Category Archives: Natural Law

Piers Morgan Preaching Treason From Perch @ CNN (Pinko Pukes Abound Among Foxettes)

Britain, Celebrity, Constitution, Free Speech, GUNS, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Liberty, Media, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Propaganda

From where I’m perched, Piers Morgan is guilty of preaching treason from his perch @ CNN—and not because he is devoting his time to undermining the US Constitution. For “all vestiges of natural justice in the Constitution lie buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.” Rather, Piers is a traitor for using his perch at CNN to advocate against the people’s natural right to defend their sacred lives.

More crucially, Piers is not guilty of preaching treason for preaching against the government, or the dead-letter Constitution. The more men so preach, be it on the left or the right—the merrier. Treason, in my book, is an act against The People’s natural rights to life, liberty and property (later today I will explain to the perplexed why the right of self-defense is an extension and a prerequisite of the right to life).

What Piers is doing is preaching treason against The People.

But is not the agitation for the violation of individual rights an act of free speech? In libertarian law—the only universally just law—there is no free speech without private property. You can’t deliver a disquisition in my living room without my explicit permission, as owner of the abode. But from your property, you may preach whatever is in your heart: hate, love, violence, etc.

Is Piers preaching treason from private property (CNN)? Probably. Is asking for his deportation, as some Americans are, a use of force, or just an exercise of free speech, to counter Piers’ true hate speech? Is deportation a use of force? Besides being a royal pillock, Piers Morgan is an immigrant from the UK.

You can see why the penalty some of our countrymen seek for Piers may be disputed by libertarains.

Ultimately, what Morgan is doing is reprehensible. The man disgusts me.

On a positive note: I started this blog yesterday, prompted by the site of the pillock Piers’ blockhead on my TV screen, interviewing a retarded PhD from “the crap country of Britain.”

Much to my delight, my husband sent me a petition calling for Piers’ deportation on the White House’s publicly supported website. It’s worse than useless, and may be disputed in libertarian law, but it warms the cockles of this heart.

UPDATE (Dec. 24): “Oh, how we suffer for the female suffrage! I once vowed to ‘give up my vote if that would guarantee that all women were denied the vote.'”

There is no shortage of pinko pukes on Fox News, especially among the women folk. “Anyone who wants a gun must go through state training and a certification process over a number of months,” writes Elizabeth MacDonald (whom I quite liked), “if not a year, similar to what police officers go through. That process would include a deep-dive background check. All gun sales or exchanges must be registered with states and towns.”

Megyn Kelly and her cretinous colleagues (I guess viewers were meant to focus on Kelly’s stripy bottom. The rest of the segment was senseless):

Lead me to the vomitorium.

Google Goes Galt

Britain, Business, Economy, libertarianism, Natural Law, Private Property, Taxation

Hurray. Google Goes Galt, as a sickly Starbucks (what do you expect from people who burn their coffee beans) prepares to “‘voluntarily’ hand more money over to the UK Government.”

With their unbounded enthusiasm for state power, British protesters prefer that their omnivorous state own what belongs to Amazon, Starbucks and Google. But Google Big Guy has other ideas. Libertarian ones.

“Google boss: ‘I’m very proud of our tax avoidance scheme'”:

The head of the internet giant Google has defiantly defended his company’s tax avoidance strategy claiming he was “proud” of the steps it had taken to cut its tax bill which were just “capitalism”.
In an interview in New York Eric Schmidt, Google’s Chairman, confirmed the company had no intention of paying more to the UK exchequer. … “It’s called capitalism. We are proudly capitalistic. I’m not confused about this.”
He also ruled out following Starbucks in voluntarily handing more money over to the UK Government.
“There are lots of benefits to [being in Britain],” he said.
“It’s very good for us, but to go back to shareholders and say, ‘We looked at 200 countries but felt sorry for those British people so we want to [pay them more]’, there is probably some law against doing that.”

For a background on the British assault on tax havens, please read “Could Her Subjects Be Making Kate Middleton Sick?”

Could Her Subjects Be Making Kate Middleton Sick?

Britain, Business, Natural Law, Private Property, Taxation

Great American enterprises like Amazon, Starbucks and Google have braved Britain’s (UK, England, whatever is the politically correct term for that nation of shopkeepers) punitive labor laws and onerous regulations; invested capital in that place—only to have British ingrates complain bitterly.

What is the “tax shaming” public protesting, NOW?

These businesses have found creative ways of keeping more of what is rightfully theirs: their private property, their profits. It is just and good that property remain privately owned. Efficiency is secondary to the issue of natural justice. Still, more private property in the hands of its owners means greater prosperity for all.

When Brit Mike Buckhurst wails that he feels “very passionate about this because at one point in my life I was a top rate tax payer and I paid my tax in full,” he is expressing envy, nothing else—envy that The Other Guy is keeping more of what belongs to him, when he is not.

A good person would be glad about any private property that remains with those who rightfully own it.

(Btw, in loserville—where the US is headed—you are in the “higher” tax bracket when you earn £34,371!)

Yes, British protesters, with their unbounded enthusiasm for state power, prefer that their omnivorous state own what belongs to Amazon, Starbucks and Google.

Tax havens are just that: havens. Laws regulating how people use their rightful capital are unjust laws. The official line always omits, moreover, that wealth in the hands of its rightful owners enriches all sectors of the population more than funds in the sticky paws of officials. Keeping more of one’s income is not “harmful” to the rightful owners of capital, or to the beneficiaries of its investment, which include any and all bar the taxman.

The junta of high-tax governments is always leaning on jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and the Isle of Man. If the junta has its way, not only will there be no place left to run to, but by eliminating what tax havens offer, these governments will have eliminated tax competition, and with it the imperative to downsize their fiefdoms.

MORE @ “The War on Tax Havens.”

Could her British subjects be making the Duchess of Cambridge (Kate Middleton) sick? They sure make me sick.

The Fiscal Cliff: A Lemming’s Lunacy

Debt, Economy, Morality, Natural Law, Propaganda, Taxation

Here’s an excerpt from “The Fiscal Cliff: A Lemming’s Lunacy,” the current WND column. Receive the weekly column in your email. Scroll down the page to sign-up for it.

“Since the chicken-little metaphor is hackneyed, let us use the alleged lunacy of the lemming as a metaphor for the prattle that rises from the cattle that is America’s intelligentsia, in general, and on the fiscal cliff, in particular. ‘Alleged lunacy’ because the idea that the adorable fury critter plunges periodically to its death, en masse, is a figment of another intellectual powerhouse: the think tank known as the Walt Disney Company.

From the late-night talk show hosts and their guests to the daytime cable news comedians and their hangers-on: All are discussing the country’s impending and ‘horrifying’ collective tumble down the thing called the ‘fiscal cliff.’

As the fiscal-cliff chant goes, the country is headed for an economic precipice due to a bundle of laws that will take effect at the bewitching hour of midnight, Dec. 31, 2012. Only a compromise between our factioned overlords in D.C., who enacted the law in the first place, will avert mass suicide.

Let us unpack this linguistic construct.

At least some of the noisy nomenclature refers to a package of spending cuts, ‘deep, automatic cuts,’ by Barron’s telling, bundled in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

‘The federal budget deficit will be immediately cut in half, shrinking to approximately $641 billion in 2013 from the approximately $1.1 trillion in 2012,’ estimates financier Peter Schiff. I’m inclined to think of this ‘budget sequestration’ Wikipedia describes as ‘broad and shallow’ as nothing more than cuts to designated increases in spending.

However you slice it, why, pray tell, is this a bad thing?” …

Read “The Fiscal Cliff: A Lemming’s Lunacy” on WND. Receive the weekly column in your email. Scroll down to sign-up for it.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

• Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections, and on Facebook.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”