog was blocked.

Mr. Elliot complains that the airlines should not have the right to block websites, although he has chosen to fly. The airline companines have the right to enforce whatever rules they wish on their property. It's their plane; you chose to fly, and you have agreed to subject yourself to their rules. You don't like it, don't fly. You don't have a right to airline travel.

It also seems that Mr. Elliot does not have a problem with the State suspending the Fourth Amendment. How on earth does it not apply at the border? Is the airport not on US soil? Or are such violations necessary for our safety? He spends more time in this article complaining about the airlines rather than the fact the State doesn't even obey its own laws. If find it interesting and disquieting the he has faith in the State to enforce a Bill of Rights against private airline companies, but does not seem troubled that the "government can ask for your password and hold your laptop or personal digital assistant for as long as it wants."

But this is the ideology of many people in this country; they would prefer to live under a violent, arbitrary State rather than in a free society as long as the possibility exists that they can use the State to violate the property rights of other people. They want egalitarinism in the free market and have no qualms about using the violence of the State to achieve this goal. Nor do they have any problems with the fact that one group of people receives the privilege of aggressing against another. They are completely oblivious to the fact that, through the State, in fact some people are more equal than others.

A Brief Thought on Property Rights

Yesterday my father-in-law treated my wife and me to a Washington Redskins game. Despite the sheer boredom of a scoreless first half and my ambivalent attitude toward professional football in general, I always enjoy a good tailgate and the weather was perfect.

Apparently, however, I wasn't the only one who threw back a few too many cold ones in the parking lot prior to kickoff (if this morning's any indication). I'm pretty sure the drunkest guy in the stadium was sitting directly in front of me.

Now, normally I'm a go along to get along type of guy. But when morons feel the need to stand up and block your view even in between plays, not to mention demonstrate some of the whitest dance moves known to man, I start to second-guess my stance on the non-aggression principle.

Of course, cooler and more sober heads prevailed, as I decided that form tackling the guy out of the blue probably wouldn't have been the smartest move. Not for nothing, the dude looked like he probably had some crazy redneck strength -- if his gray and black camo/cargo pant-and-double trucker hat (that's right: two mesh hats, one fat head) ensemble was any indication. No need to go to jail and get my clock cleaned in the same afternoon.

So, I moved down my row to an unoccupied seat and we all decided to see how long we could put up with this idiot's shenanigans before resorting to reporting him to stadium security. If at all possible, I really try not to be that guy. But as soon as his buddy (who I was now sitting behind) joined him in flailing his arms, inadvertently knocking his spit cup out of his hand and getting chew spit on my wife's jacket, I thought it was on. I'm not sure how many times I tried to rationalize this fiasco as a physical provocation worthy of retaliation, but I still tried to keep my cool. Crazy redneck strength and all. But at this point the entire row above us had seen what happened and started yelling at the guy. You know what that means: now I have backup!

To my surprise, however, the guy actually apologized to my wife immediately. She was blowing it off so I figured what the hell. And if the Browns or Redskins were actually doing anything of interest on the field, we would have had a lot more reason to want to actually see the game instead of this guy's rear end. So I think everything's cool, and then the guy's friend decides to turn around and tell us to "relax" for complaining about the chew spit incident.

I don't know about you, but I don't really like being told to relax by people causing me to get riled up. So I basically told the guy he should be telling his friend not to act like an asshole if he was so intent on giving lectures. He agreed, and that was pretty much the end of this first quarter-long charade.

So on to the point. Did I have a right to not only get angry at someone constantly blocking my view, but also to expect him not to do so? In short, yes.

First of all, though I didn't pay for my ticket, I'm pretty sure my father-in-law shells out about $125 per seat in his season ticket package. You don't pay that kind of money to stare at the pale white chest of a drunken fan; you pay it to see the game. And second, there's a reason venues like stadiums, gymnasiums, and theatres have telescopic seating -- it's so you can actually see what you're looking at.

In terms of property rights, my seat was my property for the day. Just as I would violate the right of the onlooker in front of me to see by leaning forward to block his view with my hands or a stupid homemade banner, so too would he violate mine by standing in front of me. While we have no right to a view through, say, our neighbors' houses to the scenery behind them, we do have a right to see a football field "through" the fans in front of us. This right is implicit in the design of the seating arrangement in the first place.

I suppose there's a bit of a gray area here where the argument could be made that I could always stand up to see over someone standing in front of me. Is this valid? I would say no, mostly because the fan in front of me has no right to force me to adjust my behaviors just to accommodate his. Not to mention, I would then force the person behind me to stand in order to see, and so on and on.

Moreover, people who contract with others have certain expectations of what they will get in exchange for their money or services. For example, when you voluntarily purchase the right to watch a sporting event, you're aware that people will be standing up and sitting down throughout a game. Sometimes you stand to go to the bathroom, to get food, or to cheer a favorable play or even boo an unfavorable one. And sometimes you sit. There are generally accepted conditions going in. Rights begin to get violated when people abuse these conditions, which by and large are laid out by the merchant from the outset. The Washington Redskins organization expects its fans to respect the rights of other customers; fans likewise expect the organization to preserve these rights. This is one of the reasons the team hires ushers and security guards in the first place.

Regardless of team policies, however, the concept of property rights can be used to adjudicate even trivial matters like the one I've outlined here. It really is true that we have the right to do whatever we please as long as we harm no one else in the process. Put differently, my rights end where yours begin. Businesses would not be very successful if they didn't acknowledge and honor this simple concept.

Now for the question of whether I had the right, under the conditions I've discussed, to use force to get the drunk guy in front of me to sit down. Again, no. Absent the initiation of force on his part, I would have violated the non-aggression principle by initiating violence. As I've previously mentioned the fact that I was wondering whether I had the right to engage this man physically as a result of his flinging chew spit on my wife's property, did his act constitute an act of aggression? I think it would be a stretch to conclude as much, for if someone does something by accident -- however infuriating and preventable -- it doesn't validate the use of violence in return.

For example, if someone intentionally uses his car to rear-end you at a stop light, you have every right to jump out of your car and beat him to a pulp to prevent imminent physical harm to your person. If he hits you by accident, jumps out of his car and apologizes for his error and you pop him one anyway, you'll rightly spend the night in jail.

As much as human nature often causes us to react irrationally to bizarre situations, it is incumbent upon us to respect the non-aggression axiom. Even if you argue I would have been justified in shoving a man for slinging a disgusting spit cup at my wife, consider the potential repercussions. What about the lady sitting two rows below him who breaks her neck as he falls onto her? What did she do to deserve this fate? Even if I am exonerated in a court of law for my actions toward the drunk, I am liable for my actions even if the consequences extend beyond the man alone.

You can always sue someone civilly for ruining a jacket; it is a criminal act to initiate violence.

Who's Responsible for This Financial Mess

One thing I notice about mainstream journalists is that they are unflinching statists. They may not be philisophical statists, i.e., they may not have thought through their statism as a Hobbes or Rousseau. However, they are convinced that the State is the panacea for our ills if only it would assume enough power. As an example, I present this article at MSNBC. John W. Schoen critiques readers' answers to the question "Who is responsible for this mess?" Several answers are what I expected from the masses who are ignorant of economic theory and have more faith in the State than Christians have in Jesus. But two answers stood out to me. The first is from John C., in Phoenix:

There is more at stake here than just a credit problem. If you dig deep enough you will find that the same players who created the Federal Reserve are also the same people who are buying up financial institutions in trouble. … The more I read about this situation it clearly indicates that this approach is not about money — it about sheer power and control. Any chance you can dig in to this story???  There is a story here — yet it seems the media is afraid to cover it.

This sounds like a man who reads Mises.org, Lewrockwell.com, and Who's Your Nanny on a regular basis. Mr. Schoen has quite a low opinion of such thinkers:

My personal opinions [sic] is that this dangerous nonsense helps people overcome a feeling of powerlessness (“They did this to me.”) and only makes it more difficult to develop realistic and rational solutions to the very real problems these “documentaries” conveniently overlook.

My translation: These theories make people lose faith in the State and democracy. They may realize that these memes such as "We are the government" and "My vote matters" are complete B.S.; thus, the people might free themselves from their State-centered ideology, realize that the State is a criminal gang writ large, and actually believe in themselves and free markets. When that happens, people like myself will not have access to the power to run other people's lives. Then what will we do?

Another reader, Ben H., in Atlanta, writes:

Are you unaware that "flooding it (the economy) with cash" causes inflation? In fact it is a fire hose compared to the lending window's squirt gun. Forget the discount rate. The real news is the billions in 'created' dollars the Fed is throwing at the financial markets. This will cause unprecedented inflation. Are you duped and don't realize this, or are you part of the con?

Sounds like someone who has read America's Great Depression or The Case Against the Fed. Mr. Schoen's reply speaks volumes, "Duped. I’m one of those members of the Mainstream Media that’s been reprogrammed by the Shadowy Overlords." Yes, Mr. Schoen, you are and you have.

Beware Any Politician...

...who believes his authority extends beyond the country's borders.

Yes, that means virtually all of them -- except, of course, for you know who.

Translating Bernake's Speech

Gary North translates Ben Barnake's October 15 lecture to the Economic Club of New York.

Heroic Ron Paul

There's no such thing as free money, says Ron Paul, who explains why the State's manipulation of the money supply will eventually crush the global economy.

How the State Encourages Violence Among Its Subjects

Through elections, as Michael Tennant points out. Apparently some people have resorted to handing out beatings rather than lawn signs. My favorite quote:

In short, politics is about power: who gets to wield it, how much he gets to wield, and over whom he gets to wield it. This is only natural since the state itself is nothing but organized, self-legalized violence. Governments come into existence via violent means, they claim a monopoly on violence in their respective domains, and they retain their power through violence or the threat of violence. (If you don’t think the U.S. government stays in power through violence, try not paying your income tax.) The government outlaws its competition, whereas the Coca-Cola Company, much as it might like to do so, cannot force PepsiCo out of business; it can only attempt to defeat it in the marketplace by satisfying more consumers. No one living within the geographic area claimed by a government has any choice about obeying that particular government, no matter how much he may detest it, while his neighbor, who is happy with the government, frequently uses state power to enrich himself at the expense of the government-hater.

This should be expected. Coercing others into lives not of their own choosing breeds contempt and anger. Unfortunately, since most Americans still worship the idol Democracy, they take their anger out on other citizens rather than questioning the raison d'être of the State. As long as there exists an entity which has a monopoly on violence and is viewed as legitmate by a majority of the population, incessant conflict will reign.

I know that we do not live in a perfect world and I don't believe a stateless society to be utopia or nirvana; however, I do know that peace has no chance in a world ruled by States.

*UPDATE-For another specific example of conflict which is a direct result of political power, you can read this article on lawsuits against public schools over dress codes. If public schools were abolished, such conflicts would not exist.

Do You Know Who You're Voting For?

Hilarious and pathetic all at the same time.

(Thanks to Ron H.)

Where's MY Bailout?!

Vin Suprynowicz paints a nice picture of the future of American socialism, and in the process colorfully outlines why the current price tag of the feds' bailout packages is merely a fraction of their eventual cost.

In critiquing John McCain's plan to buy up bad mortages -- which essentially is Washington's plan -- Suprynowicz writes:

... Let’s say Ernesto and Latisha, paying a $245,000 mortgage for a home on which they put $5,000 down, agree to “re-negotiate” their loan with Uncle Sam at $150,000.

First come the local mayor and City Council, complaining their tax revenues will fall if all these houses have to be reassessed at a drop of 40 percent. No problem: Uncle Sam agrees to hand them the difference, out of your federal tax payment and mine – the same funding source that allowed Uncle Sam to buy the $245,000 mortgage and blithely throw away $95,000 of its nominal value, in the first place.

In other words, that original $245,000 mortgage is now at least $340,000. Way to go, gubbinmint!

My wife would spank me (and not in the good way) for divulging personal financial information, but let's just say that together we are forced to submit to the State the equivalent of a full-size luxury SUV in income and property taxes every year. So where the hell's my mortgage assistance? I'd love to knock $100k off it. I also wouldn't mind a little help paying off my wife's MBA loans, either. After all, we'd have a lot more disposable income if it weren't pilfered by the government.

Now, of course, I don't really want a handout. I want the State to cease in its very existence. That way it wouldn't be able to rob us in the first place, much less steal with the objective to divert resources from the most responsible individuals to the least.

Three cheers for equality!

The 'Blacks' Are Coming!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry after watching this video compiled after a recent campaign stop by McCain/Palin in Ohio.

I'm not surprised that some fundamentalists on the Christian right believe that the "negro" is a "terrorist" looking to take over the white race. Sadly, hate, racial tension, and identity politics have driven elections in at least some capacity since our country's founding.

Obama may be a lot of things, but he's hardly a terrorist. And I highly doubt he hates Whitey given that his mother and grandparents are white. What people unfortunately overlook -- and the same goes for McCain -- is that he's a statist. Obama's discriminatory, classist economic policies alone will be detrimental to people of all racial backgrounds as minimum wage increases, rising personal and corporate taxe rates, and punitive regulatory policies cost jobs.

Whereas Obama once openly campaigned to end the war in Iraq, he's since backed off that promise now that he's secured a Senate seat and gained prominence in his race for the White House. Now Obama's plan for Iraq is simply to kill more Afghans.

I guess it's hard to blame the guy considering Americans themselves have no collective desire to end these wasteful, murderous, illegal wars.

If you want to hate Obama as a result of your own bigotry and ignorance, by all means do so in what's left of this "free" country of ours. Just know that life under a President McCain (ugh, I can barely type that) would be no better. Both men will continue to grow the federal government in all its forms, emboldening the welfare-warfare-police state by continuing to kill and torture foreign innocents, spy on Americans, jail without trial, kill over marijuana possession, counterfeit money, and steal our property.

I'd be much less worried if both of these men were merely racist terrorist sympathizers.

The Remnant

Given the radical nature of this blog, it wouldn't surprise me if readers wonder just where folks like Trevor and I come from. As Robert Higgs and Hans Hermann Hoppe have both pointed out, Americans are indoctrinated from birth to death to worship the State. The American State has made itself the savior of mankind through education; while it freely acknowledges that other States are evil and oppress their subjects, we are taught that such would never happen here and that we live in a land of milk and honey which would not exist without the State.

Clearly Trevor and I know that such teachings are intentionally spurious; these teachings take advantage of the intellectual laziness of the masses and mentally imprison them in a State-centered ideology. When they imagine a world without a State, all they can think of is a world of chaos and destruction far worse than the evil we experience now. They are unable to see that the very source of this chaos and destruction is the State itself. Moreover, they are unable to imagine a life without the State that would be exceedingly better than our existence now. But the question remains: Where do radicals, many of whom have also been indoctrinated by the State, come from?

Albert J. Nock argued that there was a remnant of men and women in each time period which had the intellectual and emotional fortitude to cleave to freedom. Their origin is unknown, but they exist. He writes:

The mass man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great and overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses. The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either.

As much as I like Nock’s description, and he does give more detail in this article, it does not match the poetry of Etienne de la Boetie. La Boetie also gives no origin of the Remnant; they exist and he describes it thusly:

There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always, like Ulysses on land and sea constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney, cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways. These are in fact the men who, possessed of clear minds and far-sighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them, behind and before, and even recall the things of the past in order to judge those of the future, and compare both with their present condition. These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.

If you wonder why Trevor and I are so intransigent regarding our call for the complete abolition of the State even though we can't forecast everything that would happen in anarchy, this is the reason. No matter what argument you give us for why we need a State, our souls' fire for liberty can never be extinguished. We understand that the State is a criminal gang writ large; it is inherently evil and oppressive. It thrives on fear and any action it takes is enforced through threats of violence. It can never be limited for its desire to oppress, rob, and murder is insatiable. Efforts to limit its rapaciousness through elections or term-limits or constitutions are futile and naive for as long it has the power to tax without consent and to legislate without consent, there is no measure for us to withdraw consent when it invariably becomes an intolerable evil. The only solution that was feasible until 1865 was secession; but the central State had grown enough power to wage war against those who truly believed governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Today the individual States are nothing more than conquered vassals, each ruled by the whims of the central State. The subjects of these States are oppressed, not only by the central State, but also by local tyrants who regulate their subjects' every behavior.

Trevor and I are aware that a Stateless society in our lifetime is a remote possibility; nonetheless, our job is to strengthen and encourage the Remnant. For when this State collapses as all socialist, communist, and oppressive States do, the Remnant will be there to pick up the pieces and rebuild society.

Capitalism Without Capital

Our country increasingly has been running on debt, not capital, says Ron Paul.

Fuel Fascism in Shreveport

Most people would agree that stealing gas is a crime. But as of yesterday in Shreveport, Louisiana, gas station owners and their attendants could now face fines and jail time for reporting drive-offs.

That's right, it's now a crime to be robbed at the pump if you don't comply with the city's latest diktat requiring customers to prepay prior to fueling up.

Police Chief Henry Whitehorn authored the ordinance, which City Council passed Aug. 26. It is intended to make businesses tighten their security and cut back on police manhours that could be spent investigating other crimes.

I think I have this about right: The police are happy to take taxpayer money to "serve and protect" the community, but when it comes to actually providing those services, it's up to private business owners to spend even more money to take care of it themselves.

Police laughably claim that this measure is a way to "minimize the loss of revenue to our business partners," but it's actually nothing more than an attempt to protect the reputation of incompetent police departments that are failing to apprehend thieves.

After all, if gas stations lost significant revenue as a result of drive-offs, they wouldn't have to be forced by the State to require prepayment for goods. They'd implement the policy all on their own.

I have a solution: Abolish government police and leave the private sector to manage its own security in the first place.

Who Says Your 401(k)'s Worthless?

I'm getting plenty of use out of my Putnam year-to-date statement!

Taxation Is Theft

My post earlier today on Obama's tax plan has generated some pretty interesting comments over at the Examiner, most notably from several people who have a hard time understanding the concept of theft. (To be fair, John McCain is also a thief, for he is an advocate, most ominously, of the criminal income tax and central state, which can only exist by first stealing from its citizens.)

Taxation is theft. Whenever someone -- anyone -- relieves you of your property against your will, it's theft. What I find most bizarre is that this elementary definition can be spun and contorted in innumerable ways by people convinced that we all have some obligation to our fellow man; to contribute to the "common good."

This outlook is bunk, to say the least, but it surely explains how we've come to be led by the nose so easily by our Washington elite.

As explained by legendary Austrian economist Frank Chodorov in his essay, Taxation Is Robbery, "There cannot be a good tax nor a just one; every tax rests its case on compulsion."

It's entirely disheartening that the vast majority of humanity excuses -- even endorses -- such widespread violation of property rights so long as it's committed by officials elected to steal on its behalf under the guise of compassion. But a group of six bank robbers is no more moral than the lone assailant. Moreover, passing laws to do in public that which would get one thrown in jail for doing privately is still evil.

Taxation is theft. Natural rights trump legal rights. In the immortal words of Murray Rothbard, "The State is a band of thieves writ large."

(See also this article by Andy Roth explaining why Obama's tax plan would do more harm than good.)

Separating the Radicals from the Rest

Do you hate the State?