Category Archives: Private Property

On Idiot Ideologues Who Pan Paul

Elections 2008, Ilana Mercer, Individual Rights, Liberty, Private Property

A word about the tinny ideologues who pan Paul because he isn’t perfect: They hate freedom, plain and simple. They don’t know what it is to live without it. They are mollycoddled milksops. Here’s why:

I don’t agree with Paul about everything—I voiced my reservations about his understanding of Islam and the Muslim world in “Some Advice for Ron Paul.”

Without going into it, I don’t much care for his position on abortion. However, unlike Paul’s detractors, I happen to know what living without freedom is like. Paul is as close to The Good Life we could hope to come. Only idiots encased in an armor of worthless ideology—worthless because it exists in the arid arena of their minds, not on earth—would turn their noses up at the prospect of Paul.

Let me share with you a little something: I left South Africa with the proceeds from the sale of my apartment stashed in the soles of my shoes. Had I been apprehended smuggling my property out of that country, I’d have gone to jail with my husband. We both stood taller on that trip. As I am in the habit of sending funds to family, I’ve seen firsthand the same creeping oppression sneak-up on Americans. We’ve already seen the South-African model of detention-without-trial slowly become part of the American legal landscape.

I love life and liberty. Almost more than anything I want to keep what is mine—not to pay the mafia shakedown fee levied on my home (property tax), which means I can never really own my abode, and that ownership is merely nominal. When such prospects loom, I seize them. Being an individualist who loves life and liberty means seizing the day; it means that when one encounters a man whose understanding of freedom and individual rights approximates—if not parallels—your own, you seize the moment.

This is not to say one ought to become a mindless “Paulbearer.” Some have; I have not. (More criticism of Paul’s position on immigration is in “Ron Paul’s Electability.”) Nor does it mean that one turns into an asinine detractor, while deluding oneself that rejecting imperfection is tantamount to a show of principle. What the love of liberty means is seizing the best opportunity at a revolution one has. Those who stand on the sidelines are pussies, and worse, slaves to abstractions.

Update: Barely a Blog friend Steven Browne has continued the thread here. Lest I be identified with the treason faction of the liberty movement—the rank pinkos who promote open borders to the detriment of liberty and property in the US—let me add that Dr. Paul is not sufficiently restrictionist on immigration. As I’ve written, “When government orchestrates an unfettered movement of people into an interventionist state, in which the rights to property, free association, and self defense are already heavily circumscribed by the state—it is guilty of unadulterated social engineering, central planning, and worse.” Aiding and abetting this is philosophical treason.
Our Immigration Archive, in which I’ve demolished most of the feeble arguments advanced by those who are laissez faire on immigration. Admittedly, if one is an anarchist, a meaningless position, then the open-borders stance is the only principled one. But since I’m not a kook (anarchist), but belong to the respectable classical liberal tradition, my position is perfectly congruent philosophically.

Paul was wrong to imply, reductively, that Islamic terrorism in general and September 11 in particular are the sole consequences of American foreign policy. Libertarians cannot persist in such unidirectional formulations. As I’ve said previously, our adventurous foreign policy is a necessary precondition for Muslim aggression but it is far from a sufficient one, given that Muslims today are at the center of practically every conflict across the world. The received leftist wisdom that the Arabs were (and remain) hapless and helpless victims of the West is false and patronizing. As scholars such as Efraim and Inari Karsh have shown, “Middle Eastern history is essentially the culmination of long-standing indigenous trends, passions and patterns of behavior rather than an externally imposed dictate.”

Ultimately, a rational suspicion of power, upon which libertarians pride themselves, must be predicated on distrusting all power, not only American power.

‘Sixteen the Number of the Beast’

Individual Rights, Private Property, Taxation

(The title of the post is that of an essay on the 16th Amendment in Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With a Corrupt Culture.)

A self-satisfied, beaming U.S. Marshal, Stephen Monier, boasted about busting the elderly tax resisters, Ed and Elaine Brown. “They invited us in, and we escorted them out,” Monier strutted, as he described the ruse the feds used to gain access to the couple’s home. At least the feds didn’t kill the Browns.

Doug Powers covered the story here.

Income tax is immoral, not illegal. Most of what the federal government does is immoral, but not illegal. After all, those in power determine what’s licit and what’s elicit. As I’ve written:

“…the right of ownership is an extension of the right to life. If ownership is not an absolute right but is instead subject to the vagaries of majority vote, then so is the right to life…
However you slice it, there is no moral difference between a lone burglar who steals stuff he doesn’t own and an “organized society” that does the same. In a just society, the moral strictures that apply to the individual must also apply to the collective. A society founded on natural rights must not finesse theft.
The Founders intended for government to safeguard man’s natural rights. The 16th Amendment gave government a limitless lien on a man’s property and, by extension, on his life. The Amendment turned government into the almighty source – rather than the protector – of man’s rights and Americans into indentured slaves.”

(Please post comments here rather than send me e-mails; unfortunately, I don’t have the time to reply. More importantly, worthy information is best shared on the blog, where it reaches more people.)

Skank in the Skies

Aesthetics, Etiquette, Private Property, Sex, The Zeitgeist

The moron media is celebrating the saucy skank, who stood up to Southwest Airlines in her skimpy ensemble. Kyla Ebbert is being dragged onto every cable network set to parade the porn get-up in which she boarded the airline, only to be asked to cover up, or purchase more appropriate attire in which to travel.

Ebbert’s offending skirt is so short that hot pans would have been more modest. She sports one of those cropped wrap-around tops on top of a tank top, the purpose of which is to obscenely emphasize her huge bosom, so obviously augmented.

Mother was there to support her vacuous offspring’s “rights” and perfectly appropriate dress code. What amazes is how the tele-twits interviewing this woman (one was Matt Lauer, but women stood up for Ebbert too) kept gushing, “Wow, I can’t believe they did this to you; this outfit is just great.” Had she uncrossed her tightly wound legs, as she sat opposite her interviewers, Ebbert’s undies would be plain for all to see.

One “argument” made in support of the porn apparel (besides the heat) was that all young people Ebbert’s age dress like that. Need I dignify that?

Southwest Airlines personnel are in their right, of course, to enforce minimal dress codes on their airline, if they so wish.

That this has been developed into a news story is more revealing than the outfit.

Update: A comment below indicates how deeply misunderstood property rights are in contemporary America, a country founded on private property rights. Who owns the property onto which the Skank Ebbert set foot? The airline does!! The comment writer below has no right to deliver a speech—i.e., exercise her free-speech rights—in my living room without my permission, because, guess what? My living room is MINE.
Similarly, the airline owns the plane (although, nominally, due to government regulation). On their property, the airline owners have the right to determine how they wish people to behave and dress. I’ve explained this vis-à-vis airline security in “Who’s Property Is It Anyway?” The writer can read this column (and this one) to familiarize herself with what private property rights mean—and this does not pertain to libertarianism only. The definition of property isn’t changeable or negotiable. What’s yours is yours to do with what you may.

The writer also complained about my stooping to dignify the topic. Once again, she evinces yet another misunderstanding as to what my mandate is. In case anyone has failed to notice, I’m a commentator. I comment on the Zeitgeist. This vignette, in particular, is meta-commentary: commentary about commentary. The commentary that cuts it these days as commentary is, in itself, an important area for analysis for what it reveals about the culture we inhabit. I offer insights about the culture.

Finally, aesthetics. I understand that what I’ve termed the “porn aesthetic” is appealing to men. I don’t blame them; I blame women, who generally tend to be far more narcissistic and exhibitionist than males. A woman, moreover, can dress both provocatively and attractively. Provocative dress is more appropriate for evening wear than for daytime travel or work. That women constantly ho-up for travel and work gives us a glimpse into the “Silly Sex.”

Furthermore, there is sexy and there is skanky. Ebbert is skanky. With her genitals and mammary glands threatening to pop out of her stretched-to-the-limits garments, Ebbert’s entire demeanor screams, “Do me!”

On The Sean Hannity Show

Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Ilana Mercer, Ilana On Radio & TV, Private Property

I was asked out of the blue this afternoon to appear on the Sean Hannity nationally syndicated show to defend my short “In Defense of Michael Vick.”

When Mr. Hannity’s producer comes calling, you don’t refuse or let her wait. They were exceedingly professional, nice, and respectful. I was asked if there is anything I’d like omitted from the introduction to my segment. I replied: “don’t describe me as a left-liberal.” I was assured that they had checked out my bio and there was nothing remotely left-liberal about me. That was a relief.

I found Sean Hannity to be tough, but fair on this topic. He clearly did not agree with me, but sounded as though he respected my propertarian convictions. I was surprised to learn from him that he has read my work over the years, did not agree with a lot of it, but respected the thought and uncompromising intellectual stances taken over the years.

He is, doubtless, a very charming man. Disarmingly so.

This is the section of the column Mr. Hannity read over the air, before proceeding to drill me:

“But even more uncivilized than Vick’s alleged dogfighting violations has been the zeal among media pack animals to convict him. Vick is not a thief, a murderer, or a rapist. Neither has he defrauded anyone. He is a gifted athlete—and an obviously aggressive young man, who may have channeled his abundant aggression into a blood sport, as men have done throughout time.”

It was very gratifying to get a note from one of the producers to say, “I admire your individualism, you are patently not subject to ‘group think’—all too increasingly rare nowadays.” I’m not sued to such kindness fro media. But I could certainly get used to it.

Mr. Hannity’s producer tells me you can listen to the show by going to www.hannity.com. and becoming a “Hannity Insider,” which would give you access to audio clips. Getting it on “real time on web stream–wabcradio.com”—is another option The interview will be played at 5:00 Eastern Time again. If a listener locates the tape, please send me a link.

Update: Here is the Hannity money quote:

“Having read your columns throughout the years, I think I know you a little bit—I know you come from a very intellectual point of view, an intellectually honest point of view—you have given the most articulate argument I’ve heard [“In Defense of Michael Vick” and against animal rights] on the other side of this, one that is consistent with many of the views you have.”

The follow-up column is “Man Is The Only Top Dog,” which appeared in the Orange County Register. (The WND, longer version is here.)