Category Archives: Paleolibertarianism

Treason Tarted-Up

Crime, Ethics, Free Speech, GUNS, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Law, Morality, Paleolibertarianism

“Fatally flawed.” “A colossal failure of leadership.” “Deadly miscalculation.” “Flawed assumptions.” These are some of the euphemisms used by America’s governing traitors to finesse their crimes against the people they swore to protect. A gang going by the acronym ATF—the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—watches over and gives cover to Mexican gangsters and their local gun-runners, who later use this ATF immunity to gun down innocent Americans.

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed by weapons purchased under the umbrella of an ATF gun-running operation called “Operation Fast and Furious.” When good guys like Agents John Dodson and Lee Casa questioned the practice, they were ordered to “stand down,” or confine their activities to “surveillance.”

I oppose regulation of firearms; I advocate throwing the detritus of humanity—the gangs and the cartels of Latin America—out of this country.

A decadent society is one where the law prohibits local militia and farmers from firing on trespassers, but supervises the arming of the gangs that would kill these very farmers and other innocents. That’s a decadent society right there. This is who we are.

Another sign of a corrupt culture: Law that encourages enforcers to touch and fondle the sexual organs of its citizens, but forbids the same force to ask, inquire—verbally, using words that waft into the ether—if a suspicious-looking ruffian, loitering around a kiddie’s park, is in the country legally.

A society has atrophied when it cannot sharply distinguish non-noxious speech (asking a ruffian for ID) from a noxious assault (TSA terrorism).

UPDATED: Wonder Woman In The Work Force (Beware The WASPs)

Affirmative Action, Feminism, Gender, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Neoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Propaganda, Pseudoscience, Race, Racism

Distaff America’s claims of disadvantage can be easily dispelled: “If women with the same skills as men were getting only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, men would have long-since priced themselves out of the market. The fact that the wily entrepreneur doesn’t ditch men in favor of women suggests that different abilities and experience are at work, rather than a conspiracy to suppress women.” [“Barack Against The Boys“] Yet the White House has preferred to perpetrate the myth, starting with a pay equity act the president signed at the beginning of his interminable term, and now with a new report affirming that “the earnings gap between men and women” is a result of all sorts of discrimination. HERE.

Scholarly reams have been written disputing this phony calculus, as it omits vital variables: How long the woman has been in the work force, her age, experience and education; or whether her career has been put on hold to marry and mother. Just as women are more likely than men to have had an interrupted career trajectory, so too are they more inclined to enter lower-paying professions: education instead of engineering, for example.

UPDATE: BEWARE THE WASPS. It was interesting to observe the neoconservative programmed response to the news about a “Texas college scholarship that targets only white male students.” I am referring to the obligatory PC huffing and puffing of Greg Gutfeld and his crew, last night, as to the “low-life racists” who would dare dream-up such a scheme.

Tucker Carlson, a kind of paleoconservative, chimed in with a full-throated denunciation, but, at least, pointed out the obvious: how is this scholarship different to the affirmative action programs that have infested every nook and cranny of the American labor force, public and private, for decades?

The thing that makes these gilded, neocon elites mere retread left-liberals is the fact that they mock the brute fact that poor white men are extremely marginalized in the workforce. The data abound. They ignore the Frank Riccis of the country. In my forthcoming book, I cite, among other sources, sociologist Frederick R. Lynch’s “Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action”(1991).

But in case you need a reminder of the jeering contempt the neoconservative faction of the left-liberal establishment has for the plight of white (poor) males in American society, watch last night’s “Red Eye” segment (it’s generally very amusing, by the way).

Naturally, this element of the establishment has never bothered to expose Saint Bill Gates’ “No-WASP Scholarship” fund.

UPDATED: Do Immigration Laws Violate Libertarian Axiom?

Classical Liberalism, Critique, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy

“Showing complete disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law, the democratic will of the people of Arizona, Clinton appointee Susan Bolton issued an injunction against the major aspects of Arizona’s law in federal district court,” writes the Washington Watcher at VDARE.COM.

Of course, “Arizona is doing the work Washington doesn’t want done.”

The other day, I came across the most flighty, possibly even dissembling, libertarian argument so far against the prevention of trespass, and I’ve responded to many before. Here it goes: Immigration restrictions require the use of aggression against non-aggressors. There can be no debate about that. [really?] Therefore any half-decent libertarian must reject any immigration restrictions. That’s all.

Since when are immigration restrictions predicated on aggression against non-aggressors? Only if you believe telling someone, “No, you can’t go there” is tantamount to violence. Let us not trivialize violence.

“A well-policed barrier,” for example, “on the border is the definitive, non-aggressive method of defense against ailments and afflictions. You don’t attack, arrest or otherwise molest undesirables; you keep them at bay, away.” Could it be that the “Libertarian and leftist protest over any impediment to the free flow of people across borders is predicated not on the negative, leave-me-alone rights of the individual, but on the positive, manufactured right of human kind to venture wherever, whenever”?

(From “The Swine (AKA The State) Are AWOL”)

Any law, or any form of ordered liberty, may require the use of aggression, or, inadvertently, culminate in the use of force against non-aggressors. Shall we forfeit all laws?

The above position is anarcho-libertarian, not classical liberal (which is the label I prefer for myself). Anarcho-libertarians must tell their interlocutors that they reject all centrally enforced law and order. Such disclosure is only fair.

This from “TRADE GOODS, NOT PLACES” applies:

“Matters would be simple if all libertarians agreed that a constitutional government has an obligation to repel foreign invaders. They don’t, not if they are anarchists. Both open-border and closed-border libertarian anarcho-capitalists posit that an ideal society is one where there is no entity—government—to monopolize defense and justice functions. In a society based on anarcho-capitalism, where every bit of property is privately owned, the reasoning goes, private property owners cannot object if X invites Y onto his property, so long as he keeps him there, or so long as Y obtains permission to venture onto other spaces. Despite their shared anarchism, limited-immigration anarcho-libertarians and free-immigration anarcho-libertarians arrive respectively at different conclusions when they make the transition from utopia to real life.

The latter believe the state must refrain from interfering with the free movement of people despite the danger they may pose to nationals. The former arrive at the exact opposite conclusion: So long as the modern American Welfare State stands, and so long as it owns large swaths of property, it’s permissible to expect the state to carry out its traditional defensive functions. This includes repelling incomers who may endanger the lives and livelihoods of locals.

The open-border libertarian will claim that his is the less porous position. He will accuse the limited-immigration libertarian of being guilty, on the one hand, of wanting the state to take action to counter immigration, but, on the other hand, because of his anarchism, being at pains to find a basis for the interventions he favors. Not being an anarchist, and hence not having to justify the limited use by government of force against invaders, I hope I have escaped these contradictions.”

[SNIP]

A society cannot be reduced to the skeletal essence of the libertarian non-aggression axiom. I am confident Edmund Burke, of whose Vindication of Natural Society Murray Rothbard thoroughly approved (O’Keeffe 2010: 3), would agree.

UPDATE (July 30): To the comment below: Isn’t an argument about the preservation of civilization nativist? Isn’t the preservation of civilization the prerogative only of non-Occidentals, who are forever threatened by Westerners?

Classical Liberalism

Classical Liberalism, Ilana Mercer, Ilana On Radio & TV, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Liberty, Natural Law, Paleolibertarianism

Jerri from Righttalk.com, with whom I used to do a short commentary segment fortnightly, once asked what “classical liberalism” meant. How about the principles upon which America was founded?

Not so long ago I became acquainted with the writings of French classical liberal, Benjamin Constant (1767-1830). And in particular, his treatise on the Principles of Politics. Frederic Bastiat was, “in some ways,” Constant’s heir.

I liked Constant’s definition of freedom: “Individuals must enjoy a boundless freedom in the use of their property and the exercise of their labor, as long as in disposing of their property or exercising their labor they do not harm others who have the same rights.” Of course, today’s statist interpretation of “harm” would include competition: setting up a Wal-Mart adjacent to a mom-and-pop shop.

More pearls from Constant: “Society has no right to be unjust toward a single of its members … the whole society minus one is not authorized to obstruct the latter in his opinions, nor in those actions which are not harmful, in the use of his property or the exercise of his labor, save in those cases where that use or that exercise would obstruct another individual possessing the same right.”

A contemporary gem is my friend, renowned British philosopher, David Conway. As a teacher, David explains freedom splendidly in Classical Liberalism; The Unvarnished Ideal. Contact him to obtain the book.

Liberty is explained in “Jackass Cooper & The 1-Trick Donkeys”: “Classical liberals (this writer) are distinguished in that the only rights they recognize are the individual’s right to life, liberty and property, and the pursuit of happiness. The sole role of a legitimate government is to protect only those liberties. Why life, liberty, and property, and not housing, food, education, health care, child benefits, emotional well-being, enriching employment, ad infinitum? Because the former impose no obligations on other free individuals; the latter enslave some in the service of others.”

In addition to an application of the principles of liberty, my columns/essays almost always include references. It’s about taking the time to work through the columns and extract the references. I have links on my Links Page to great classical liberal sites.

My Articles Archive is easy to navigate. Begin with Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Henry Hazlitt, Frederic Bastiat, F. A. Hayek, Lysander Spooner, and the great heroes of the Old Right, Frank Chodorov, Garet Garrett, John T. Flynn, and Felix Morley. Morely’s “Freedom and Federalism” is a must in every American bookcase.

A discussion of natural rights can be found in “CRADLE OF CORRUPTION.”

“Older Liberals Like Me.”

UPDATE I (3/31/2017): MORE BOOKS.

If you want to understand The Idea of America, read foundational books on American republican virtues (not least the title linked). Begin with the book The Power in The People by Felix Morley, and you’ll be able to watch or read Bill O’Reilly’s folderol, and such stuff, and assess it for the shallow nothingness that it is.

Truth is not about the penny plan, or the red line in Syria, or whether to beat up on Russia or not. It’s about grasping the foundational principles of liberty and the limits of government—the principles Jefferson, Madison, Mason, John Roanoke, John Calhoun held dear; grasping those creedal core issues and applying them to the issues of the day.

The other exquisite text by Morley aforementioned is Freedom and Federalism.

For starters, let’s see these texts on your coffee tables.

UPDATE II (12/2):