Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Microsoft open-sourcing server-side dot-Net

November 21, 2014

And I think server-side counts most, because that’s where business resides, even personal business:

Another great comment about this news came from Jim Zemlin, the executive director of the Linux Foundation, on his blog:

[Microsoft’s] participation in these efforts underscores the fact that nothing has changed more in the last couple of decades than how software is fundamentally built. Today most software is built collaboratively. The very nature of open source development is to accelerate technology, which is why competition today is so fierce and things move faster than ever before.

Christians should preach judgment on the false shepherds in the pews and on Christian radio

November 19, 2014

PLEASE get AT LEAST this one thing clear in your head for starters: The history of the German church and Hitler is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT “my” history. It is YOURS if you are repeating such a wide swipe. I have been preaching the judgments of God against false shepherds and against pagan America since the 1970s when I joined an independent missionary work. My fellow brothers in Christ are suffering the bombings and drone missiles more than the bad guys they supposedly target.

I shouted loud in whatever forums I went to when I had the chance against GWB and shouted out about Montague’s observation that to suppress religion and stop its opposition all a government had to do was support it.

I scoffed in forums at GWB’s laughable and despicable answer to a reporter’s question that his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ. That guy went home that night and cackled the same way Hitler did.

Most people in pews in fact are NOT practicing Christians or even believing Christians. That’s why I use the term “Biblical Christians” a lot instead of the now almost meaningless “Christians”. Saying your name is JAM does not mean you are JAM. Saying you’re a movie producer in California does not mean you are one, unless you are one.

John Newton is one of the best examples of what a Christian is. He had been a slaver and slave trader, but after he became a Christian he despised it. Christians in the 1960s and 1970s thought they were living in a Christian nation. It had already turned its back on God completely.

I know probably more than you how much those identity thieves in pulpits hurt the gospel message among sinners, because it’s an obstacle I’ve had to stumble over myself on the way back to Christ, and have to overcome almost every time the general subject comes up in conversation.

Jesus Christ was a Jew and practiced the Old Testament teachings much more than the Pharisees did. But he was not a Pharisee. St. Patrick, St. Francis, Polycarp, Iraneus, David Livingston, William Wilberforce, and yes, the long line of Six-day creationist scientist greats like Isaac Newton and Michael Faraday and (Roger? Bacon), these are the witnesses for the Gospel, who worked at following the Great Commission of preaching the Gospel to all the world and making disciples of ALL nations, including the Samaritans.

We need to stop apologizing for the people who persecute us, and start pronouncing God’s judgments on them whenever they raise their apostate heads and use God’s name in vain.

Caught my eye

November 16, 2014

A few ideas on how to “rebuild civilization” after a catastrophic collapse:


A few ideas on man’s

shrinking brain:
…Most people know by now that this blogger does not believe in Darwinian myths. However, I can believe that ancient antediluvian humans, and following the Flood too, human brains were bigger. The scientists behind this study seem to think that the shrinking brain is due to specialization among humans.

…In my opinion. that may be, but I will offer some more thoughts.

…One is that if you accept the study’s conclusions that man’s brain is now smaller, a big IF, it could also have to do with the increasing invasion of conquering forces and governments onto people, relieving them of decisions they otherwise have to make themselves.

…The other is entropy. Everything runs down, wears out. Scientists add a bit about a “closed system” so they can pretend that inorganic matter plus energy bootstrapped life into existence, which then bootstrapped itself into all other life on Earth.

Obama sends secret letter to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

..He wants their cooperation in stopping ISIS

. That’s all we need.

… IT shows how Orwellian this world so-called “governance” has become. Orwell’s novel 1984 envisioned the application on massive scale of never-ending war, as a means of quelling dissenting thoughts among the populace. At one point in the novel, Orwell watches as his rulers flip the switch on who is enemies.

…One day they were at war with Eastasia. The next day they were suddenly at war with Eurasia, and all of the subjects of this dystopian society were told “We are at war with Eurasia”, therefore “We have always been at war with Eastasia”.

I think Orwell may have come face to face with the darkest underground Powers-That-Be who manipulate central banks everywhere and much more, and wrote what he could get away with, warning the rest of us.


America not so invulnerable anymore? Prophets told us way back in the 1960s this was coming.

Unreported on both sides of the Atlantic, an unarmed Russian bomber disabled all the weapons systems on big mean American destroyer USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea:

…23 sailors there asked to leave active duty immediately.

..Apparently American ships are not going near Russian shores. But Russian bombers have appeared patrolling in the Gulf of Mexico.

And, like the Syrian Christian woman told McCain, the “rebels” in Syria that were supported by the US are coming there from everywhere else…


Maduro’s Venezuela…

Like the Austrian school economists have explained, price fixing never works as publicized for any length of time at all, whether it’s consumer prices or wages:

Rationing won’t work either. Laundry detergent, cooking oil, disposable diapers, appliances, are items rationed officially and finding their way to the black market..

..So, as usual with socialist and left-fascist dictatorships, Maduro’s government now requires shoppers to give names, ID numbers, and ordered fingerprint scanners to make sure they don’t exceed ration limits.

..Meantime, the Venezuelan bribe market has expanded…


Freight train bearing down on us for 2015, Obamacare plan to starve the poor, or at least make them sick, sick, sick:

Employer mandate would have made the party flip in the Senate even bigger. How the heck did the “Oh” win election in 2012 anyway?

Socialist strategists figure, if you make the poor suffer, they’ll blame it on the rich. What the poor don’t know, and what many street-level socialists don’t know, is that the richest of the super-rich are the sponsors of the rich-bashing socialists. They play the gullible among the poor against their competitors, and George Soros and their unhappy band think they will make out on top.

The Bible predicts their demise, though, after they help Satan wreak havoc on this world…


Somebody tell the guy who wrote this article that Obamacare 2009 was Romneycare 2006 first, and before that it was HillaryCare 1993. And that Obamacare was designed precisely to usher in single-payer so-called “insurance”, which will be no more than socialized central-planning medicine:

..and the public option will lead to medical care like they had in the old Soviet Russia, and like in Venezuela, where the poor must bring their own sheets to the hospitals…


King Obama and immigration policy:


Hondurans WANT the ZEDE, socialist poverty-pushers, financed by the one percent OF the one percent hate it

November 11, 2014

Who in Honduras would not want to work in a Hong Kong or Singapore clone right there at home? Or a piece of Chile? We already know: there are already at least a million Hondurans who legally and illegally have scraped, scrimped and scratched their way to the United States to seek a job that may or may not even be on a par with the special zones they have in COMMUNIST CHINA even, for God’s sake?

Hondurans have spent there entire savings, braved land and sea, the dangers of trains and gangs and rape and what little they have left to steal, and cold and the traitorous currents of the Rio Grande, all to get a chance to get the crumbs that fall to them from the bastion of capitalists that exploit them with jobs that are better than they could ever find in Honduras.

If “social justice” organizations are really interested in helping the poor, they would (1) set up schools to teach them how to do business, even own their own (and not just women-only micro efforts, but big ones), (2) advocate (private) investment in low-temperature high energy technology, already proven feasible with products on the market, and (3) a radical change in economic models to break away from atrocious central-planning dictates from national and international command-and-control agencies like the UN. And yes, the US. And (4) advocate the end of the criminal drug wars and (5) the surveillance and police states that they foment, and (6) true peace instead of advocating for violent groups.

IF YOU CARED ABOUT HONDURANS YOU WOULD TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MANUEL ZELAYA DICTATORSHIP AND AUTO-COUP PLANS AND SUPPORT AND ABOUT THE ONES THAT SUPPORTED CONSTITUTIONALITY IN HIS ARREST: His own political party, the opposition party, the great number of teachers that braved violent retaliation to dissent from the Communist union bosses, most of the other unions, small businesses, the Catholic Church, all the Protestant churches, the rich and the poor alike and the middle class. Except for the ones that would profit directly and Lenin’s poor “useful idiots”.

Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh, John Birch Society

November 9, 2014

I happened upon a Rush Libaugh segment once after it seemed a “conspiracy theory” call had just occurred. The next call that came in the guy asked, “Okay, who’s behind the curtain, Rush?” He uttered some confusion with the question, so the caller said “Like in the Wizard of Oz, Rush? Who’s the guy behind the curtain pulling your strings?”

He cut off the call, said he just wanted his audience to “see what was out there”. Then he revealed that early on in his career the John Birchers contacted him thinking he could be persuaded by them. He visited their offices and read their literature and heard their arguments about conspiracies, Rush said, but he said it “just wasn’t convinced”. And “made his decision”.

On that day, I knew he was a liar, a fake, a phony, a mole. His decision was apparently to join the bad guys cabal.

If he saw the evidence they had for a conspiracy, and says it’s wrong, then he’s a liar. He has to know that Bill Clinton’s own mentor Carroll Quigley said in his book “Tragedy and Hope” that there is such a conspiracy. Rush very much knows that Bill Clinton meant to refer to that conspiracy specifically in his 1992 Democrat Party acceptance speech.

These guys hear that X is bad and then they spit back out ever echo they’re told to think by the mind benders…

Tags( John Birch, Ron Paul, John Birch Society, agents provocateur, propaganda, conspiracy theories)

USA inept and stupid in the Middle East

November 9, 2014

The real story on the ground in Syria (and Iraq):

The “intelligence” that the US is using in the Middle East must be so ridiculous, judging from their actions in the Syria-Iraq area, that one has to ask whether it is a deliberate strategy to fail. The Arabs there (the Sunnis at least) must be rolling in laughter, and the Mossad must be having alternating laughing and crying fits.

After quoting a major booster of the arming of the so-called “Syrian Army” said the fall of one town to “NUSRA” was a “major blow” to US strategy of arming “moderates”, the author explains that the surrender of the town was done without one shot being fired and big numbers of FSA eagerly joining NUSRA.

The article was written on November 5, the day after midterm elections in the USA:

Washington Post correspondent Liz Sly, who has been one of the most enthusiastic media propagandists for the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the so-called “moderate rebels,” questioned whether the FSA would “manage to survive the trouncing inflicted in recent days” by the Nusra Front. She described the events in Idlib as “throwing the rebels into disarray and upending the Obama administration’s hopes for a moderate alternative to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”

The “trouncing” was accomplished without a shot being fired. Two US-backed groups, the Syrian Revolutionary Front and Harakat Hazm (Steadfastness Movement), surrendered without opposing the Al Qaeda-linked militia. It was reported that a large number of their members went over to the Nusra Front, while others fled.

Wait a minute. I thought McCain told us that the “Free Syrian Army” fighters were “vetted”:

Asked by Padnos about fighting the Nusra Front, one of the FSA fighters replied, “Oh that, we lied to the Americans about that.”

The lady from Syria tried to warn John McCain about these “moderate” Syrian rebels. McCain tells a Syrian Christian woman that Assad is a “merciless” butcher, after she “begged” him to stop bombing in Syria and get Saudi Arabia to stop funding for the “rebels”. Another point she makes is that these “rebels” are “not Syrians” and they are coming from everywhere else to fight there:

The last paragraph in the first-linked article is a history-based and reality-based prediction:

Until now, Washington has tried to paper over these contradictions while waging a sporadic campaign of air strikes that has had little effect on ISIS’ control over a broad swath of Iraq and Syria. The real war is still to come and will be launched in earnest once today’s midterm elections are over. Given the sorry state of Washington’s chosen proxy forces in both Iraq and Syria and the real aims that it is pursuing—US imperialist hegemony over the entire Middle East—sooner rather than later this new war will involve large numbers of US ground troops in another killing spree.

.. the end.. at least the “end of days” period coming to us, whether we believe it or not…

Reid tags Bundy’s as “terrorists” because they exposed Reid corruption

November 9, 2014

Used to be Hollywood made heroes of poor families standing up to corrupt developers trying to take land away from them…

News Roundup – Nov 3rd

Absolute Federal Power: An Absolute Absurdity

October 29, 2014
Voices of Liberty

Imagine for a moment you just hunkered down to watch
the big Monday Night Football game between your favorite team and its most hated rival. Adorned in your “lucky” jersey, you’ve got a big bowl of popcorn in your lap and your favorite beverage next to you. But when you notice the refs run out onto the field wearing striped shirts emblazoned with your hated rival’s logo, you jump up, spill your drink and spit popcorn right out of your mouth. You completely lose it and let loose with a stream of four-letter obscenities when you realize one of the refs actually plays for the opponent, and a second official serves as an assistant coach for that team.
Of course, nobody would blame you for your reaction. No sane person would accept the legitimacy of football referees clearly connected with one of the competing teams. Those guys could swear objectivity and promise fairness, but nobody would believe it for a second. We all know where their loyalties ultimately lie.
And yet millions of Americans accept this very scenario when it comes to their own system of government.
Ask virtually any American, “Who determines the constitutional limits of the federal government?” and they will tell you, “Why the Supreme Court does, of course.”
Consider what this actually means.
We put our faith in the Supreme Court (part of the federal
government), made up of nine justices paid by the federal government,
appointed by the president (part of the federal government) and approved by the Senate (part of the federal government) to fairly judge and properly limit the powers of the federal government.
Americans insisting on Supreme Court supremacy essentially argue that a founding generation fought a long bloody war to separate itself from an overbearing centralized power. They went to great pains to draft and ratify a Constitution that only delegated limited enumerated powers to the new general government, leaving most authority with the states and the people. They insisted on an amendment (the 10th) to make this structure explicit. And then they gave nine politically appointed lawyers absolute authority to determine the extent of those limited powers.
This fails the logic test……

In Ukraine, A Tale of Two Elections

by Daniel McAdams
Saturday November 1, 2014
Ron Paul Institute

The US government loves to “promote democracy” overseas, often at the barrel of a gun. Strangely enough, however, it often “deplores” actual elections being held in such places. Take Ukraine, for example. An election held last week by a group that forcibly seized power from a legitimately-elected government was hailed by the US administration as a great democratic achievement.

Said John Kerry about last week’s parliamentary election held by the post-coup government in Kiev:

We applaud Ukraine’s commitment to an inclusive and transparent political process that strengthens national unity. … The people of Ukraine have spoken, and they have again chosen to chart the course of democracy, reform, and European integration.

In this US-approved vote, the parties disapproved by the US were harassed and even essentially banned. But that’s OK.

However in eastern Ukraine, which refused to recognize February’s US-backed coup in the western part of the country, parliamentary and presidential elections scheduled for tomorrow are scorned and even “deplored” by the US administration.

The White House condemned tomorrow’s elections in eastern Ukraine in no uncertain terms:

We deplore the intent of separatists in parts of eastern Ukraine to hold illegitimate so-called local ‘elections’ on Sunday, November 2. If held, these ‘elections’ would contravene Ukraine’s constitution and laws and the September 5 Minsk Protocol.

So much does the US administration hate the idea of unapproved people voting, that it even refused to call them elections, placing the very term in “scare quotes.”

Shortly after the February coup in Kiev, referenda were held in Crimea and in parts of eastern Ukraine to determine whether to remain tied to Kiev or declare independence from the new regime. Those elections were also condemned by the US.

“We reject the ‘referendum’ that took place today in the Crimean region of Ukraine. This referendum is contrary to Ukraine’s constitution,” said the White House immediately after the March vote in that region. The February coup was also contrary to Ukraine’s constitution but that did apparently not bother Washington.

Similarly, when referenda were held in eastern Ukraine this spring to determine that region’s future course, the White House spokesman condemned them as “illegal under Ukrainian law and a transparent attempt to create further division and disorder.”

When the wrong people hold votes, it seems, “division and disorder” are the result…..

The art of making up enemies
“Why Albania?” – Excerpt from “Wag the Dog” (1997)

Brasscheck TV
Nov 3, 2014

“They want to destroy our way of life.” “They hate our freedoms”

In this clip from the 1997 film “Wag the Dog”, Dustin Hoffman’s producer invents a war, to distract the American public.

Albanian terrorists have a suitcase bomb in Canada, and they’re trying to get it inside the US.

It’s kind of funny, but the scary part is the wording he uses.

We’ve heard it already – nearly word for word – from the mouths of politicians.

Could it be – gasp – that what they say is made up, too?


Bundy Family at Sky Harbor Airport (PHX) Treated as DOMESTIC TERRORIST

November 1, 2014

This morning my twelve year old daughter and I tried to fly to Salt Lake
City from Phoenix for a special event of a loved one. We had to be there by 1:00 pm in order to be a part of the occasion. Everything was going as planned until we came to the Gate B check station and the first TSA agent looked at our boarding passes. He seem a bit alarmed and asked me if my name was Ammon, I told him yes, he then circled my name and sent
me down the line. I could tell there was suspicion but thought it may be because my daughter was a minor, or because my name is unusual and sometimes taken as Arabic.

When we reached the actual check station the Second TSA agent saw my boarding pass and immediately called for a Commanding Officer on the radio. Over the coarse of several minutes he called multiple times for assistance, meanwhile the line behind me was stopped and backing up. When the Commanding Officer finally came the two agents conversed privately as they looked at my barding pass and drivers license. The Commanding Officer then directed me to an area and confiscated all of
our possessions along with the normal clothing checked such as my boots, belt jacket and so on.

By this time, we were feeling a bit scrutinized and those around us were staring and talking among themselves of the matter. They then escorted us to a back area were they rummaged through our items, testing it with devices and inspecting each article. The agent then began to check me
physically and boy was that uncomfortable, no cavity check was completed but everything else was.

I asked the agent why we were being treated so differently and why we
were selected out. He told me it was because my boarding pass was tagged with the bold letters “SSSS”. He also told me that this will happen every time you fly because you are marked. Beyond that he did not disclose of anything else. My daughter then asked him if she could put her shoes back on. The agent said that she could, but that I was not to touch my possessions. He then called for his Commanding Officer.

After a few minutes, the Level Three Officer showed up and asked me several question and wrote the answers down on a yellow sticky note. This
Commanding Officer then went to a computer and began typing and reading. The whole thing was very interesting to me. I thought to myself, “WOW, Harry Reid really does have me tagged in the federal database as a Domestic Terrorist”. I have never been charged and prosecuted with anything in my life, and yet Senator Reid, without due process, has declared me, for life, as a Domestic Terrorist. He unilaterally named me, Ammon Bundy, a terrorist against the people of this country, the people I love and would so willingly to give my life for.

After the Commanding Officer typed a few things in the computer, my boarding pass was written on and hole punched 5 times with stars mostly over the SSSS (see picture). Our possessions were then returned and we were free to go to the boarding gate. When we left the security area many people were looking at us in curiosity. The entire process took about an hour,
and my daughter and I did not make our flight. We knew we would not make it to the event even if we got on another flight so we left the boarding gate area and went to ask for a refund from US Airlines.

U.S. Airlines resisted to give us a refund at first, they insisted that they could not be held accountable for what the government chose to do. I showed them the boarding pass and the SSSS, then told them why I believed I was marked and harassed. They immediately began to process the refund request, one lady said “that sends chills up my spine that they would do that to you”. I thanked them and we left the airport.

This incident reaffirmed to me the danger that the American people are in. When a very small group of elitist use the peoples power without
authority, and are willing to destroy the lives of those who disagree or stand up to them, when this type of unlimited power is commonly exercised without checks and balances the people are in danger.

Ammon Bundy

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality” -Dante Alighieri

They who watch while our elected officials are ravaging our country should consider that…Vin

Join The Fight – Expose Globalism and The New World Order

Ron Paul talks freedom to anyone who listens

November 9, 2014

(1) I doubt very much that Ron Paul would have been “involved” with John Birch at one point. If so he was much MORE involved with Ronal Reagan and the Republican Party. What is the article author’s history, to be throwing stones.

I have not seen any such evidence. Plus I do remember that early in the 2008 campaign the left-fascist propaganda machine made much hay out of ONE white-supremacist guy with a blog announcing his donation to RP’s campaign, a whopping $50, as if that smeared him.

(2) It likely was a case like with Walter Block, who said he interviewed with the lying liar NYT reporter who took one response out of context to make it look pro-slavery, which of course is the opposite of Block’s view. –IT was an actionable crime under U.S. law, the NYT took advantage of Block’s philosophical objection to the libel courts.

(2) The John Birch Society was founded to fight Communist propaganda, and so of course they were always smeared in media before Internet days. Like Sen. Joe McCarthy who “had a list” of Communist moles. Left hounded him till he finally released the names on it. Edward Murrow, news anchor who had hidden his studies in Moscow from the public, denounced him for smearing one colonel’s name on the list.

BUT after Glasnost, in 1992, the USSR’s “Venona papers” were released that showed every single one of those names were indeed moles.

This is just another ad hominem anyway. This author just simply does not like Ron Paul’s voting record. But all these ad hominem’s are like throwing mud to see what sticks.



Am you a “royal” libertarian? Or anarcho-capitalist?

November 8, 2014

This was a new one on me.

I’ve been “acccused” of being a “royal libertarian” by “libertarians” who want a tax on anybody using a piece of land for agriculture (or any other use presumably). This is for believing in land ownership. But where is the royal in land ownership without any government at all?

Classical liberals also who hold the key to abolishing taxation, by suggesting that the community (not the state) charge a user fee to landholders based on the value of the land.

So a “community”, but “not the state” charge a user fee to landholders? That right there not only blows out the idea that this is “real” libertarianism, but it also creates an imperative for aggression. But instead of calling the aggressor the “state”, they call it the “community” and pretend that this removes the coercion factor.

Because somebody has to enforce the “community” decisions, and worse, somebody has to make those decisions, and for the decisions to be binding on everyone in the “community” there will BE a state by any other name. And that “community” will have to be defined by borders of jurisdiction. That’s a United Nations world government trick. They’re not forming a world government, they’re just “doing proper governance”. Like a corporation. Right.

It’s starting to sound like the argument for copyright. Defenders of copyright claim that Stephen Kinsella’s idea is a “communist” idea, as if he wanted a dictatorship to enforce a limitation on copyright, when it is the copyright defenders who have to have a dictators’ technocracy dream to decide the rules and enforce them.

Maybe this is where the idea came from for the national government of Honduras charging “only” a real estate tax of five percent and no other taxes, for the areas that will become their Zonas Especiales de Desarrollo y Empleo (ZEDE –Special Development and Employment Zones).

There are some good arguments here but let’s look at them more closely. You’re watching me think “out loud in print” here.

The first mistake is in the first paragraph. By saying the land is not the ‘fruits of one’s labor”, they claim that no one can claim ownership. Presumably they will expand later on the argument to say the crops one grows on land is the fruit of the labor but not the land the crops grow on.

Of course the author knows full well that Rothbard and Walter Block blast away at the idea that any king has the right to dictate land ownership rights.

Then they go on to list the abuses of royal grants of land titles to pretend this is what us real libertarians advocate when we recognize that land can be “homesteaded”. The European kings had no “right” to grant land titles to American land.

Okay now this:

According to royal libertarians, land becomes private property when one mixes one’s labor with it. And mixing what is yours with what is not yours in order to own the whole thing is considered great sport. But the notion is filled with problems. How much labor does it take to claim land, and how much land can one claim for that labor? And for how long can one make that claim?

This is disingenuous. Say somebody bottles water from a stream and sells it. How can anybody assert that the water is still not his? On the earth today, every single vehicle that runs on gasoline or other oil-based fuel, or even coal, mixes oxygen with it for input to thrust the vehicle forward. To claim that the end product (movement from here to there) is not something one can claim for sale is itself “tortured rationalization”.

Now for a quote they include a quote from Thomas Jefferson to try to tie private land ownership to something statist (I know, right? Go figure..)

Here’s the quote:

A right of property in movable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands not till after that establishment…. He who plants a field keeps possession of it till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated and their owner protected in his possession. Till then the property is in the body of the nation.

Duh. I don’t know how quoting statist Thomas Jefferson proves the claim that a “community fee” for the use of land is a libertarian principle and nobody can own land. Sounds like an invitation for a royal state tax to me. By any other name. I guess they missed all the Austrian literature about “the commons”, so-called.

In Honduras, the socialists have pushed their followers to grab land from a big landowner and claim it for their own. They call this “land reform”. Except in one of these coordinated land grabs, they took over land that had crops growing on it that belonged to one of the patriarchs in one of the richest landowning families there.

BUT –and such is the way of such things– it was of course right before harvest time. The “occupiers” did the harvesting and sold the produce.

That, my friend, is NOT libertarianism. It is Communism. Dictatorship.

Look at this, trying an ad hominem by Pavlov association tricks to link anarcho-capitalist land ownership to state (I know right? Go figure..) The next paragraph comes straight from the article linked above;

It is a royal libertarian notion, and not a classical liberal ideal, to treat land as state property, for if land did not rightfully belong to the state, how could the state have granted it to favored citizens?

Then they continue with something I don’t think I’ve seen in classical libertarian writings:

Classical liberals also who hold the key to abolishing taxation, by suggesting that the community (not the state) charge a user fee to landholders based on the value of the land.

In any case, allowing any camel’s nose version of a state, is not compatible with the N.A.P. And whatever you call it, whatever word you use, it would have to be some kind of “state” to have powers to enforce such rules. And you would have to have such powers. Myself, I DO NOT CONSENT.

It brings in the idea that land can only be common property, but they need a “user fee” regime to let you deny the land to everyone else. Oh what a mess. Who decides the people who will collect this “user fee” on behalf of the “community”. Who will redistribute this collected wealth?

Then they quote Thomas Paine, who went to France later on to fight for the French Revolution. Who would want Robespierre to decide about this “user fee” tax? Did you say “Not a tax”? Oh right, sorry, I forgot. Social security is not a tax.

And then lo and behold, they quote Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill as advocating taxation of land. But the quotes only repeat themselves, saying the same thing with famous people that said it. And how can they use Jefferson as a libertarian favorite when they use a quote where he advocated a “progressive” taxation regime that exempted the smallest landowners. Of course we all know what happens when government grabs the argument.

Unfortunately, states did not support the federal government to its satisfaction from the beginning (being strapped from the war). Rather than working things out patiently, Hamilton introduced power-centralizing measures into the new Constitution. One was the other kind of indirect taxation, the mosquito-bite kind that you don’t see happening. Royal libertarians trumpet this covert taxation as a virtue over direct real estate taxation, even when it means that “free trade” is being taxed.

Maybe he’s right about “royals”, but he’s not right about “true libertarians”. You can distinguish a “true libertarian” by his use of the non-aggression principle to justify his arguments. Substituting one tax, direct or indirect, for another is not in that reference book.

The next paragraph shows me that the author knows little about how anarcho-capitalist libertarians think, and how little they really know about what they’re talking about.

He also contradicts his own argument because he advocates private ownership for anything that moves. Pick some blackberries that grew wild in unowned land and they’re your blackberries. But cultivate them, oh no… Land not yours. Pay somebody else (“the community”!) for the use of the land.

In their search for excuses to deny any common right to land, royal libertarians are fond of citing Garrett Hardin’s work, “Tragedy of the Commons.” Or at least they cite the title, which is all most royal libertarians are familiar with. Hardin is himself an advocate of land value taxation, and has criticized misinterpretations of his work with the lament that “The title of my 1968 paper should have been `The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons.’” [Emphasis Hardin's]

Very funny. So what if Hardin wrongly advocated taxation after showing the ‘tragedy of the commons”. Not for nothing he wants to change the title. He wants to set up a technocracy to determine who pays how much in taxes. Who will decide what the deciders pay in taxes? Jesus Christ illustrated the answer to his apostles:

Matthew 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

That’s what happens when you set up any “user fee” collection structure. They’re people. They are automatically by definition the same as what a state is. You cannot pretend that land taxation is not done through a mechanism that works exactly what we call a state. You cannot pretend that nobody owns land and in the next breath say that some “community” has a “right” to extort a “use fee” for the use of it, or pretend that it is a robbery from the “community” if they use that land without paying the “community” a “use fee” for it (or, as they openly admit in this piece a TAX).

But are the heroes of Atlas Shrugged real capitalists? The inventor John Galt is, and perhaps Hank Rearden of Rearden Metals is, too, although one wonders where he got his ore and fuel. But Taggart Railways enjoys extremely valuable right-of-way privileges from the state. (Once land is parceled out, it is virtually impossible to build a railroad without either land value tax or eminent domain.)

Then there is Francisco D’Anconia, who owned the world’s richest copper deposits, and who took delight in blowing up his mines and driving the price of copper through the roof_something that would not work nearly as well for a capitalist as for a resource monopolist, as there is no way competitors can make copper ore that doesn’t already exist, and, buried or not, D’Anconia’s copper ore still belonged to him.

The economics of Galt’s Gulch

Most revealing of all is the Randian utopia, Galt’s Gulch, which was financed entirely from, yes, land rents. Midas Mulligan owned the whole place, and was, in essence, the government. All the common services, from Galt’s magic energy machine to Hank Rearden’s village railroad, to their defense system (some sort of jammer that made the valley invisible to passing planes) were financed from ground rents collected by Mulligan from the landholders. Although politically Galt’s Gulch was a monarchy, economically it was a Georgist Single-Tax community, with all community services paid for from the rent of land.

Well well. It was Mulligan’s own property, but for the purpose of arguing against Ayn Rand, this writer converts him magically into a “government”! But Mulligan has put it to use, he evidently did not abandon it beforehand. Any “model” in fiction or out is not going to be logically perfect.

For the record I have different quibbles with Ayn Rand’s novel and the portrayal of some of these as “good guy” characters. Certainly it is a chalk-on-blackboard screech violation of logic to try to paint homage to the Biblical God as some version of a state. (I do agree, though that Christianity has been the majority holder of responsibility for charity as virtue today, historically –that charge I happily and enthusiastically agree with– though not with any state’s largesse which is theft).

He next tackles the problem of who collects the “community” rents for land use, who decides what, and who gets the collection. Talk about tortured logic!

Of course that part takes a long piece to parse out and it’s arbitrary no matter what. And then separating land value from improvements on it, and then what do they do with the value that goes up only because it’s surrounded by construction, or this or that.

Then, confound it all, they pretend that a community corporation that owns all the land is somehow a contradiction to the idea that land ownership should not be taxed at all:

There are, in fact, proprietary communities operating on the single tax model. Arden, Delaware, with a population of 4900, has had no local taxes since 1900. The Arden Corporation collects a fair market rent on each land parcel, which is reappraised annually. (They actually collect only about a fourth of the rent to which they are entitled.) From that they not only pay for all the municipal services, but rebate all property taxes levied by the county and school district.

There are excellent reasons for libertarians to prefer the land trust route over the political route. Private communities can be built on explicit contracts (leases) with the citizens, can have internal democratic processes that are vastly superior to electoral democracy, can be far more flexible and free of state intervention, and can be downright profitable (even with trust investors pocketing a mere fraction of the rent). Most of all, dealing with investors is far more pleasant and self-affirming than dealing with politicians.

Of course no doubt the city government decreed this corporation into existence, which would make it illegitimate under the NAP, but it is an example that helps to show one solution in an anarcho-capitalist society can work. Under a land ownership corporation where members agree to join their land to it in return for whatever services, and so on, but all membership is voluntary and/or contractual and so on.

New energy technology: Here it comes!

November 8, 2014


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 185 other followers