Archive for the ‘Liberty’ Category
This is very well put:
Yeah, the negative choice of the lesser of two evils… Please just Stop Voting; it only legitimizes and encourages the insufferable bastards. What would happen if they held an election, and nobody came? 🙁 ◄Dave►
Robert Ringer has republished an article I had already read the other day entitled, “2016: The Year the Americans Found out Our Elections Are Rigged,” which included:
What we are witnessing — for the first time on a large scale — is the political establishment’s true role in selecting the president of the United States. The illusion of choice has become apparent. The establishment anoints their two picks for president, and the country proceeds to argue vehemently over the two candidates they are spoon-fed. This dynamic is reminiscent of a prophetic 1998 quote from philosopher Noam Chomsky:
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”
Ahh, the illusion of choice. Sure, in reality there are third party candidates who should be given a fair shake, but in our mainstream media-augmented reality, third parties do not exist. They aren’t mentioned. They aren’t even included in presidential debates. This is another way the media stifles healthy debate, stamps out dissenting opinions, and preserves the status-quo.
“We The People” don’t choose our presidents; they are hand-picked by a powerful group of political party insiders — parties that have long since sold out to the highest bidders. What we have on our hands in America is a rigged oligarchy, and that’s not a conspiracy theory — it’s fact. Now, however, millions of Americans are becoming aware of it thanks to the populist campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. America’s elections are controlled by a big club, but unfortunately, “you ain’t in it!”
Carlin had this figured out long before I ever got around to seriously thinking about it. So, once again I ask, why do we legitimize their rule over us by voting in their sham elections? ◄Dave►
I have stumbled across a profound and thought-provoking academic essay, which effectively slays most common arguments that governments are necessary for a modern peaceful society to exist. A downloadable PDF, it is entitled, “The Obviousness of Anarchy,” by John Hasnas, Associate Law Professor, Georgetown University, J.D., Ph.D, LL.M. Those familiar with my Montessori education background, will understand why my antenna went up when I read:
“The author wishes to thank … Annette Hasnas of the Montessori School of Northern Virginia for a real world illustration of how rules evolve in the absence of centralized authority.”
My reaction was, well of course, a Montessori classroom of 3 to 5-year-old children, is a perfect example of spontaneous order and a smoothly functioning laissez faire society. How had it not occurred to me before to use that analogy? I certainly shall develop it in the future.
The essay begins:
The Obviousness of Anarchy
by John Hasnas
“You see, but you do not observe.”
Sherlock Holmes to Dr. John Watson in A Scandal in Bohemia
In this article, I have been asked to present an argument for anarchy. This is an absurdly easy thing to do. In fact, it is a task that can be discharged in two words–look around. However, because most of us, like Dr. Watson, see without observing the significance of what we see, some commentary is required.
Anarchy refers to a society without a central political authority. But it is also used to refer to disorder or chaos. This constitutes a textbook example of Orwellian newspeak in which assigning the same name to two different concepts effectively narrows the range of thought. For if lack of government is identified with the lack of order, no one will ask whether lack of government actually results in a lack of order. And this uninquisitive mental attitude is absolutely essential to the case for the state. For if people were ever to seriously question whether government actions are really productive of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse.
The identification of anarchy with disorder is not a trivial matter. The power of our conceptions to blind us to the facts of the world around us cannot be gainsaid. I myself have had the experience of eating lunch just outside Temple University’s law school in North Philadelphia with a brilliant law professor who was declaiming upon the absolute necessity of the state provision of police services. He did this just as one of Temple’s uniformed private armed guards passed by us escorting a female student to the Metro stop in this crime-ridden neighborhood that is vastly underserved by the Philadelphia police force.
A wise man once told me that the best way to prove that something is possible is to show that it exists. That is the strategy I shall adopt in this article. I intend to show that a stable, successful society without government can exist by showing that it has, and to a large extent, still does.
The way he casually unpacked the Orwellian corruption of the term ‘anarchy’ was masterful. I tend to get frustrated at the callous abuse of the English language, and am not as artful as he, at explaining how and why I am using a venerable word in its original sense.
Abstain From Beans
by Robert LeFevre (1911-1986)
In ancient Athens, those who admired the Stoic philosophy of individualism took as their motto: “Abstain from Beans.” The phrase had a precise reference. It meant: don’t vote. Balloting in Athens occurred by dropping various colored beans into a receptacle.
To vote is to express a preference. There is nothing implicitly evil in choosing. All of us in the ordinary course of our daily lives vote for or against dozens of products and services. When we vote for (buy) any good or service, it follows that by salutary neglect we vote against the goods or services we do not choose to buy. The great merit of market place choosing is that no one is bound by any other person’s selection. I may choose Brand X. But this cannot prevent you from choosing Brand Y.
When we place voting into the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from a majority view is wrong or possibly immoral.
But history shows repeatedly the madness of crowds and the irrationality of majorities. The only conceivable merit relating to majority rule lies in the fact that if we obtain monopoly decisions by this process, we will coerce fewer persons than if we permit the minority to coerce the majority. But implicit in all political voting is the necessity to coerce some so that all are controlled. The direction taken by the control is academic. Control as a monopoly in the hands of the state is basic.
In times such as these, it is incumbent upon free men to reexamine their most cherished, long-established beliefs. There is only one truly moral position for an honest person to take. He must refrain from coercing his fellows. This means that he should refuse to participate in the process by means of which some men obtain power over others. If you value your right to life, liberty, and property, then clearly there is every reason to refrain from participating in a process that is calculated to remove the life, liberty, or property from any other person. Voting is the method for obtaining legal power to coerce others.
~ +++ ~
Note: This classic article was obviously written sometime prior to 1986. It is reprinted all over the net, and I was unable to locate the original digital source, so I have taken the liberty of memorializing its profound sagacity here as well. Since it is a rather cogent explanation of my own oft expressed motto: “Don’t Vote – It Just Encourages the Bastards,” I look forward to any discussions of it. Particularly, any reasonable arguments against it. ◄Dave►
…now, shall we expand it?
From the beginning, my mission for Trump was to eviscerate the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly, by disassembling the tenuous coalition of special interest groups, comprising its GOP wing. It has been fun to watch the process, and from my perspective, he has already rather effectively accomplished this mission. There is so much rancor between the competing factions, no matter what happens from here forward, there is no way in hell that the outcome of the GOP convention, could possibly be an enthusiastic grass roots, united behind the eventual nominee. That should spell disaster for the GOP wing in the General election, and rather dim hope for their future.
An unanticipated pleasure, has been to watch Sanders doing the same thing to the Collectivist wing. Like Trump, Sanders populist campaign will be stopped by the Democrat Party elites; and like Trump’s, his now enthusiastic supporters will be so pissed, that they will likely boycott the sham General election. The only thing left to motivate bitterly disenfranchised supporters, of either Trump or Sanders, is the old ‘Lessor of Two Evils’ ruse. Why even bother to choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, unless somehow one becomes convinced that the other one is unacceptably frightening to the future. The demagogues are pretty effective at this; but it has been rather pleasant to see all the new Primary voters, turning out in enthusiastic support for a candidate. In the General, most are voting against the worst one, while the ‘none of the above’ citizens register their displeasure by just staying home.
There is one delicious alternative, which could quite possibly destroy the entire Incumbrepublocrat duopoly in a single election. It looks like Trump and Sanders will both be denied the nomination, by arcane convention processes, rules, and procedures. What would happen if they decided to join forces, and run on an independent unity ticket of populists, against the cursed ‘establishment’ that is increasingly despised by the supporters of both?
I would bet good money that if they did so, they could easily win a plurality, if not a majority, of the General election votes against the two Incumbrepublocrat candidates. I for one, would register and vote for them in a heartbeat, just to help destroy the so-called two-party system. It wouldn’t matter a whit to me which one was at the top of the ticket, as long as Trump had the portfolio for trade negotiations and border control. I would probably even send them a $27 contribution or two, just to help the cause and keep them independent of the oligarchs. Any ideas on how we could get such a simple, yet quite likely successful, rebellion started? ◄Dave►
A really good analysis of Trump’s worldview is now available at, “Trump’s 19th Century Foreign Policy.” The correlation with modern libertarian thought on such matters is remarkable. On the off chance that he could actually be elected POTUS, it is well worth reading and pondering:
One of the most common misconceptions about Donald Trump is that he is opportunistic and makes up his views as he goes along. But a careful reading of some of Trump’s statements over three decades shows that he has a remarkably coherent and consistent worldview, one that is unlikely to change much if he’s elected president. It is also a worldview that makes a great leap backward in history, embracing antiquated notions of power that haven’t been prevalent since prior to World War II.
It is easy to poke fun at many of Trump’s foreign-policy notions—the promises to “take” Iraq’s oil, to extract a kind of imperial “tribute” from U.S. military allies like South Korea, his eagerness to emulate the Great Wall of China along the border with Mexico, and his embrace of old-style strongmen like Vladimir Putin. But many of these views would have found favor in pre-World War II—and even, in some cases, 19th century—America.
In sum, Trump believes that America gets a raw deal from the liberal international order it helped to create and has led since World War II. He has three key arguments that he returns to time and again over the past 30 years. He is deeply unhappy with America’s military alliances and feels the United States is overcommitted around the world. He feels that America is disadvantaged by the global economy. And he is sympathetic to authoritarian strongmen. Trump seeks nothing less than ending the U.S.-led liberal order and freeing America from its international commitments.
Trump has been airing such views on U.S. foreign policy for some time. He even spent $100,000 on a full-page ad in the New York Times in 1987 that had a message remarkably similar to what he is saying today.
The critique that follows is perhaps colored a bit by the alternative worldview of the author, Thomas Wright, a fellow and director of the Project on International Order and Strategy at The Brookings Institution. Yet, he seems fair in that he allows that Trump’s views are coherent and consistent, while comparing them with those of Charles Lindbergh and Robert Taft.
It is no secret that my participation in the very active discussions here RE the current election have been minimal. This is for the simple reason that I do not think the current sham process is worthy of much serious consideration. Having said that, I do have several comments to share, some of them repeats from previous blogs:
→ While I seriously question whether Donald Trump would make an effective president, I do thank him for making the “establishment” begin to show its true intentions. And those intentions are NOT pro-democracy, pro-republic or pro anything other than the absolute control of the nation by a small elite cabal of the wealthy, mostly in the financial sector, and not nearly all American. (The are the same people who pretty much “own” the FED.).
→ Speaking of the “establishment”, I have heard several pundits opine that the “GOP establishment” would prefer a president Hillary to a president Donald. To refer to a “GOP establishment” or a “Democrat establishment” is simply incorrect. While they both seem to exist, the fact is that there is so much overlap that it is more accurate to refer instead to “THE establishment”.
Posted on YouTube back on March 13, 2016…
…well BEFORE the recent Jihadist mayhem there. Chilling… huh? Tell me again, how many of these Muslim so-called refugees is Obama promising to import here this year? ◄Dave►
I love this picture…
…accompanying Sundance’s post: Enough Is Enough – Bobby Jindal Walks Away From #NeverTrump Camp…, which is certainly interesting and thought provoking in its entirety; but there was an intriguing factoid included that I had never encountered before:
Michael Goodwin of the New York Post, has penned the best article I have read yet about this election season, “Why it’s time for a Trump revolution“:
It’s been a long road to get here. When Trump’s name first popped up, I joked about moving to Canada. When he launched his campaign, I cursed him, certain he was going to create a circus just when Republicans finally had a strong field of candidates.
I was intrigued by many of them, starting with Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Scott Walker and Jeb Bush. Others I admired while believing they wouldn’t get far — Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki and Carly Fiorina.
I like those Republicans even though I’m a registered Democrat, just not that kind of Democrat. I voted for President Obama in 2008, believing he meant it when he said no red states, no blue states, only the United States. The barrier he broke added to his appeal.
Six months later, I was off the bus. It was already clear Obama had no intention of building a consensus on anything, although few realized he would be such a radical and partisan polarizer. He may love America, but doesn’t seem to like actual Americans. Other than himself, of course.
That certainly peaked my interest in what he had to say. Obviously, he is by no means a rabid partisan or ideologue.
Robert Ringer’s latest article is a masterpiece, “The Merciful End of the Corrupt GOP?“:
The Republican Party appears to be thrashing about like a wild beast in the final stages of its death throes. For those of us who are repulsed by politicians, political parties, and the odious political process, it’s quite entertaining to watch.
(Before proceeding, it’s important to point out that what people think of as the Republican Party is really just a wing of what I have been referring to since 1979 as the Demopublican Party — an oligarchy with two wings, the Democratic wing that sets the agenda and the Republican wing whose main function is to help implement that agenda.)
Of course, such a fraud would not be possible were it not for the fact that our rulers put a great deal of time and effort into providing great theater that diverts the public’s attention from the truth. And the most important aspect of this theater is that the two factions of the Demopublican oligarchy gratuitously pretend to be at odds with one another.
But make no mistake about it — all members in both wings of the party fully understand the importance of the theater aspect of the political game, never losing sight of the fact that their overarching, joint objective is to stay in power. Everything else about the game is secondary. The unspoken understanding among Demopublicans is, “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. And if you refuse to play the game, you can be sure that you won’t be around long.”
Good grief… does that sound like me, or what? Please read the whole thing – it is too good to miss.
…to grasp this logic:
Whatever one thinks of Trump, the revolution has already started, and the election will not end it. Pick a side… ◄Dave►
The headline on Drudge right now says: “Butler Has Trump’s Back.” Curious as to whether ‘Butler’ was a name or a job title, I followed the link to a RCP article entitled, “Trump Butler: “Incredibly Generous,” “Just A Nice Man”” It seems that 84-year-old Tony Senecal, Trump’s loyal butler for 16 years before his retirement, was interviewed on CNN this morning:
“He’s an incredibly generous person. He’s been generous to his employees. He’s generous to strangers. He’s an entirely a nice guy. He’s not the gruff person that people make him out to be. Sure, you attack him, he’s going to fight back. But most of the time he’s just a nice man. I lasted with him for 20 years, he had to be pretty good,” Senecal said.
Senecal defended Trump as a patriot who wants what is best for the country.
“His interest in the American people. His patriotism. The man was born on Flag Day. He’s a very patriotic person — ahem, excuse me — and he wants what’s best for this country,” he told CNN.
The video of the entire CNN interview is embedded in the article.
…to me. I always celebrate March 9th, because on this date in 1973, was the last time I ever wore a silly necktie. 🙂
Forty-three years ago today, I abandoned my reasonably successful high-tech corporate career in Silicon Valley, to become an entrepreneur. During my farewell speech at my going-away luncheon, I removed my necktie and gave it to a colleague, promising to never again put such a ridiculous thing around my neck. I have faithfully kept that vow to this day, even though I have occasionally been turned away at fancy restaurants and night clubs. To me, one’s principles are inviolable. 😀 ◄Dave►
I am reading article after article making a fuss over the fact that Trump supporters tend to be ‘less-educated,’ and how ‘college-educated’ voters tend to support more moderate or progressive candidates. The tone of most of them clearly shows an elitist bias, against lesser unfortunates lacking a degree. Surely, had we gone to college, we wouldn’t be so dumb as to support Trump.
To me, there is nothing remarkable at all about this statistic. Who do they think is doing the ‘higher education?’ Most college professors haven’t a lick of common sense or real world experience, and are collectivist ideologues. What are the chances that very many of their graduates, manage to escape their corrosive environment as right thinking individualists?
I suspect that most of these articles are written by younger journalists, who haven’t a clue that those of us who got our high school diplomas back in the ’60s or earlier, acquired a far better education in 12 years, than now is achieved in 16. Then, we spent a lifetime learning even more, and accumulating wisdom. When reading such, the best way to contemplate their data, is to substitute the term ‘indoctrinated’ for every occurrence of the word ‘educated.’ 😉 ◄Dave►
I don’t know why this Daily Caller editorial, “Who Is The Real Ted Cruz?” is just now showing up on Drudge; but it is devastating:
Vladimir Lenin said, “There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”
I can’t think of a better description of Ted Cruz’s relationship with the DC-Wall Street Establishment – Cruz being the scoundrel of course. Cruz’s claim of not being a tool of the political elite is like Bill Clinton telling the world, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
Webster’s definition of a scoundrel is a dishonest or unscrupulous person, and Cruz has become quite adroit at saying one thing while his history shows him doing the other. Rather than the outsider he claims to be, Ted Cruz is the ultimate insider, former top Bush 41 policy aide and globalist, Ivy Leaguer, and establishment insider.
Ouch… and that is just the beginning of the number the author does on the man he calls “Calgary Ted” and his wife:
I’ll let the Judge explain it herself:
It just isn’t prudent to cross da judge. Methinks she has a tender spot for her old friend Donald. 😀 ◄Dave►
Michelle Malkin unplugged:
Is the GOPe listening? Do they care? Why should conservatives ever again pay them the slightest attention, if they don’t? ◄Dave►