Liberty on the Rocks - You are already an anarchist

Larken Rose sits down with Liberty on the Rocks co-founders for a discussion about voluntarism.



This short talk is likely to be an eye-opener for any 'normal, decent' human being.

The Complete and Undeniable Truth - Larken Rose

People who cannot handle uncomfortable truths best skip this post...

But if you're open to logical consistency, even when it appears to turn all your learned beliefs upside down, please listen carefully and take some time to think about it.

Thanks for maintaining an open mind.

To Whom does your Life Belong?

Josie the Outlaw explains the answer to this question in just over 4.5 minutes.

What Anarchy Isn't

Larken Rose published a very instructive video on the misconceptions regarding Anarchy. Enjoy!

AGENDA: Grinding America Down

The documentary 'AGENDA: Grinding America Down' is free to watch for a limited time here:
http://vimeo.com/63749370

It's a great and well researched documentary, illustrating how the Fabians and the Frankfort School finally came into power through Obama, paving the way for their destructive agenda. However, there's a very disturbing undertone in this documentary, which could limit the number of viewers by driving them away, and that would be a real pity indeed. The film happens to be loaded with creationism, to an extent that morality would not be possible without 'god'.  It caused me to write the letter below to the producers, but unfortunately, nobody has bothered to send me a response. So here it is:

Dear producers of 'Agenda',

First of all, hats off to a great documentary, detailing how the Fabians and the Frankfort School aim to destroy Western Civilization. Combined with William Lind's "History of Political Correctness", this documentary clearly shows the timeline in Western decay, which already started shortly after the instigation of the Constitution, where former Founding Fathers already tried to circumvent it as soon as they became president, but which really was put into force when democrat Woodrow Wilson arranged for unlimited funds for governments by creating the ability to borrow from the FED, and then later used those funds to have the local Austrian/Hungarian conflict escalate into WWI, laying the groundwork for WWII.

There are, however, some points I'd like to address, which impact the documentary's outreach in a negative way. One is the overtly and excessive pleas for religion (more specific: christianity) to be restored. It will cause intended viewers, who really do need to become aware of the documentary's facts, but who are not necessarily believers, to switch off, missing the important facts which are presented.

At one point, the message is even as strong as stating that without religion there can be no morality, but that's ridiculous. As you indicate towards the end of the film that islam is a problem, you seem to reserve that stance for christianity only, which already indicates this is an arbitrary point of view. Religion is a belief-system, not a fact system. To 'deny the existence of god', as it is put somewhere in the film, is not to deny a fact. Hence religious people have no right to force their religious rules onto non-believers, vice versa. Live and let live. Freedom is mostly awarding liberty to others, not just claiming it for oneself. Most people who say to support liberty only support it while others hold on to the same ideals as they do themselves, other opinions should be forcefully suppressed.

The whole idea of liberty is that everyone should be free to live as they please, according to their own standards, with ONE guiding rule: the identical freedom of others should not be infringed. I do not have to like the way my neighbor lives, as long as he does not infringe on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (including property rights), it is not my business to try and change him. Enter the non-aggression principle (NAP, which is not at all a non-violence principle, violence is allowed in self-defense, the only legitimate use of force). It should be obvious that a 'nanny state' will always break the NAP.

The christian political parties in The Netherlands do not even support the primary commandment: Thou shalt not steal; they are quite happy to rob Peter to pay Paul, after doling out a handsome retainer to themselves, of course. Even while that commandment is the only one you really need: even murder is stealing, in its most essential form: the stealing of one's prime property, one's life.

I'd also like to make a statement on homosexuality. While the documentary seems to condemn it, there's nothing to condemn. Homosexuality in itself is an abberation of nature, an abnormality, and should it be accepted for what it is, it would not be any significant factor in society. The issue here is the exploitation of homosexuality, in alternative lifestyles, gay parades and such displays that portray homosexuality as something desirable, support adoption of children by gay couples, etc. But in a society which would matter-of-factly accept homosexuality for what it is, an abberation, gay people would not be forced to uphold a false mask, marrying and reproducing (homosexuality is genetically inheritable) just for the sake of keeping up appearances of 'normality'. They would live their lives just like other people, have jobs, not 'exhibit' their 'abnormality', like heterosexual people do not 'exhibit' their 'normality'. They would just be ordinary people, blending in with everybody else.

Finally, I was caught quite by surprise by the popping-up of 'other problems, like islam' towards the end of the film, which are then agreed upon. But islam, while being a tyrannical ideology, has never been an issue for the West, until it was purposefully imported by the Western governments to break Western culture an civilization. Islam is an instrument of the Cultural Marxists, as is Climatism or the financial crisis. It struck me that the author, who laid down so clearly the intentions and instruments of the marxists, would fail to recognize this as part of the very agenda he is documenting.

The battle is not so much 'right' vs. 'left', but collectivism vs. individualism. When individual rights are respected, the rights of the 'groups' these individuals 'belong to' are automatically also respected. It does not work the same the other way around. Both 'right' and 'left' are collectivist in nature. That is what has to change. The problem is: how? Collectivists have taken over the institutions that allow them to wield power. Because they can make and (selectively) enforce their arbitrary 'laws', opposition is severely hampered. The only way to ensure this can never happen again is to eliminate those institutions, by educating the people that as long as 'bad people' exist, it's a very bad idea to create institutions like a 'government' where these people can employ their 'badness' with impunity.

Your documentary is a very useful instrument in this (difficult) education, and I think it is a real pity that part of the audience will be scared away by the excessive role that is reserved for religion, as religion is just another collectivist power system, about which many wars have been fought. The notion that morality can only come from god is a mistaken one, and history has abundant proof of that mistake. I am not religious, but there's nothing wrong with my moral compass. I know enough religious people who do not support the NAP, would like their beliefs to be forced onto everybody by state power, and hence need their compass looked after.

Thanks for your attention, and maybe you would do me the honor of a motivated response?

--
Soevereine groet / for Liberty,

R. Hartman
DutchConcerns

Law without Government

On YouTube, I found an excellent series of three short videos describing how law without government would work. I've taken the liberty to present them here together. Enjoy.

 1) Principles


 2) Conflict Resolution


 3) The Bargaining Mechanism

The REAL State of the Union

Instead of 'low taxes' I'd have preferred the Judge to say 'no taxes', as he is very well aware that taxation is theft, but otherwise there is not a word amiss in this short video. It shows the dire state 'the free west' has come to be in.

Harare on the river Maas (updated)

(The city formerly known as Rotterdam)

Local elections were held in The Netherlands on March 3, and who has been watching them would not have believed these were elections in a European country. Where European states send observers to countries like Zimbabwe in order to ensure no irregularities take place it has become time for coutries like Zimbabwe and Venezuela to return the favor.

Labour politicians issued campaign posters in Turkish, Moroccan and Arabic, as otherwise the uneducated, unassimilated, analphabetic immigrants would not be able to understand where to get their free lunch. "You cannot exclude these people from the democratic process" is their legitimation. In my view, someone who doesn't understand the slightest about his guest country should not be allowed to influence that countries politics by being granted the privilege to vote. But then again, how else is labour to stay in power?

Fascism is back!

While the left in The Netherlands still rise to any opportunity to express their abhorrence of their companions Mussolini and Hitler, the fascists of the 1940's, their fascism has returned full force to Dutch PM Balkenende's regime. Jan Peter Balkenende's government, already having exposed itself as a traitor to the country and the citizens of The Netherlands by ignoring the people's NO in the 2005 referendum on the European Constitution and its rewrite, the Lisbon Treaty, handing over The Netherlands' sovereignty to Das Vierte Reich, is now dictating what business owners can and cannot do with their own property.

The first step onto this particular path of fascism was taken when the Dutch government forced owners of bars and restaurants to make high investments in air cleaners for their establishments to diminish the effects smoking had on the atmosphere. Reasoning behind this was 'public health', which of course has nothing to do with it. It's up to the establishment's owner whether or not he want to present his personnel and clients with clean air or a blue haze one can cut and fold.

If personnel doesn't like it, it goes to work elsewhere; if clients don't like it, they stay away and the establishment goes bust. Simple as that. The free market will decide what the client likes and thus what businesses will florish and what not.

Allowing private ownership but not the freedom to use that ownership to the owner's advantage is the defintion of (state) fascism. Combined with nationalism, one gets National Socialism, which the left claims to be far right, but which of course is as left as it can get. But hey, the best lies are the ones repeated most often, Goebbels already knew that.

Fascism means one has to pay the cost of property but cannot reap the benefits. When the Dutch government ordered a full smoking ban for restaurants and bars in The Netherlands last July, it took another step onto the path of fascism. Bar and restaurant owners no longer had the freedom to allow or disallow smoking in their establishment as they saw fit.

Now many establishment owners are facing nearing bankruptcy due to this ban, more and more are ignoring the law and allowing clients to smoke again, much to the chagrin of the non-smoking lobby and, surprise, the Association of Bar and Restaurant owners. While one would expect this Association to stand up and fight the government to get the ban lifted, it actually whines that it's not fair that bar owners get fined for breaking the law. Because, they claim, a bar owner is not a policeman, and it's the clients that break the law, not the bar owner. Thus, the client should get fined!

They do have a point, of course, a bar owner is no more a policemen than any other entrepeneur is a tax collector, but still each one of those has to collect, administer and hand over VAT on his activities for/to the national tax extortionists. But the conclusion is invalid. There is no market for non-smoking bars, otherwise they would've been in existence for a long time already. Restaurants already had voluntarily split their space in smoking and non-smoking sections, as second hand smoke is much more of a burden while eating a meal than while chatting and drinking.

Today's practice is that smokers that still visit their bar go outside to have their smoke, and now the anti-smoke lobby wants a ban on smoking in open air, as well as on smoking inside one's car. But as people do not like to have their butt frozen off just for having a smoke, they tend to stay home more as the temperatures drop and the rain pours. Because of this, bars now openly advertise that they will allow smoking.

But that was miscalculating the Dutch government's hunger for power abuse. The state has the monopoly on both power and force, and if it makes a law it will damn well see to it it gets obeyed. So it will start a strict regime on upholding the ban, as bar owners that allow smoking falsificate competition, which is an economical crime, and thus can lead to loss of the business permit, and thus closing of one's livelyhood.

Readers of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged undoubtedly recognise the rant Dr. Ferris presented to Hank Rearden, where Ferris states that governments are after power, and there's no power to be had in obedient citizens. So in order to create criminals, a government will create laws that cannot be obeyed, and then it will excert its power. Written in 1957, Atlas Shrugged frighteningly accurate describes the machinations of today's governments, from nationalisation of banks to taking away all personal freedom from those who create wealth, in order to favour the needy, the greedy, the parasites, of which politicians (and monarchs) are of course a prime example. The more people get dependent on government, the bigger it gets, and the more power it yields.

Before July 1st, a bar owner that conducted his business as he saw fit was a hard working citizen, making his living in a fully legal fashion. Now, without changing anything in the way he conducts his activities, he has become a hunted criminal, only because the state changed the rules, interfering in matters that are way beyond the scope of the state's primary but negated duty: protecting individual rights.

The Dutch are ruled by criminals.

Dutch webmaster 'summoned' bij Amsterdam police

On feb 1, 2008, I wrote an article here on how Dutch political party PvdA tried to silence Dutch weblog Hoeiboei. Today, Hoeiboei's webmaster was summoned (Dutch) to report to Police station Surinameplein 118, on Friday June 20 (tomorrow) at 18:00 hours, to be heard about certain texts on the internet.

Pretty short notice, and pretty vague. With the Gestapo-style arrest of Gregorius Nekschot still fresh in memory, this is the next step in Dutch oppression of freedom and free speech. On the very day that Dutch parliament debates the actions in the Nekschot affair, another Dutch freedom site is being intimidated.

Hoeiboei's webmaster is contemplating to ignore the 'request', but the wisdom of such an action is debatable: when will they come to pick her up, like Nekschot? Will her not-showing be used as an excuse for more strong-armed action? She has tried to obtain more info on the backgroud of the summons, but the police refuses to provide any further details. She will be informed as and when she will arrive at the indicated time, no earlier. Is it unthinkable that the same PvdA faction, led by Arco Verburg, is behind this new attack on Hoeiboei?

Think about that 'indicated time'. Friday evening, 18:00 hours, and only a day's notice. Friday evening, 18:00 hours, when every 'normal' citizen has dinner and starts his/her weekend. Could this be a lure to keep her in custody as 'nobody can be reached during the weekend'?

The refusal to provide any background information, neither in the summons nor in the phonecalls and visit she made to the police station, are normally ground enough to completely ignore the summons. But given the way the Dutch, and particularly Amsterdam police are more and more operating in Nazi-style (an old habit from WWII, when they were very helpful in tracking down Jews and delivering them to the occupying forces), this may well upset a judge who may later need to issue a ruling in the matter.

And from a personal point of view: is it worth lying awake at night, worrying about things to come? The best approach seems to be, given the short notice and all, to decline the invitation refering to other obligations, and setting a new date and time, preferably not on a Friday, and certainly not at a time that one will likely need to bring clean underwear and a toothbrush...

CapMag.com interviews Craig Biddle

Capitalism Magazine recently published an excellent interview with Craig Biddle, the driving force behind The Objective Standard.

"Genuine capitalism—which is not what we have in America today—is the social system of individual rights, in which the government does one thing: protects everyone's right to act on his own judgment, so long as he doesn't violate the same right of others. Under capitalism, everyone is free to keep, use, and dispose of the product of his efforts—free to achieve whatever kind and degree of prosperity he is willing and able to achieve—free to live his life as he sees fit. Under capitalism, there is no forced altruism—no stealing from Peter to pay Paul, no tying Peter's hands so he won't outperform Paul, no forbidding Peter and Paul to engage in consensual adult sex, no forbidding Mary to have an abortion, and no sacrificing soldiers to spread democracy to savages who want theocracy."

A must-read for supporters of individual freedom.

Obama and Rev. Wright

Barack Obama is probably a more dangerous candidate for the American presidency than Hillary Clinton, the lying former First Lady who will also mean little good for freedom loving American citizens (not that the republican(?) alternative, McCain, is much of an improvement). View this video (from here):



and read this article by Thomas Sowell on Capitalism Magazine:

"[Obama's] voting record in the U.S. Senate is the furthest left of any Senator. There is a remarkable consistency in what Barack Obama has done over the years, despite inconsistencies in what he says.

The irony is that Obama's sudden rise politically to the level of being the leading contender for his party's presidential nomination has required him to project an entirely different persona, that of a post-racial leader who can heal divisiveness and bring us all together. The ease with which he has accomplished this chameleon-like change, and entranced both white and black Democrats, is a tribute to the man's talent and a warning about his reliability."

And while you're at capmag.com, check out this article by Walter Williams as well: Obama's Speech Ignores The Fundamental Issue:

"Some pundits ask whether America is ready for Obama. The much more important question is whether Obama is ready for America and even more important is whether black people can afford Obama."

Obama is an extreme left-winger, and we can well do without those if we want any chance at maintaining at least what little freedom we have left.

Rights vs. Privileges

This article is a reproduction of Chapter 2 of Michael Badnarik's book Good to be King. It very clearly explains the principal difference between rights and privileges, and how the constitution does not grant you your rights, but merely lays them down. Any “rights” that are granted are mere privileges, that can be taken away at a whimp. This fundamental difference is very important in understanding individual freedom. Learn and enjoy.

The most important concept in this book is the difference between rights and privileges. For that reason, this chapter can be downloaded from my web site at no charge, and may be reproduced and distributed without written permission, as long as it is copied intact and without modification. A right is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “a power, privilege, (sic) faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another … the powers of free action.” Please note that rights are “inherent” in a person. This means that it is physically impossible for rights to be extracted from a person by any means.

Imagine a brick made of lead. The first thing that will cross your mind is that this object will be heavy. Extremely high density or weight is an inherent quality of lead. If an object isn’t heavy, you can be certain that it’s not made of lead. You cannot put a lead brick into a vacuum and “suck out the heavy.” You cannot put a lead brick into a microwave and zap it until it becomes light and fluffy. The quality of being heavy is one of the distinguishing attributes of lead.

Now recall some of the dreams that you’ve had. You can’t put the unpleasant ones into a bag and bury them in the back yard. You can share your dreams with others, but you don’t have to worry that someone will steal them from you when you’re not looking. Your dreams are an inherent part of who you are. No one can extract your dreams from you. The same thing is true about your rights. When you die, your dreams will die with you. If someone kills you, they will deprive you of life, but they can never deprive you of your right to life.

I define a right as something you can do without asking for permission. The opposite of a right, therefore, is something you cannot do without asking for permission. Any time you need permission to do something it is a privilege. Black’s Law Dictionary defines this as “a particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption.” Rights and privileges are opposites. I have three corollaries to the definition of rights. They are:
• All rights are derived from property;
• Every right implies a responsibility; and
• The only limitation on your rights is the equal rights of others.

Let me demonstrate the principle behind my first corollary with an example. Suppose I walk out of my house onto my land. I can walk back and forth, back and forth, across my land anytime I want without asking anyone’s permission. Walking across my land is a right. Now suppose I want to walk to the store located on the other side of your land. Can I walk back and forth across your land anytime I want to? Certainly not. Not without your permission. It is a privilege to walk across your land. Assuming that we’ve been neighbors for a while, it is possible that your response would be, “Sure you can take the shortcut, Mike. What are friends for?” So on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday I walk to the store making my way across your land. Let us now assume that something unpleasant happens to you. You misplace a winning lottery ticket, or your significant other leaves you for your best friend. You wake up Thursday morning in a terrible mood, looking for an opportunity to vent your frustrations. As I begin to make my way across your land you shout, “Hey, mister! Walk around! That’s what fences are for!” The important concept here is that privileges are granted, and they can be revoked at any time for any reason. Once again, rights and privileges are opposites.

Property! This is the one-word answer to any question regarding the Constitution. Any time there is a dispute about rights, the argument can be settled by determining who owns the property in question. Prior to the American Revolution, a man born into the proper family was thought to possess all of the land in England, and he claimed all rights as well. The king could bestow privileges on the people he favored and, being the king, he could revoke those privileges at any time. He could also have a person sentenced to death for any action he found insulting. All his power came from his ownership of property. When Christopher Columbus marched out of the water onto a beach in North America, he immediately proclaimed ownership of the entire continent for Queen Isabella of Spain. Subsequent settlers would each declare ownership of the land for the royalty they felt they owed allegiance to. The king’s power and prestige was directly related to how much land he possessed—which explains why human history consists almost exclusively of continuous warfare.

The Declaration of Independence states “they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” This statement refutes the idea that only the king had any rights. Instead of accepting privileges controlled by a human king, we claim the same rights that every king has ever claimed. We consider this to be “self-evident” now, but it was necessary for us to defend this idea by fighting a bloody revolution that ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The significance of this treaty was to transfer ownership of the land from the king to the people in America. Hence, the American Revolution was ultimately about the right to own property. The ownership of property is the most important distinction between freedom and tyranny. This idea is so important that John Adams, the twelfth president (right after George Washington) wrote: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

Regardless of your religious views, I think it can be safely said that anything as sacred as the law of God would hold considerable weight in any argument. Unfortunately, not everyone in America holds property in such high regard. Most of our problems in the United States can be traced to a blatant disregard for private property. Examine the quote of another American president, Theodore Roosevelt: “Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” If I own a piece of property, I control what happens to it. If the community has the “right” to regulate my property whenever it wishes, then I do not truly own the property. I am merely occupying it through the generous will of the majority. Both statements cannot be true at the same time.

This is a very simple concept understood by every two-year-old. Every two-year-old has two favorite words. Both are attempts to express their will over their environment. The first word is “no!” which is the equivalent of a royal veto — an attempt to forbid mother from doing something we don’t approve of. This statement is rarely a successful veto, but it is uttered with the same assumption of autonomy as any king who ever lived. Their other favorite word is “mine!” frequently shouted with a presumption of unquestioned authority, regardless of the item being claimed. The child claims ownership of any item they wish to have control over. They already understand that if it is “mine!” then I am the one who will determine what happens to the item. In other words, “I have the right to do what I want with it.” Of course children have an incomplete understanding of property, having a much more difficult time with the concept of “yours.” Parents spend countless hours trying to teach their offspring not to touch other children’s toys unless they are given permission. The problem does not go away in later years, either. Siblings sharing the same room will often draw a line down the center of the room to establish “ownership” and control over a given area and the property that it contains.

Adults assume that they have a much better understanding of property than children do, but that is not necessarily the case. Americans do not legally own property in the manner that they believe they do, because they do not exercise autonomous control over their property. What would happen if you erected a derrick in your backyard and started drilling for oil? Would you be surprised if the county sheriff drove up and asked to see your permit? In order to drill for oil you must own the property under “allodial title.” Unfortunately, if you pay property taxes, then you do not own your property to the degree that you thought you did.

It may surprise many of you to learn that the federal government claims ownership of much of the land in each of the states, especially in the western states. Much of the rest is claimed by the states themselves. This is clearly an important topic, unfortunately not one that I have time to explore rigorously here.

You probably don’t own your car the way you think you do. If I give you a “gift certificate,” do you have the gift, or just a piece of paper that represents that gift? When you finish making payments on your auto loan, does the bank send you the “title” to the car, or simply a “certificate of title”? The certificate of title is a piece of paper that only represents the title of the car. Each car that is manufactured has an MCO, or “manufacturer’s certificate of origin,” that is the true title for the car. Because most cars are purchased on a payment plan, the dealer sends the MCO to the state agency that controls the registration of vehicles. The MCO is microfilmed and then shredded to make it much more difficult for you to obtain the actual title. If you are able to pay cash for your car and you know enough to demand the MCO as part of the purchase agreement, it is possible for you to purchase an automobile and own it the way you currently believe that you own it. The figure on next page shows a copy of an MCO obtained by a patriot friend of mine. He is not required to register his car with the state, and he travels in it without license plates. All of this is perfectly legal—although you may admittedly have some difficulty convincing the police officer who has detained you for what appears to be a traffic violation.

Property may be an adequate source of rights for land, but what is the source of your right to life? Many will argue that your right to life comes from God, however that debate is outside the scope of this book. Whether divinely created or scientifically evolved, one thing that is indisputable is the fact that your body exists. It is also widely assumed, at least in the contemporary United States, that you own your own body. If someone else owns your body, then you are a slave. The institution of slavery was based on the premise that other humans were considered to be property, and thus could be bought and sold like any other commodity. That idea is loath to many of us now, however the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude was not passed until December of 1865. You cannot successfully claim your right to life until those around you respect your body as property that you alone control. Even today the women in Middle-Eastern countries are treated as the property of men, and children are still sold into slavery around the world.

The second corollary on the subject of rights is the fact that every right implies a responsibility. Rights and responsibilities are as inseparable as the heads and tails of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. I have a right to wear a gun on my hip, but I also have the responsibility to make sure that no one is injured by it. Furthermore, carrying a gun does not give me a right to your property. I only have a right to my property, not to yours. It is a widely held position that a six-year-old child has the right to life. I have never personally met anyone who has argued otherwise, but do not assume that this is a universal proposition. Does a six-year-old child also have the right to keep and bear arms? Very few of us—not even I—would allow a child to walk around with a loaded firearm. That’s because a child does not have the mental capacity to grasp the possible consequences and implicit responsibilities of using a gun. To a child, everyone is immortal just like Wile E. Coyote in the Road Runner cartoons. A child thinks that if you fall off a cliff, there is a brief puff of dust and a few seconds later you’re zipping along on rocket roller skates. Unfortunately, that type of rapid recovery isn’t possible in the real world.

Americans have grown weary of their responsibilities, and our government has been only too eager to relieve us of those burdens. When two people have a child, they have a responsibility to determine what the child will learn and what values it should adopt. Over the years parents have become complacent about that responsibility, turning it over to government schools that offer “one size fits all” education. Then parents have the audacity to wonder why their children haven’t adopted the values they would like them to have. Instead of planning for their future, our parents and grandparents allowed the Socialist Insecurity Administration (sic) to take money from their paycheck to create their retirement program. Today, everyone is concerned that Social Security doesn’t return enough money for basic subsistence, much less the money people need to enjoy their golden years. If people had retained that responsibility for themselves, placing their money in a simple savings account with 5 percent interest, they would easily have more money than they currently get from the government. By allowing the government to assume our responsibilities, we have gradually given away many of our rights.

My third corollary on the subject is that the only limitation on your rights is the equal rights of others. To put it another way, you only have the right to your property. You do not have the right to anyone else’s property. Many people believe that they have a right to health care. There is even a presidential candidate who recently suggested a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that right. A right to health care suggests that you should be able to walk into a doctor’s office and insist that she or he correct your illness for free, or for a significantly reduced cost. Would you be willing to do your job for free for anyone who steps in off the sidewalk? I sincerely doubt it. You’d be very busy—and very, very poor. Why should your doctor provide services for free after spending all the time and money required to graduate from medical school? “Don’t worry!” people tell me, “the government will pay the doctor’s salary.” Oh, really? And where does the government get the money to pay the doctor’s salary? From taxes, of course. But for every $100 the government takes from my wallet, they keep $50, the HMO keeps $25, and the doctor gets what’s left. Wouldn’t it be easier and far more efficient for you to walk into my house to take $100 out of my wallet yourself? You’d be able to pay for even better treatment than you’re getting right now. There is, of course, one small problem with that plan. I am a strong Second Amendment supporter. If you come into my house in an attempt to take money from my wallet, you will soon be going to the doctor for something far more serious than whatever you were suffering from in the first place.

You should have learned this in grade school, but just in case you missed it, you do not have a right to other people’s property, not even when the government takes it away from them and gives it to you. That is the basis for socialism, and that is exactly what the Constitution is intended to prevent.

Link

Rogue State Medeland

The Netherlands have now openly and fully qualified for the title of 'schurkenstaat' (rogue state). What's a rogue state? Traditionally, a rogue state is a state that abuses its own citizens. These days, other properties that are considered are support of terrorism, violation of human rights and dodging of (international) law. However, a listing of properties holds a limitation. Far better is a more general definition. A state can be considered a rogue state when it violates basic rational moral values.

The Dutchman does not exist, according to beloved import-bride to the heir to the throne Maxima. When taking into account the number of imported, mainly Islamic, people that 'enriched' our country ('Medelanders') it might indeed be better to call the State of The Netherlands 'Medeland'. Because there's no doubt about the existence of the 'Medelanders'. Whomever views Medeland with a critical eye only has to look at the month of October to inevitably conclude that Medeland indeed has become a rogue state.

PM J.P. Balkenende (residing under would-be queen Beatrix) threatens to conduct a coup should his gang approve a concept-law that would require a referendum on the sale of Medeland to Eurabia. Beatrix has the State Council, also residing under her, present an obvious lie about the European Constitution ("the new treaty has no constitutional aspects") and parliament absorbs it as were it the word of God himself. Coup avoided, mission accomplished. The voter is put offside, only the useful idiot during election time, when most corrupt Dutch party, PvdA (Labour Party, Party of the Ayatollahs), swore that they would insist on a referendum should the 'new' treaty look anything like the original one. Well, it did, and they didn't.

The already criminally high tax burden is increased even more, and public health care is being revised again: anyone that does not abuse the system is going to pay more for those who do. And as a rule, there's less money available to Dutch citizens, while trainloads of taxpayer's money disappear to distant horizons: 4.5 billion euro is spent annually on 'development' countries, while a 'normal' amount, in perspective to what other European countries spend, would be 1.2 billion. Mind you: these 1.2 billion are wasted as well, and would better be returned to the taxpayer, for the majority of the money ends up in the wrong pockets, while the remaining bits that do end up in the intended spots do not make any structural difference. 4.7 Billion euro has gone 'missing' with Bertje Koenders' department (as is habitual with the PvdA, the Portemonnaie van de Ander, Other People's Wallet), and nobody gives a toss. Much of that money goes to terrorist outfits like Hamas and Fatah, and the 'benefactors' have no say in that. The Development Ministry could be closed tomorrow; none of the beneficiaries would be the worse for it, but the Dutch taxpayer would benefit quite a bit. Leaves a buch of civil servants that need to find a real job, but hey, they might learn something.

According to the CDA, the Christian Democratic party, the produce-price of gasoline could be 12 eurocents lower, ignoring the fact that the consumer price consists for more than 65% of taxes. In the past, we had gradual tax increases with two real jumps, one ten cents (4,54 eurocents) and one 'temporarily' 25 cents (11.33 eurocents) that were never returned to the taxpayer. But parliament blames big oil. Motorbike riders will not be exempt from the intended mileage-taxing, as it "would be imcomprehensible that they could use the roads for free". The amount of bikers compared to motorists is neglectible, and most bikers pay double already anyway as they also own a car, and cannot drive both vehicles simultaneously. Combined, bikers and motorists put up a whopping 18 billion in taxes annually, of which only close to two billion are being returned to them in infrastructure, the blood vessels of the economy. What do you mean, "use the roads for free"? We're being screwed for 16 billion euro; the State is an expensive whore.

A man tries to kill two police officers and gets killed in the process. The would-be killer is depicted in the MSM as a victim (also see this article), and we hardly hear anything of the fate of the police officers, other than that they were saved in hospital. Day after day the MSM reports how the state failed at helping the 'schizophrenic' 'victim', up to and including theories on possible relationships between inbreading and schizophrenia. We still have no news on the police officers, whether or not they're out of hospital yet, but the lady that shot the guy will face an investigation: couldn't she have shot him in the legs?

That the state failed is beyond argument, but not for the reasons claimed by the PC media. The overwhelmingly Moroccan neighborhood burns non-Moroccan owned cars every night, à la Paris; news about it suppressed in the MSM, because they're 'offended' by the killing of one of their's. What does the state do? While Islamsterdam is burning, the police picks up football hooligans a few blocks on, and raids partygoers in order to search them for possession of drugs. Stops pushbikes to fine riders who do not carry proper lighting. Job Cohen, mayor and self-Islamiser of Amsterdam, drinks more tea with the Moroccans. The 'hard approach' is undesired, says dhimmy Cohen, but apparently that only goes for the voters for his Party of the Automobilefires.

A child molester, caught in the act (!) while sexually molesting a 9-year old, and admitting to six more cases of child molest, was set free by a judge because the molests 'were not severe enough'. Only to be picked up again for sexually molesting an 18-year old. But as the that case was already known by the justice department, who refused to investigate it, the case was thrown out and the guy was set free once again. This is akin to a rape license! Is the judge connected to Dutch boss-of-justice-department Joris Demmink (Demmink is known to be guilty of child-rape but it cannot be proven as he, covered by a series of Justice Ministers, remains in function and thus obstructs any investigations)? Or maybe the perp has details on Demmink? Why does the Justice Department refuse to investigate serious crimes like (child) rape? I just read it failed to investigate 200 child-porn cases, a quarter of the cases carried over from 2006!

Our fake monarchy visits India, one of the few, and possibly the only country in the world where the rise of capitalism leads to more childlabour, instead of less, which is the rule in other upcoming countries. This is due to the criminal Indian 'kaste'system, which abuses the lower 'kastes'. But our fake queen won't utter a word on the subject. No inconvenient questions, please.
The Dutch heir to the throne, Wim Alex, nicknamed Prince Pils (Pils is short for pilsener, beer) follows his imported wife into politics, a field thus far avoided by the 'Royal' Family, as it is full of mines. After inquiring with the Indian authorities whether they subsidise their farmers in order to not use valuable water in raising their food crops (!) he goes on to visit neighboring totalitarian state Bhutan to 'help' the dictators there with advice on how to convert their monarchy into a democracy like the Dutch, i.e. how to convert their dictatorship into another one. Whomever might think Wim Alex would use the occasion to inquire about all the Nepalese that were chased out of the country and now reside in UN fugitive camps would draw the short straw: no such luck. Same thing for the Christians, who are being persecuted; no inconvenient questions here.

Gross indignation and a courtcase by the fake Royalty were the result of the publication of pictures of the Dutch infant princesses on a pedophile website, Martijn. You won't hear Wim Alex about all those other kids posted there, who are equally unroyal but not related to these imposters, and even now, nobody cares about those unknown kids. Selective indignation, therefore, and thus, class justice. The reports on the event are inconsistent, as usual: "After the pictures were removed from the public part of the site, they still appeared on the member pages. Martijn claims that after the summons these were also removed, but the state information service claims they cannot verify that". Question: How does this relate to the claim the pictures were there in the first place?

In the mean time, highschool classes are split into discussion groups where half a class has to defend Al Gore's Global Warming propaganda and the other half the debukers, with the 'Swindle' as base material. Accompanying material are IPCC materials and MSM articles that still uphold the hockeystick graph (debunked in 2003) and 1998 as the hottest year in 10 centuries (debunked in August 2007). The midieval warming period is also left out of the handouts. This is criminal misinformation, if anything, as part of the public schooling system. Pupils are trained to defend what's already recognised as outright lies, a perfect training for politicians and, as such, a great example of Frankfort School tactics.

A not yet sworn-in judge, apparently too stupid too realise she could not serve as first judge yet, ruled to hold six suspects in custody, among them a confessed rapist and a confessed murderer. Because she was not sworn-in, her judgement (with two 'real' co-judges) was deemed illegal and the suspects were set free. Yes, free; unfortunately I'm not joking here. Form before content, "the constitutional state demands it", the safety of society is of no concern here. If the constitutional state demands the release of confessed heavy criminals, I know of some more people that should not be in prison, because chances are they are innocent, and only convicted willfully on false and manipulated evidence. The list of such cases grows by the day. Why would our justice department go to great lengths to get innocent people convicted? Why do judges insist on releasing suspects who confessed to their crimes?

There are several (Dutch) websites that clearly illustrate the many things that are wrong with Dutch 'justice', like the sites of Paul Ruys, Stan de Jong and Klokkenluider Online. Medeland deceives and lies to its citizens. The Dutch are extorted and sucked dry in order to pay for all Medelanders, but are themselves treated as second-rate citizens. Crime pays and therefore rules; as long as one has a loud mouth and threatens to use violence when 'offended', politicians crawl to be be of service. Any notion of morality and decency has been destroyed by the state. Medeland absolutely qualifies as a rogue state.

How can this situation be resolved? A cabinet crisis is highly improbable: the ones currently in power have sunk so low in the polls that they'll compromise on just about everything, in their own interest. New elections would wipe them out. On HVV Michiel Mans calls for a protest on the Dam in Amsterdam, to voice our frustration. I'm not such a protester myself, but I just might consider to join the band, even while chances are that it won't matter a bit. The one thing you can be certain of is that the Kafka and AFA fascists will show up to stir a riot, unbothered by the police and Cohen.

What does help? The 'method Pinochet'? Elimination of Balkenende, his gang and his extreme left-wing cronies? Although prosperity advocates (I've read that Pinochet received advise from Milton Friedman) historically made very small amounts of victims when repairing economies compared to their leftist opponents when ruining them, the prosperity-bringer's victims are always brought to attention in order to stress how evil these people were. All this while those victims without exception are the socialist do-gooders who feel the unsuppressible need to tell others how to live their lives, violently if necessary. Socialist victims are preferably never mentioned. Exception to this rule are genocides and the Holocaust but, oh irony, only to serve yet another socialist agenda. I'm not in favor of these methods, however, sometimes you have no choice. It's not as if Pinochet would have reached his goals if he'd let the Che Guevaras and Fidel Castros have their way.

How do we stop Balkenende's gang (intranslatable word game: de Balkenbende)? How do we get rid of Cohen? How to dismiss the monarchy? For preventative elimination, as was done with Pim Fortuyn by the extreme-left, it's too late; the damage already has been done. Elimination now is useless as well: while Pim was unique and irreplaceable (whatever opinions you may have on the man) for every socialist a clone sits waiting to take the vacant position. The main disadvantage of Libertarianism (in this respect, in others it's a huge advantage) is that Libertarians do not feel the urge to tell other people how to live their lives. The only thing a libertarian wants is to be left in peace, and to leave the other one in peace as well. Thus, a libertarian does not long for power, and therefore has no incentive to conspire with others on how to obtain that power. Socialists always abuse this lack of organisation among libertarians.

On closing, I'd like to refer the reader to the excellent (Dutch) post on Communism by André, based on a video brought to our attention by Seneca, featuring Michael Badnarik. From it, you will see that Medeland is indeed a rogue state, heading for oblivion, like all socialist/communist states before her.

It Isn't Easy Being Green

It is no surprise to find environmentalists condemning consumers who "buy green"--because, at root, environmentalists are against buying anything.

By Keith Lockitch

It isn't news that environmentalism has gone mainstream in a big way--with organic food in every grocery store, hybrid cars on every freeway, and every mass-market magazine declaring green the "new black." More than ever before, consumers are buying into environmentalist ideology--and buying products that purport to impact nature less, in order to impact nature less.

One would think that serious environmentalists would be thrilled about this trend--thrilled that the public seems willing to take ecological marching orders and do its duty to the planet. But they aren't: A backlash against "buying green" has arisen in environmentalist circles, with critics disparaging the new eco-consumers as "light greens," and condemning the "Cosmo-izing of the green movement."

Surprising? Not really. Not if one grasps the deeper meaning of environmentalism.

Most people have a mistaken view of environmentalism. They see it as a movement whose goal is to protect the environment so that we, and future generations, may continue to enjoy it. Environmentalists might call for certain sacrifices--like stern priests calling upon us to do penance for our sins--but people take their word for it that those sacrifices will turn out to be for the good of "society." People feel virtuous in paying more for those organic blueberries and spending time washing out tin cans and nasty cloth diapers, because they see it as a sacrifice for the "greater good." And although "going green" may demand some cost and effort, it need not--on this view--be too burdensome nor demand personal hardships that are too great.

But in fact, the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched--to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes. Observe that whenever there is a conflict between the goals of "preserving nature" and pursuing some actual human value, environmentalists always side with nature against man. If tapping Arctic oil reserves to supply our energy needs might affect the caribou, environmentalists demand that we leave vast tracts of Arctic tundra completely untouched. If a new freeway bypass will ease traffic congestion but might disturb the dwarf wedge mussel, environmentalists side with the mollusk against man. If a "wetland" is a breeding ground for disease-carrying insects, environmentalists fight to prevent it being drained no matter the toll of human suffering.

It is simply not true that environmentalism values human well being. It demands sacrifices, not for the sake of any human good, but for the sake of leaving nature untouched. It calls for sacrifice as an end in itself.

Though environmentalists will often claim to be opposed to merely "indiscriminate" or "excessive" consumption of natural resources, their ideology actually drives them to oppose any act of altering nature for human purposes. The environmentalist goal of "preserving nature" unavoidably conflicts with the requirements of human life: Man's basic means of survival is to reshape nature to serve his ends, to take the raw materials of his environment and use them to produce values. But this requires "touching" nature, not leaving it untouched. Even organic crops require land and water and energy; even hybrid cars are built of metal and plastic and glass, and use up fuel. All human activity, on whatever scale, violates the environmentalist injunction to "leave nature alone."

This is why it is no surprise that environmentalist leaders would condemn "buying green" as a consumer trend. Says Michael Ableman, an organic farmer and environmental author: "The assumption that by buying anything, whether green or not, we're solving the problem is a misperception. Consuming is a significant part of the problem to begin with." In other words, the very act of consuming--i.e., pursuing material values in support of our lives--is a "problem."

Environmentalists are criticizing "buying green," because at root they are against buying anything.

Anyone who thinks that it's easy being "green"--that "eco-chic" is consistent with the principles of environmentalism--had better think harder about the true nature of the ideology they are helping bring into power. Environmentalists' call for minor sacrifices for the sake of some undefined "greater good" is the first stage in their call for sacrifice as such, for no human benefit whatsoever.

If environmentalists are now confident enough to start attacking "buying green" as superficial and hypocritical, we had better take them at their word and stop buying anything they have to sell, especially their poisonous ideology.

Keith Lockitch is a PhD in physics and a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Reproduced with permission from the Ayn Rand Institute - Dutch Concerns

The Argument for Libertarianism

Recently a discussion developed in the comments on an article on Gates of Vienna between one of the posters and me, as the poster threw libertarians in with multi-culturalists as the worst type of fanatics (while having previously stated that Islamists were, but that's a side note). The remark was triggered by an observation by Baron Bodissey that multi-culturists no longer need the nation-state, prompting the remark that libertarians also hate the state. Apart from the fact that this remark is unjust, it also ignores the vast difference between 'the state' and 'the nation-state'. Multiculturalists no longer need the nation-state, but they still very much need the state, as it enables them to extort the working people in order to waste the extorted money on their own immoral goals. As the comments section on GoV is hardly the place for a discussion like this, as it digresses off topic, I decided to devote an article to it and invite the reader to discuss it.

Libertarians don't hate the state, but they do object to it. They want to get rid of the state for precisely the same reasons the parasites support it: the massive fraud and corruption that is inherent to any state in general, and the welfare state in particular. A state has to be, by definition, a criminal organisation, having the monopoly on violence, and the ability to legalize its actions by creating laws that allow them. But that does not make those actions less criminal.

It's the state that allows Islam to colonise our countries, it's the state that criminalises free speech if that involves criticism that it does not want to allow, like Islam-criticism. It's the state that lies to their citizens about its true intentions. It's the state that takes taxpayers' money to hand it to the looters. It's the state that places the interest of groups above that of individuals. It's the state that goes to war. And because the state has the monopoly on violence, its citizens cannot defend themselves (try paying no or less taxes, you'll be lifted from your bed at gunpoint before you can say 'democracy').

Libertarianism is the closest thing to the original American Constitution, in that it guarantees (not: 'grants') people only three rights (negative, natural rights): life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Not happiness itself: you’ve got to put effort into it to achieve it. A fourth right, following from this, is the right to earned property: you get to keep the produce of your work. You don’t have the right to a house, a car, a boat or a million dollars in the bank; you’ve got the right to work for it, and once you earned it, by honest labour (physical or mental), then it’s yours to keep.

Basically libertarianism knows only one rule: you are free to pursue your own goals, as long as you do not impose on anybody else’s same freedom to do so. This is quite a bit different from ‘doing as you please’. The freedom to live your own life comes with the responsibility to bear the consequences of your voluntary choices. Ground rule is: no violence, except in self-defense. If you think about it, you do not need any other laws than this rule, based on negative rights. All positive 'rights' are assigned by people, and thus arbitrary.

When I read these angry, prejudiced reactions to libertarians it always makes me wonder where people get this hate. They are so far off the mark. Libertarians don't hate. Libertarians love individual freedom, free speech, free market, free enterprise. The state has to go because the state blocks these values, out of self-interest, by applying violence. It cannot be denied that states invariably end up killing their citizens, because when the breaking point is reached, the angry mob no longer can be controlled. Read F.A. von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. In the mean time, the state tries desperately to take away the citizen's right and ability to defend itself, in order to stay in power. In America, politicians call for gun control. In The Netherlands, where guns are already illegal, if you run across a burglar inside your house and hit him KO, you get charged with assault. The burglar, who does not honour the property rights of his victim, gets to claim all his own rights. The perp is made the victim. Rediculous: if you don't respect other people's rights, you forfait your own.

In the libertarian view, there are no illegal immigrants. Immigration has never destroyed a state. Colonisation has. Unless you hate everybody that looks different than you, has different beliefs than you and a different religion than you, there's nothing wrong with open borders. Immigrants, real immigrants, adapt, because it's in their best interest to do so. They move to a new venue because they feel it's better there, that they will have a better opportunity to pursue their happiness. Immigrants don't have a future if they don't adapt, as in a libertarian society there is no welfare state. They have to learn the language and work for their money, just like any local. If they are criminal, they will be punished, just like any local, and expelled.

Colonists, on the other hand, don't adapt, they want to submit their new society to their own values, rules and laws. As such, colonists are a threat and should be expelled. Most Islamic 'immigrants' to Western society are no immigrants at all, but colonists, which is why it's wrong to welcome them into our region. What rational logic is there in moving somewhere because the social and cultural values there offer more chances than the present ones, and then insist on taking these lesser values with you? It makes no sense, and thus betrays the real Islamic agenda.

I invite the reader to watch this short animation, read this article and read some publications by Ayn Rand, Roy Childs, Murray Rothbard, Walther Block, the list goes on... Think, think and think again. And then if you still feel that there's something fundamentally wrong with libertarianism or objectivism, put your arguments in the comments.