Very Interesting

April 18, 2014

Tucker’s new form of libertarianism: responses

April 15, 2014

Tucker: A New Form of Libertarianism:

I’ve known that Reason Magazine has taken up an editorial stance outside in some areas that are irrelevant and even inimical to libertarian philosophy, though not as much as Tucker seems to have done in the quotes found at the Economic Policy Journal web site.

He wrote at FEE last October:

I see within Students for Liberty the emergence of a new form of libertarianism—something more intellectually and strategically sophisticated than forms from the last century… here are some non-negotiables, and they aren’t only about the ban on the use of power. As an extension of the above point, this generation puts a premium on civilized thinking and behaving that includes absolute exclusion of bigotry in all its forms. Racist, sexist, and anti-gay attitudes are not only tacky, but embody the opposite of the tolerance that old liberalism identified as a main bulwark against State oppression. This necessarily means a special identity with groups that have been victims of State oppression and remain so in many parts if the world.

So, for example, it is true that in our time many feminists look to the State for privilege, but it is also true that many racial minorities (and people of all races and classes) look to the State. But the fundamental history and drive of feminism and the anti-slavery movement, historically understood, are about empowering every member of the human family with the freedom that is his or her right.

If we love capitalism, we must remember that it alone has done more to bring about that empowerment than any political change. For this reason, we should embrace the ideals of feminism in the same way we embrace the anti-slavery cause. It is our cause, our banner, our history, our movement. We should never give this up to the oppressor class.

Robert Wenzel does a good job at refuting this cockamamie idea by simply quoting some famous feminists:

“This necessarily means a special identity with groups that have been victims of State oppression”? What the hell is he thinking? Does he think that businessmen and taxpayers aren’t oppressed by the state? Does he think that drug dealers aren’t oppressed by the state? Where exactly does he get the idea that a bunch of loudmouth feminists who will use state power at every opportunity are victims of the state?

How can this be anything but a through the looking glass house of horrors libertarianism?

Do I really have to run these quotes once again to point out that feminism has nothing to do with libertarianism? Feminists are a bunch of family-hating, state-loving, men-haters:

“The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” — Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” –Robin Morgan

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” — Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” — Catherine MacKinnon

“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone; Actress

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future – If There Is One – Is Female.

And they have no problem with making this an embedded part of government:

The most senior feminist minister in the U.K., Harriet Harman, wants businesses to hire women preferentially over White men

In India, the minister for Women and Child Development Renuka Chaudhary has promoted and defended the blatantly anti-male Domestic Violence Act, a law under which a man can be jailed for insulting any female relative.

In Sweden, they even have a party – Feminist Initiative – that promotes the feminist ideology e.g. the abolition of marriage, and a special ‘man tax’ to pay for the cost of domestic violence against women.

Feminists are also about promoting the absurd idea that women are paid unequally. Here’s feminist Lauren Berg calling for government action to end the “unfairness.”

On Wednesday, every U.S. Senate Republican voted against proceeding to debate the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would hold employers more accountable for wage discrimination against women…U.S. Census Bureau data shows that women who work full-time earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar men earn in a year….People need to stop thinking about feminism being unnecessary or simply a “women’s issue.”… Feminism is not just a women’s issue, it is a humanitarian issue. It is a question of “do you think men and women should be equal?”

See: WaPo Slams Obama on Talk of a Male-Female Wage Gap on the distortion about the wage gap claim.

I can’t think of one issue that modern day feminists are attempting to advance that has anything to do with libertarianism. Not one. In fact, most things on the feminist agenda are anti-libertarian.

Of course feminism has nothing to do with the anti-slavery movement, as Wenzel points out.

But Wenzel himself was less forthcoming about the things Tucker said about the gay activism movement. This embrace of political fad, and following thought police dictates in lock step merely shows a lack of conviction about keeping the state monsters out of our lives and our pocketbooks. Like the Bible warns against being “tossed about by every wind and doctrine”. Some of these guys that despise Biblical wisdom so much could double their IQ with counsel like that if they only heeded it.

So Tucker agrees to put away “bigotry in all its forms”? Oh yeah? Then why not put away the bigotry of mindlessly thinking that gays should be able to get state licenses for same-sex marriage and that anybody is a bigot who disagrees with their ideas of marriage (including little old heterosexual me, who wants the state to bug out of it already!)

And “minorities”?

What about the Christian minority? How about the dark-skinned Christian minority? What about the even smaller creationist Christian minority? They’re getting persecuted by the feminists and the militant government-loving Act-Up Queer Nation lookalikes, by government, by militant proselytizing atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (who was by the way a sometimes guest at

Government Debt Default, How (Not If) Will it Happen

April 15, 2014

by Gary North

I have surveyed the Austrian School’s theory of money. This theory began with Ludwig von Mises’ “Theory of Money and Credit” (1912). I presented Mises’ theory of fractional reserve banking and the creation of the business cycle in my mini-book, Mises on Money (2002).
The previous parts of this series are on-line here.

I have done my best to get across a line of reasoning regarding money. This line of reasoning is not shared by other schools of economic thought. To the extent that it is understood by the decision-makers in the governments of the world and central banks, it is resisted. It is regarded as old-fashioned and out of touch with newer, more scientific theories of money and banking.

The crisis of 2008 has led to a revival of interest in the Austrian School’s theory of the business cycle. Why? Because several Austrian School economists and newsletter writers warned of the looming crisis. They did so two years before it hit. These predictions were dismissed as radical and out of touch. The most widely viewed debate over this matter – after the fact – took place on CNBC in 2006. Peter Schiff warned of the recession. Arthur Laffer dismissed it.

Finally, the Wall Street Journal ran an article on Mises’ prediction of the Great Depression. The article ran on November 6, 2009. Better late than never.

..Read the rest, it’s enlightening..

BLM pulls away from thefts of cattle. Why?

April 13, 2014

The BLM says they’re pulling out because of concern for employees’ safety and for the public:

They’re apparently also releasing some of the cattle back to Bundy and his supporters.

Bundy is in the right, and in my opinion, they didn’t back down just over safety concerns but because they were losing the propaganda contest very big time. It was starting to get attention nationally and it was no doubt spilling into international attention.

This is an Internet victory too. So they may look again for ways to tamp down alternative media. They’re fighting a losing war in that venue.

There’s another reason they may have pulled back. It could very well be that the police forces they were sending up against these people were starting to rebel against being forced themselves to do something they hated doing, and sympathized with the Bundy cause and the protestors.

And now for a bit of musical humor

April 12, 2014

The Bundy story behind the story of feds stealing cattle

April 12, 2014

Shiree Bundy Cox gives the family side of the story:

The enviro-groupies are delighted. But that’s because they don’t know the story behind the story, with Harry Reid arranging to give the ranch to some Chinese business partners for a solar farm.

They’re exposing how BLM is using ranchers’ own money to finance the bigger theft.

What else is new? Government guys would have nothing to sell if they couldn’t steal it first.

University Must Promote Christian Professor It Discriminated Against

April 12, 2014

University Must Promote Christian Professor It Discriminated Against:

On April 8 a federal court ordered the University of North Carolina-Wilmington to promote a Christian teacher it discriminated against to the position of full professor and to give him $50,000 in back pay he would have earned over the past six years. As reported earlier by The New American, in March a jury found that the school had retaliated against Dr. Mike Adams, a former atheist, because of his vocal Christian views.

The university hired Adams, who holds a Ph.D. in criminology, as an assistant professor in 1993, promoting him to associate professor five years later. Throughout that time Adams, who was an avowed atheist, received enthusiastic support and professional accolades from his colleagues — that is, until 2000, when his conversion to Christianity dramatically altered his views on political and social issues.

With that personal change came a marked alteration in the attitudes of his colleagues and the administration towards him. According to the civil case Adams filed against the university with the help of the conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, Adams became the target of academic persecution led by a tag team of the feminist chairperson heading the university’s department of sociology and criminal justice — a campaign that culminated in Adams being denied a promotion to full professor, despite an award-winning record of teaching, research, and scholarly publication.

The UNC-Wilmington Cancellor Gary L Miller sent out an email expressing support for academic freedom and condemning censorship and retaliation, but the report says this was after the court order.

Very funny that the biggest mouths condemning the so-called McCarthy era blacklists and censorship have adopted the same practices, on Thought Police steroids..

And that after they have used McCarthy, even after his vindication with the Venona papers, to beat up on every critic of socialism and communism. And make jokes of people who call it like it is…

Even when I was an atheist I wanted the truth however it came packaged: open-minded, closed-minded, popular, maverick, whatever…

Reproductive rights baloney! Does Obamacare Require Coverage For Infertility Treatments?

April 12, 2014

Does the ACA cover infertility treatments?

The ACA does not require coverage for infertility treatments. The ACA does require coverage of essential health benefits and allows states to define essential health benefits by selecting a benchmark plan from current employer offerings. Coverage of infertility treatments are required only for plans sold in a state with a mandate, provided that it includes infertility coverage in its benchmark plan.

If you read on in the link above with its explanations, it seems that there are measures that push on the states to give up coverage for fertility treatment like IVF.

So the brilliant minds who shout about “reproductive rights” and complain about women’s rights to free contraceptives, including the four contraceptives that also cause prenatal infanticide (aka “abortion”), it seems they do not care about women who need fertility treatments in order to have children.

Enough said to expose the hypocrisy of the social engineers who tell the subjects what to think. So much for the undercover operatives spreading linguistic confusion to cover the crimes of a dictatorship.

Pro-lifers should shout this out from the rooftops.

BOMBSHELL: Is Sen. Harry Reid Behind the BLM Land Grab of the Bundy Ranch?

April 12, 2014

Democrats used to say they were against this kind of corruption.

Best buddies: Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid with Chinese Vice-Premier Wang Qishan
during what the Washington Post called a “secret, week-long trip to China” in 2011.

by Gina Cassini | Top Right News

Website FreeRepublic Exposes BLM “document dump” that suggests attempted cover-up of Sen. Reid/Chinese gov’t takeover of ranch for solar farm.

The Bureau of Land Management, whose director was Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.


Will Common Core include this in their history “guidelines”?

April 12, 2014

With the media liars saying Ron Paul did not win even one state, there were six or seven with the majority of delegates. Republican Party rules said five was enough to get submitted in nomination on the floor at the national convention:

But the national convention is national news. Ron Paul would have had an army of enthusiastic energized volunteers working for the election of Ron Paul in November. Ron Paul was the biggest threat to Obama’s reelection.

Party leaders knew this, and chose the boring establishment multi-millionaire Romney instead, handing the Democratic Party a gift-wrapped campaign issue, playing into left-fascist demagoguery.

I’m done with the two-party system, and maybe voting altogether. The alternative media forming around the Internet communication system is becoming ever more a hot potato for our rulers, exposing them.

The world is changing fast, but I don’t think these thieves and vipers will go down without fighting.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers