Category Archives: libertarianism

UPDATED: Lite Libertarians & Fracking: ‘Progress’ Over Private Property (The Cornerstone Of Civilization)

Economy, libertarianism, Private Property, Technology

Lite libertarians—who always put “progress” above private property—just love fracking, the colloquial for “hydraulic fracturing” for natural gas. The great John Stossel has extolled the merits of fracking in his columns and broadcasts. Myself, I don’t know enough about “the drilling method that uses water, sand and other additives to expand fissures in underground rocks to free oil or natural gas trapped within them.” But I do know about the natural right to private property.

A legalistic ploy like the “split estate,” whereby “the right to develop oil or gas deposits is severed from the surface”—in other words, you own only the land surface, not the minerals below the surface—amounts to a lien on private property. Unless, of course, the “split estate” arrangement is clearly specified in the property deed of sale. Namely, “A” sells the land to “B,” under the condition, specified in a contract, that “A” retains rights to what’s underground.

Currently, some fracking operations are set up on the private land of hapless owners, who either did not know that “mineral rights had been sold off long before” their acquisition of said land. Or, could “still be forced to allow gas mining [on their land], if a majority of [their] neighbors sign leases with drillers.”

“Thin libertarians” think that generally approving of all technology makes them forward-thinking and ever-so hip. However, contra the angle mined by Mr. Stossel and his philosophical kin, the central problem with fracking is that it is done, for the most, in violation of homesteader, private-property rights.

By granting permits to allow vertical penetration of someone’s land with heavy equipment, state lawmakers are screwing the landowner out of his rightfully owned land and the privacy, peace and tranquility he is entitled to on that parcel of land.

Clearly the problem with grants of mineral rights by state or federal lawmakers is that these grants of privilege by government, local or federal, violate the landowner’s natural rights of private property.

UPDATE: In answer to the Facebook thread:

* Neighborhoods could also form a neighborhood association whereby buying into the community came with either a fracking permit or a ban on the practice.

* Reminder: The post is not about “fracking,” but about property rights, the cornerstone of libertarianism—and civilization itself.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: FBI: The Face of Treason

Government, Justice, Law, libertarianism, Natural Law, Political Correctness, Terrorism, The State

FBI Director James Comey believes that “unless [his] passport is revoked,” an American citizen who holds an American passport and who has fought for ISIS—maybe even decapitated a dhimmi or two—“is entitled to come back” to the US.

Comey was discussing American exported fighters for ISIS on “60 Minutes.” This traitor to the people who pay for his keep promised to “track them very carefully.”

That makes me feel much better. How about you?

Judge Andrew Napolitano’s retort, on “The Kelly File,” was to praise this FBI director’s mettle, in general, while disputing the legal grounds for Comey’s odd position:

“He forgot there’s a statute called providing material assistance to a terrorist organization,” Napolitano said of Comey. “So if he knows that Americans have been fighting with ISIS and he also knows that the secretary of state has declared ISIS a terrorist organization, that is more than enough evidence for him to arrest them upon their re-entry to the U.S. It is crazy to let them back in and wait and see what they do.”

“Is this treason,” Kelly wanted to know. She was referring, of course, to the returning ISIS terrorists, and their position vis-a-vis the US.

What about the clear-cut case of Comey?

UPDATE: “Lite libertarians” or “thin libertarians” live in la-la land and don’t much care about the rights to property and life of innocent friends, family and neighbors. Let me make this simple: Individuals who want to behead Americans: yes, the nightwatchman state has a case of limiting their access to heads. To limit their access to American heads is not aggression. To say, “No, you creep, you can’t come in,” is not aggression. OK, leave “creep” off if it offends left-libertarians.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Can’t Appreciate The Private Economy? You Don’t Deserve The Plenty It Provides

Business, Free Markets, Government, Left-Liberalism, libertarianism

If you fail to distinguish the blessings of the private economy from the curse of government—you deserve none of the former and all of the latter.

Like all liberals (and that includes most “conservatives”), Ron Fournier of National Journal is foolish enough to lump business with government as an eternal source of disappointment to Americans:

Steadily, over the past four decades, the nation has lost faith in virtually every American institution: banks, schools, colleges, charities, unions, police departments, organized religion, big businesses, small businesses and, of course, politics and government.

This is the dross one has come to expect from the Moron Media.

As I type, I consume a plate of 7 different fruits topped with nuts. Many of the ingredients on my plate are organic. Those used to be exorbitantly priced; out of reach. But as demand for organic, locally grown produce grew, production increased and prices fell.

Every day I say my thanks to the businessmen who bring such abundance to market, against all odds, and I curse the government that makes it so hard for them to provide such plenty.

There is nothing in my home that comes courtesy of the blessings of bureaucrats. I guarantee that it’s the same in your home.

If you, like Fournier, don’t know whence come your blessings—necessities and creature comforts—you don’t deserve them.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: LPAC, Just Another Political PAC (Rand’s Grubby ‘Gold Rush’)

Ethics, libertarianism, Politics, Republicans, Ron Paul

If you don’t already know—I certainly didn’t—LPAC is short for Liberty Political Action Conference. It features a lineup of libertarian politicians, operatives and assorted establishmentarians. LPAC is sponsored by the governmentalized likes of Charles Koch, Reason, RandPac, Campaign for Liberty, etc.

To the extent that libertarianism becomes more mainstream; the “lucky” few to make it into the political inner sanctum always make sure to bar contrarians and competitors from their positions of influence.

Very rarely will outsiders be invited to join. At most, a daring game of musical chairs may take place, and equilibrium in opinion sought and maintained. Rehashed over-and-over again are the old, agreed-upon, safe topics: “having fun,” “Millennials,” freedom to eat, freedom to speak, civil liberties, telling the good presidents from the bad, why statism is bad.

And lots of product is flogged. You may also get to schmooze with the Pauls.

Some revolution.

UPDATE (9/23): Rand’s ‘Gold Rush. As if to confirm the grubby reality of politics, Rand Paul announces the opening of an office in Silicon Valley:

… While techies are considered a liberal bunch, some tech executives are joining the Republican cause. Paul counts Peter Thiel, the billionaire cofounder of PayPal, among his friends. And the tech sector donated more than $1.4 million to Paul’s father Ron during his unsuccessful presidential bids in 2008 and 2012.
Sure, the optics may look bad to some—a Kentucky senator opening an office seems like an almost extravagant show of political ambition. But opening a Silicon Valley office also offers Paul a distinct advantage: It makes him look young, hip, and serious about working with job creators. In that way, Paul is hardly the only conservative force trying to forge relationships in Silicon Valley. …

MORE.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Stupid, Stumble-Bumble Superpower

Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, libertarianism, Media

What would happen in the miasma that is the Middle East if a silly, if well-intentioned, superpower—profoundly ignorant of history, in general, and the region, in particular—quit enabling one side or the other; stopped lurching maniacally (a la “McMussolini”) from supporting one bloodletting entity or another?

What would transpire if, as I wrote in “Leave ISIS To The Homies,” the US left “ISIS to Syria, Tehran and Tel Aviv”; “let the locals take out their trash”?

Today I heard one of the interchangeable bimbos on CNN pondering—oh the sacrilege!—whether the US should talk to Iran.

However, were we to leave things be, the feuding parties might cease vying for American money and materiel and begin hammering out a strategy among themselves that would ensure longevity—an uneasy balance of power, if you will—in the region.

The Israeli government, as was noted, is already endeavoring to “radically change its tack on Syria, reversing a policy and military strategy that were long geared to opposing Syrian President Bashar Assad.”

By the way, how stupid is the American state? Look no further than that Marie Barf, that sibilant tart at State. Go Foggy Bottom …


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Why The Warring About War: What The Moron Media Don’t Explain

Constitution, Just War, libertarianism, War

This past Friday, CNN was festooned with the usual bobbing heads kibitzing about whether or not the administration had committed the country to war or not. The quarreling parties did not explain to the viewers whose brains they addle daily, why this distinction mattered. I doubt they know. I mean, if the president indeed possesses all the powers CNN journos often claim for him—why must their Almighty Mulatto bother to seek consent for his actions? Republicans are pretty much on board when it comes to executive overreach, although they’d prefer their guy to be doing the overreaching.

Here is a typical exchange, times 10 a day:

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Is the United States at war with ISIS. It sure sounds from the president’s speech that we are.

JOHN KERRY, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I think that is the wrong terminology.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Make no mistake. We know we are at war with ISIL.

BURNETT: Is this war?

MCCHRYSTAL: Well, I mean, you can trip over and argue about whether it’s a war for congressional purposes. If you are on the ground and people are getting killed, to a soldier it feels like war and to the population it feels like war. So it’s a struggle.

[SNIP]

And here’s the logical extension of the “to war or not to war” debate, which the Moron Media seems incapable of deducing: It matters whether the president has committed the country to war or not, because:

1) While the power to declare war under various statutes like the War Powers Act, the Iraq Resolution, and the Use of Force Act was shifted to the Executive, to comport with a trend toward centralization of power in this branch—according to these statutes, the War Powers Act, in particular, “he cannot lawfully pursue any military action whatsoever after 180 days.”

2) War declared by executive order may be legal, but it is still unconstitutional. It flouts the obligation to get “the consent of the governed,” to quote the Declaration of Independence.

The libertarian’s duty is to reject the law of the state when it is at odds with natural justice. The process adopted so far by the Bush and Obama executive flouts both the U.S Constitution and the natural law. But Just War principles are for another debate, another time.

As for the Constitution, over to James Madison: “‘Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded.’ Thus it is Congress that declares a war. The U.S. government is beholden to the Constitution, which prohibits the president from declaring war.

Explains Louis Fisher, senior specialist in separation of powers at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress: ‘Keeping the power to commit the country to war—and to all the costs of war—in separate hands from the power to wage war once declared was a bedrock principle for the framers.'”

Modern statutes like the War Powers Resolution, the Iraq Resolution, and the Use of Force Act do not displace the constitutional text and the framers’ intent. (From “UNNATURAL LAWLESSNESS”)


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint