Category Archives: libertarianism

Rand Paul Is A Loser For Sabotaging Trump’s National Emergency Declaration

Constitution, Donald Trump, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Republicans, Ron Paul

Put plainly, Rand Paul will vote against the president’s warranted—long overdue—declaration of a national emergency at the southern border.

Senator Paul, Republican of Kentucky, will “support a resolution that would overturn President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, appearing to provide the crucial vote needed for the Senate to pass the measure.”

Said Rand (via the New York Times):

I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits.”

“I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding” for a wall along the border with Mexico, he wrote, “so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.”

Mr. Paul joins three other Republican senators — Susan Collins of Maine, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — in backing the resolution. His support appears to provide the slim majority Democrats need to send the measure to the president’s desk, offering a stinging repudiation of the declaration.

What Constitution? Like it or not, the original Constitution is a dead letter, having suffered decades of legislative, executive and judicial usurpation.” Doesn’t Rand Paul understand that we no longer have a Constitution? Doesn’t the senator get that “Trump’s candidacy is for the age when the Constitution itself is unconstitutional. 

Trump, as I explained in “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (published June of 2016), is the “quintessential post-constitutional candidate”

Put differently, in this age of unconstitutional government—Democratic and Republican—the best liberty lovers can look to is action and counteraction, force and counterforce in the service of liberty.

But each blow Trump attempts to inflict on the opposition is met with resistance from self-aggrandizing idiots.

Rand is in shitty company. He is joined by “three other Republican senators — Susan Collins of Maine, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.”

READ: “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016)”

UPDATED (2/3): Democrat Morals: Killing Newborns Is OK, Kidding Around Harmlessly Like A D-ck Isn’t

Abortion, Comedy & Humor, Democrats, Ethics, libertarianism, Morality, Race, Racism

On Wednesday, January the 30th, Democrats considered Dr. Ralph Northam an upstanding Democrat, even as he voiced support, in creepy dulcet tones, for how infanticide could work (very well, apparently). “Nothing to see here. Move on,” the Dems said collectively.

But by February 1st, Democrats deemed the good doctor to be absolutely toxic to their brand. Why? 1984 Medical school yearbook photos of Gov. Ralph Northam had surfaced in which he and a partner goof around in blackface and a KKK outfit.

Approve the killing of newborn kids: OK.

Kid around harmlessly like a d-ck: No way.

The farce was complete when Democrat interest groups called on Gov. Northam to resign because of his … racism in 1984, not his infanticide endorsement of 2019.

Killer picture:

UPDATE (2/3):

Proof Republicans are no different to Dems in using race to bludgeon opponents. Ditto lite libertarians; always kibitzing about racism. REAL LIBERTARIANS DON’T persecute others for THOUGHT CRIMES.

NEW COLUMN: Wage Walls, Not Wars

Abortion, Addiction, Ilana Mercer, IMMIGRATION, Law, libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, The West, War, War on Drugs

NEW COLUMN IS “Wage Walls, Not Wars.” This “Big League Politics” Interview about paleolibertarianism is now on WND and the Unz Review.

Excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abortion: Completely defund it is our position.

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

Drugs: Legalize them and stop the hemispheric Drug War.

Wage walls, not wars.

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

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

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

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

…  READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN IS “Wage Walls, Not Wars.” The interview is now on WND and the Unz Review. It was conducted by correspondent Seth Segal for Big League Politics. A version was published on Nov. 23, 2018.

 

UPDATED (2/27/019): Immigration: A Look-Away Issue For Neocons & Lite Libertarians

Argument, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Multiculturalism, Nationhood, Neoconservatism, Race

Michael Medved does the same as does Tim Carney in explaining the dismal situation of the working class. From a tony event, far from the madding working-class, Carney tweets this:

“The working class has lost access to the strong institutions of civil society that are the infrastructure of the good life. That’s my thesis,” states Carney, “to explain immobility, retreat from marriage, and Trump.”

For working-class misery, neoconservatives and lite libertarians blame everything BUT mass immigration, diversity, loss of community and sense of place. Anything but the truth.

That’s my thesis.

Conservatives engage in WhatAboutism: