Thursday, October 20, 2016

The Question Heard, and the Question Asked

Someone's got a lot to lose, and someone knows it. Not the little people, they're going to lose either way. Someone is a big fish, one of the biggest fish in the pond, for two and a half decades. Imprisonment may very well be on the line for said someone, maybe even a few of the guppies in someone's bigger school of fish. For this very special someone, victory is livelihood. Failure may completely undo this someone.

This isn't a review of last season's finale of House of Cards. Fantasy is much less interesting than reality.

During the third and final dog show, we heard it asked if Trump would accept the Election results. This is what we heard, but likely not what was asked. Was Trump asked to concede to a rigged game? This is how the wise guy asks the question, akin to "So Loretta, how are the grand-kids?"

The question isn't outrageous. It's been an insightful couple of weeks into the machinations of Democracy. Some terrible truths have been laid bare, and the Wizard of Oz gives gravity to the possibility, demanding that Dorothy pays no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Wikileaks and Project Veritas have shined a bright light on the Clinton Machine, including but not limited to :

  • Sabotage and Fraud
  • Blatant bias of the DNC, actively working against Bernie Sanders
  • Voting Machines, allegedly pieced together by the Soros Network

Yet, it is asked of Trump, "So kid, you accept yet? You gonna roll over?" as Guido clutches his aluminum bat.

This isn't a question that would've been asked if they didn't feel vulnerable and exposed - The Elite have let worse accusations and revelations slide. Between the work of Wikileaks and Project Veritas, the Democracy Myth is threatened. Faced with this threat, and the cat being out of the bag already, there's little point in being clandestine anymore. In desperation, Hillary's guppies will be quick to paint Trump as a wicked tyrant opposed to the sacred right, that he's against the People's choice, and will be against the People if he wins. No less was expected from this set up.

In the face of this exposure, Trump was challenged to turn a blind eye to it, "like a good boy should". He made the move that would give them what they needed most: Defiance. Trump had plenty of ways to answer this challenge while keeping them in suspense. "Do you ask me to ignore historical evidence of fraud?" might be one, he might continue "Is it expected of the President to turn a blind eye to said fraud?" Another may be "Is it Presidential to accept an outcome before it happens?", he could even use this one to take a jab at Obama's ceasefire in Aleppo.

They certainly intended to trap Trump with a predictable answer, as post debate analysis seemed to focus exclusively on Trump's answer to the question we heard. One can only speculate what the response will be for the answer to the question asked.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Election Mind Dump v2

Miscellaneous points about the election, a follow up to this:

Hillary's empty ammo can:

 The Deplorables speech helped Trump more than it did Hillary. The "October Surprise" wasn't exactly a surprise - an affluent and charismatic man who seeks a station of power quantifying his desires as just another notch on the belt (or in this case, the notch that wasn't) isn't exactly news to anyone that's paid attention for the last fifty years, or even just seventeen years ago.

The otherwise calculating and infinitely Machiavellian Hillary walked, or marched right into this, at her husband's expense no less. Rest assured, Bill noticed.

This is a face that's very out of character for the Bill Clinton I remember. The Clinton Cartel will need to work a little harder to recover. But they can't. This isn't a game that they've ever played. They've played the game of politics all the while controlling the rule book, the referee, and the court they play on. Now they're playing the game of Trump, and they're terrible at it.

Clinton's ammo can is empty; all she's firing are some very noisy blanks that are giving away her position.

The Second Debate:

The only moments that anyone will talk about next week are Hillary's black eyes. Yes, I know. Ken Bone is being paraded around the news articles like the next "Joe the Plumber". But Joe too has been forgotten, and it didn't take long.

There were two black eyes: The four ghosts of Clinton's past, and promises of a special prosecutor. If Donald ceded the ball in the last round, he forcefully took it back this round and framed the match around his moves. Both Trump and Clinton knew this, as Trump stalked the stage akin to a wolf circling it's prey. Clinton recoiled, and withdrew her bravado to focus on survival. "That's not true" replaced "I'm with her" in roughly an hour.

What's next?:

There won't be a winner, anymore that there could be a winner in a nuclear war. Whoever makes it to the Oval Office will be crawling to it on bloody knuckles and shattered kneecaps. "But Trump is still standing", someone might say. Yes, but Trump took a shot at a Clinton. Hillary's ammo can may be empty, but now she has more reason than ever to find that nuke. Ruthless and desperate are a devastating combination, especially when operating on a timetable.

 Alternatives to the one party system would be wise to start looking at 2020 - there's never been a bigger podium for something different. We're watching the Elite's apparatus tear itself apart.

No pressure, LP. Don't crash and burn too hard just yet.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Oh stop it.

In alternative media circles, there's a growing concern that Gary Johnson is somehow going to be a spoiler candidate that guarantees a Clinton victory in November. I do not follow the logic behind this for at least a few reasons. If anything, I'd say he's trying to woo a demographic of ex-Sanders voters that are more likely to vote for Hillary than Trump.

1. He's not catering to Trump's audience.

Johnson flails his arms when someone uses nouns and adjectives that, when not paired, are perfectly acceptable members of the lexicon that we call the English language. He doesn't persuade, discuss or reason: he demands compliance and feigns outrage. Regardless of his party affiliation, you can't help but hear the guy and think Carl the Cuck and AIDS Skrillex.

2. To the Left, two, three, four.

At every opportunity Johnson has to elaborate on ideas, he defaults to the left. He never waivers from this, and he will stay the course. A short list of stances:

  • You can't discriminate with your own resources
  • Open to Carbon Taxes
  • "We'll just call him Racist"
  • "Equal Opportunity"
  • "Reasonable" Gun Control, "round capacity limits" (From Weld)
  • We need more Syrian Refugees
  • Not "All Lives Matter"
We're afraid that these stances are going to derail a fiery and frustrated Trump train, for Hillary.

3. He has a million words for Trump, but a handful for Hillary.

None of these words for Hillary are scathing, or even remotely critical. This is smart on his part: You don't change minds by criticizing their choice. Johnson is also fairly quiet until Hillary starts slipping. He's likely to only get louder as she tries and fails to defend herself from Trump on the debate stage. Johnson will echo Anti-Trump talking points even further as this happens, hoping a disappointed Clinton supporter notices.

This isn't a strategy that benefits Hillary, and I doubt Johnson aimed to do anything for Hillary on purpose (or Trump for that matter). Johnson says nothing that will appeal to a Trump voter or supporter. Johnson doesn't even say much that appeals to dedicated libertarians.

If we want to be concerned about what Johnson will do to the extent that anything he does will actually do something, let's talk about this SJW re-branding of Libertarianism that's got him so excited.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Election Mind Dump

The following are observations about the election from a libertarian point of view. They aren't necessarily sorted into one piece, but are a collection of thoughts. Expect a lack of flow and cohesion.


We can talk about Bill or Hillary, it doesn't matter as they seem to be interchangeable fun-house mirrors of each other. The system they've used to ride high seems to be turning against them since Trump secured the Republican nomination. As of this writing, Black Lives Matter has turned against Hillary. Bernie supporters have never hated the Clinton cartel more. The IRS has launched an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.  Then, there's that little Wikileaks thing that calls the legitimacy of her impending nomination into question. Julian Assange claims there's more leaks to come regarding the election.

Everything seems to be turning against them at once. We can't talk about this without talking about the Elite. The Elite needs a useful puppet, which Clinton is. This puppet also needs to keep the masses bewildered by perpetuating the myth of consent of the governed. Clinton no longer fits this bill, if she ever did. Should Team Clinton sit on the throne again, the myth that the elites rely on will be dispelled.

The Elite needs the myth maintained, and it hasn't been a good year for the elite.


Trump could fit this bill, not necessarily because he is or isn't an insider. Elements of his beliefs may fly in the face of the status quo, but what few policy stances he's offered don't overtly threaten much of the elite agenda with the exception of a handful of core tenets. Where he deviates, there's an answer for that. The Elite are also short on alternatives.

Which puppet gets chosen?:

 Consider who would be more useful at this stage in the game, of the two: The puppet with an irreparably tarnished reputation, despite her willingness to toe the line. Or, the alternative potential puppet that asserts "I'm a real boy", with his own thoughts and his own beliefs. This puppet deviates little, but where he does deviate he pivots unpredictably, sometimes putting on a show that the puppet master doesn't want on the stage.

The Elite would rather lose a few fingers than the entire hand. They'll lose fingers if Trump makes it to the White House. They'll lose a hand if Hillary does.

Libertarians for Trump:

When Trump is golden, he's golden. When he's not, he's the polar opposite of liberty. Libertarians have enough to applaud and condemn. Trump, when applying the Libertarian litmus test, is terrible for liberty. To borrow the line, "Support the master that will dole out less beatings", which I can't argue with. Which takes me to...

Libertarians for Trumpism:

Make lemonade from the lemons. Trumpism is a unique phenomenon tied to Trump, comparable only to Pat Buchanan's populism that was uniquely tied to Pat Buchanan, now only a residual of the alt-right and Libertarian circles. Trumpism too will evaporate when Trump is out of the game, and Trumpists will look for a new home - they won't find it in the progressive, liberal, or neoconservative camps. Many of these people have libertarian sympathies, having been supporters of Ron Paul in the last two election cycles (See: Alex Jones). They could be libertarian, or libertarian sympathizers in a few years. Murray Rothbard was right, education and outreach is how we will succeed. Libertarians for Trump could accomplish this - worst case scenario it doesn't, and Libertarians will be no worse off than we are now for the effort.

Libertarians for Johnson:

Talking about all of this, and Libertarian support, would be incomplete without mentioning Johnson. I've talked about Johnson a lot on this blog, I'll avoid reiterating. Johnson won't necessarily grow Libertarianism, but he could transform  Libertarianism into Libertinism and Diet Statism. If the words out of Johnson's mouth are any indication, he's not a libertarian. Had Johnson said any of these things campaigning as a Democrat or a Republican, much of Johnson's libertarian voter base would have cried foul and called him a Statist. Giving Johnson a free pass because he's campaigning with an L next to his name is worse for Libertarianism than anything Libertarians for Trump could possibly do.


Can we have Ron Paul back?

Thursday, July 7, 2016

One Long Whimper

 The thoughts in this writing aren't necessarily associated with Libertarian theory. They're social observations that some Libertarians, regardless of their home camp in the larger liberty movement, may be interested in. Libertines of the Liberty movement are likely to have objections to much of what I say. I'm not necessarily speaking against someone's rights, but I'm definitely observing the result.

 The older I get, the wiser my elders sound. The more I communicate with my peers, the more I realize how little I understood before the discourse. The more I listen to what my peers have to say, the revelations get more interesting.

I can't say why, but commentary in Alternate Media seems to imply that there's a growing attention to the alleged Depopulation Agenda. The allegations stem from comments made by Bill and Melinda Gates, several eugenicists, John D. Rockefeller, environmental groups and an assortment of individuals that come from the enigmatic circle that has been dubbed the Elite. A belief in depopulation has been stated by members of this Elite, but what have they actually done? War and eugenics practices are hardly putting a dent into the population. Until recent epiphanies I'd never given much attention to this theory.

The Black Plague scoffs at the paltry sum of souls that have been culled by recent War and the machinery of Eugenics. Several sources give different numbers, percentages, or breakdowns of deaths in a particular region over a given period - but these are numbers that couldn't be achieved by a nuclear strike on several metro areas. Should the Warfare State or a practice of Eugenics choose to compete with the Black Plague in any significant way, such an action would completely and utterly destroy faith in the master. Faith is what they need to maintain strength in three main arenas: Government, Politics, and Finance.

The belief in the Depopulation theory also does not account for the truth that willfully shrinking a power base does not make for a strong Empire. We can assign dozens or hundreds of traits to the Elite, but the belief in their all encompassing Imperial Dynasty is chief among these traits and is the vehicle that makes their deeds possible.

I've seen no apparent evidence of a Depopulation in action, until a recent open forum of libertarians slightly derailed into a talk about an alleged depopulation agenda. If this is a goal of the elite, they cannot achieve these results immediately. As stated earlier, using an existing method in their toolbox will only undermine their authority to whoever is left - and may even harm themselves in the process.

In light of this, depopulation would have to be a process that becomes guided by trends. Trends aid in the overall make up of defining a culture. For much of prosperous segments in history, culture was defined by the Nuclear family: global population only increased.

Objectors may call my concerns unfounded as the population continues to increase. However, the birth rate declines with each new measurement. Equally alarming, global median age is at Sixty Seven. Agenda or not, it does not bode well for the longevity of the human race.

There are several things I'd attribute to this, it's impossible to talk about all of them without writing a very long book.

Children are considered State Assets first, sons and daughters of their parents last. Five days a week, six hours each day, our children go to learn about the world around them through the filter of a State agenda. Though the nuances of this agenda change ever so slightly every so many years, the core of the agenda remains the same: The State is your first loyalty.  This agenda has undermined the nuclear family.

Bizarre expectations are pushed on our children. Young boys are expected to sit quietly for six hours listening, when these same young boys are more interested in doing. Give a young boy a set of Lego's for the first time - the instructions will become a distant memory in less than six seconds and he will rapidly start assembling these plastic bricks in a manner of his choosing, correcting irregularities as he finds them. I'd say much the same for young girls, but studies indicate that girls learn best from instruction and guidance instead of trial and error.

Boys that display masculinity are lectured and disciplined on the error of their ways. Children don't like getting in trouble. They rely on adults to coach them through the do's and do not's. The issue here, is that the do's that are perfectly acceptable for young boys have been transformed into do not's, and they run risk of "getting in trouble" just for being who and what they are. This has undermined the masculinity of males, and it's done at a very young age when habits for life are formed. As these same boys age into young men, asking a young woman on a date runs risk of being treated akin to sexual harassment.

Girls are taught that femininity isn't natural, it's conditioning that they must rebel from. I talk a lot about boys in the dynamic of this cultural aberration,  but I think girls have it at least as bad if not worse even if only for the end result. Imagine being a young girl, and a trusted figure that's not a relative lectures you on the errors of  the womanhood definition. Being a mother is undesirable and should be avoided. "Taking care of yourself" is male chauvinist code for being good looking. Abortions are a trendy right that you shouldn't have to pay for, and it's something to be celebrated. Consider that these manipulations, when they transition from idea to fruition, repel the innate magnetism of male interest. Then, the men are obviously the problem when these man-haters can't get dates.

In all of the above, a baseline of condition and conditioning has been set. This is a conditioning that begins when children step into State, or Statist education. The cultural constructs that developed naturally have been modified - not by markets or exchange of ideas, but by intervention on a captive audience. When we look at the above four points as a unified whole, all subjects are being taught behaviors that renders themselves illegitimate. The male is being feminized, the female is being made undesirable at best or masculine at worst. This is how we arrive at  new descriptions: The Metrosexual male, the self hating male, and the Third Wave Feminist and perhaps more, each lacking in what a male or female would be interested in for the purposes of starting a family.

Social Media is the new "hanging out". Despite the term, it is not social or socializing; It's a shadow in the shape of socializing. This post too, is not the reader and I engaging each other in the same physical environment. The reader doesn't have the ability to grasp the tone of my voice to gauge for manners, sarcasm, sincerity, humor, concern or fury. The reader does not get to experience my body language, my facial expressions, my pauses for consideration, or my willingness to hear their rebuttal. Right now, you're "socializing" with a block of text credited to someone on the internet operating under a pseudonym, courtesy of Social Media.

This isn't a problem in isolation - it's a modern means to communicate to the entire world. This becomes a problem when this replaces social activity. Even when using a real name, there's an air of suspended reality: Nothing is physically taking place. You can throw an infantile tantrum on social media and there's nothing "real" about it. The reactions aren't real, the re-tweets aren't real, the thumbs up or thumbs down aren't real, the emoji aren't real. An opportunity was deprived to learn of the consequences of said tantrum. There was no sobering interjection from a peer to step in and deescalate the situation, there were no awkward stares. These are reactions to antisocial behavior that children begin learning at the age of two, perhaps now permanently delayed. Unfortunately, we can call this the new normal as social media users seem to get younger and younger, despite age restrictions in the Terms of Use (Gasp!). The results of social media replacing socializing have become more readily apparent since MySpace launched in 2003. These users are the new young adult, and they struggle to wrap their head around the basics of decent social discourse. Their primary method of communication is being emulated outside of Social Media. Facebook, IMGUR, Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter are their chosen reality, "life" is their emulation. This has infantalized a generation, making them all the easier to cater to by means of coddling. As a result, there are new baselines for expectations of social interaction.

This is the new baseline for disagreement. This is how a point is defended. We can't expect these simpletons to use these undesirable social talents and their early conditioning to navigate the arena of finding a partner and starting a healthy, functioning family, or even getting so far as conceiving a child at all.

The Elite do not need a depopulation agenda, depopulation is happening regardless. Unless this is it.

Saturday, July 2, 2016

Mud into Clay

Brexit and Gary Johnson have done things to challenge my outlook on voting, campaigns, and elections. Particularly, when it comes to the choice of participation, or how to participate. I hold an aversion to participation for a number of reasons, but as a result of these two topics I'm questioning how effective this tactic is when it comes to moving the discussion and action toward liberty.


It all comes back to Rothbard, as it always does. Murray had it right, our victories aren't necessarily in the results of elections. After all, nothing says that Brexit will actually happen. It's still waiting for a line up of rubber stamps and statist bureaucracies before the idea becomes tangible: In this process, there are multiple means to halt this from happening. We can't rely on the State to give liberty any approval.

While I'd be delighted to see the vote transferred to action tonight, tomorrow or in two months, in the grand scheme this isn't as important to me as seeing Sixteen Million people say "No, goodbye". A war of ideas was won, reminiscent of the Rothbard method of education and persuasion. I don't insist these same Sixteen Million people are libertarians, but this same group chose to remove a very large apparatus of control from their day to day governance. Two weeks ago this was the stuff of imagination, now it's what's put a smile on my face for over a week!

What followed was sections of the Bremain camp wanting to secede from the United Kingdom. As of this writing, there are movements in Northern Ireland, Scotland and London emboldened by the vote to further decentralize the UK. Though their motives are blatantly unlibertarian, Libertarians can still take heart. Freedom of Association and Secession aren't relegated to the dark corners of political discourse anymore. These aren't limited to the planks of Libertarian theory, these are now very human issues.

Don't take my word for it. Even California, socialist utopia of the west, boasts a small but budding secession movement that's since been emboldened by Brexit. No longer can the talking heads insist that secession and decentralization are the movements of racists, xenophobes, or fringe elements - lest they spite the poster children that comprise their power base.

The Elite has been painted into a corner as a result of Brexit. Even Obama has to use alternative language to maintain credibility in the conversation. A quote, from an interview on NPR:

"Mr. Trump embodies global elites and has taken full advantage of it his entire life," the president said. "So, he's hardly a spokesperson, a legitimate spokesperson, for a populist surge of working-class people on either side of the Atlantic."

Right, wrong, or otherwise isn't the point of this writing and citation. The State felt compelled to use anti-state language in an anti Global Elite context to keep it's place at the round table. The elders among us may correct me, but I can't recall a moment in recent history where this has happened.
The poltergeist of Lincolnism has been pointed out in the Haunted House of political discourse. The exorcist has been notified and may be on his way.

Gary Johnson:

I'll avoid restating what I've said already about the Libertarian that wasn't, you can read it here. But the rise of Johnson as the face of Libertarianism for the past two election cycles has me questioning my arm chair stance. Since I wrote my critique, Johnson only seems to get worse.

Kristol is interested in supporting Johnson.* 

That's interesting. I'd wager this has more to do with #NeverTrump than it does with favoring Johnson or Libertarianism, and likely motivated by supporting Hillary without overtly saying so. Despite this, when has Kristol ever given a second thought to Libertarians? This says more about Johnson than it does anything else. Anything that makes the likes of Kristol feel safe likely does little for liberty.

If the Libertarian Town Hall is any indication, Johnson would be right at home campaigning as a centrist Republican or Democrat.*

All of this, in the post Ron Paul age. Disappointing is an understatement.


While I obviously can't speak for everyone and I'm certain there was a presence, where was the Libertarian Wing of the Libertarian Party? Rightfully so, there's an aversion to participating in this process. The very nature of Democratic action is a violation of the non aggression principle.

But like Ron Paul, we don't have to become part of the game as a stakeholder in the outcome. Education and changing the conversation are infinitely more important. Even if Johnson was the Libertarian Savant, putting libertarian application into an existing apparatus of Statism is likely to yield little for liberty. Avoiding the Statist's chosen arena seems to do even less.

The results of both Brexit and the Libertarian nomination are challenging to my non-participation stance. If we'd like to effect the conversation, taking one step back out of the discourse doesn't help our cause. It gives the State a chance to take two steps forward. Which it did, the faces of liberty are Johnson and Weld. Did a non participation stance yield this result?

If ever there was a moment to inject unfiltered ideas of liberty into the conversation, it was this election cycle. Nuts to me for not participating. Maybe I'm off base, and I'd welcome some criticism to tell me why.

*Credit for these citations rests with Robert Wenzel and Justin Raimondo. Thanks to you both!

Thursday, June 23, 2016


"You know how they say it's been a pleasure? Well, it hasn't."

 Mike Ehrmentraut of Breaking Bad, attempting to part ways with a pair of reckless drug dealers that have ruined everyone's good time.

I'm pleasantly surprised. Brexit succeeded. There was a lot of nay saying, and I agreed. Libertarians everywhere have permission to feel at least a little warm and fuzzy about this. As of this writing, Sixteen million individuals have said no to handing over their livelihoods to a distant, uncaring, and mostly unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy. Even if this quantity of voters lost, the quantity speaks for itself. I expected this to be very close, but I thought Bremain would win. It's never felt so good to be wrong.

What comes next? The elite and their henchmen insist the United Kingdom has brought about their own ruin. Ruin may be one such option, but who can say? The operating word is options. Options give choices, choices determine survival, ruin, or prosperity. The United Kingdom has all of these available.

Can we expect a domino effect? I don't think it's impossible. I'd say it's more possible today than it was yesterday. I'd imagine the powers that be might be a little alarmed at the results. Despite all of their attempts and machinations aimed to domesticate populations into obedience, this population said no.

What does this mean for everyone not in the United Kingdom? Ideally, inspiration. Saying "No" is still viable. If it can happen in Europe, where State Power seems to be the expectation, why not across the pond? If ever there was a growing frustration with a centralized power, we see it in the States. An outsider(ish) Republican plucked the nomination from the hands of the Koch Brothers, and the discontent in the Democrat party only seems to grow. Lest we forget, the Libertarian (that wasn't) is polling at roughly seven percent. There's obviously a demand for something different.

Decentralization gives the above three, and many other disenfranchised groups the power of options. What they say they want are things they can achieve through decentralization. Or, that naughty "S" word: Secession.

If San Francisco wants to put their utopian fantasies to the test, it's their right to secede and do these things. If Texas has decided that enough is enough, it's their right. If one subsection of any political entity decided they'd like to risk going it alone, why not?  For libertarians, this should be considered a goal. We may not achieve perfect liberty, but at least the options to pursue more liberty. Participating in a centralized power structure has yielded anything but.

In social circumstances, we do not chide the battered housewife for parting ways with her abusive husband. We don't demand that a husband remains with an unfaithful spouse. We don't even inhibit the child who has just achieved adulthood, and forges on alone to carve his own way.

But as is in all things Politics, the reasonable is considered heresy. Brexit has changed this conversation and challenged the norm. Now we get to wonder who's next.

Texas, I'm looking at you.

Friday, June 17, 2016

Libertarian support for The Joker, Cthulhu, and Gollum

Across the spectrum of Libertarian writing, there are a lot of ideas put forth on who to support this cycle. We'd think the answer is easy - support the Libertarian Party candidate. The LP would have to nominate a libertarian before I could consider this option.

As far as Johnson goes, I'm not convinced he's a good standard bearer. He's certainly better than his predecessor, Bob Barr, by libertarian measure, but so are a lot of people. Being better than a disaster doesn't make something good. When I hear him speak, he doesn't sound like a libertarian. He sounds more like a jaded Republican with an interest in marijuana, aiming to cater to the SJW crowd now that Sanders is out of the game.
Ron Paul was leaps and bounds better, while campaigning as a Republican, catering to a Republican crowd at that. His message only grew. 2012 was a better year for "Paul Awareness" than 2008, at least by anything I could see. Had there been a Paulian candidate in the Republican primaries this cycle, I can see the fight for the nomination going all the way until the end.
Instead, we have a wasted opportunity. If not for Paul, I'd say Johnson would be deprived of his current opportunity. I'd encourage Johnson to take a lesson from the great teacher - dilution doesn't make something better. If it didn't work for Rand it definitely won't work for Johnson.

Let's say Johnson does succeed, and attracts enough attention to put the big tent of libertarians in the spotlight. What does this do to the expectation of Libertarianism? Does it necessarily help libertarianism, or include elements that aren't libertarian, giving us something different entirely? It's not hard to imagine the Libertarian Party becoming the "Jaded Republican with a Liberal Twist" party after a few more cycles, if it isn't already. Maybe next cycle they'll nominate John McCain? He fits the Fiscal Conservative/Socially Liberal descriptor perfectly.

We can't expect Johnson to quote Mises, Rothbard, Rockwell, or Block - it doesn't sound like he's familiar with anything outside of Libertarianism besides the easy stances we're known for. When Johnson stumbles on libertarian stances, he doesn't just stumble. He tumbles into the briar patch. Some might say I sound nit-picky, but consider just two stances where Johnson suspends conviction on two core libertarian principles that likely define much of what Libertarianism is.

  •  Freedom of Association: Johnson has stated that a baker should be required to sell a cake for purposes said baker finds distasteful. To what ends would a libertarian dismiss the basic right of non-participation? If there's a requirement, there's likely a penalty for non-compliance. This is an initiation of aggression both in forcing participation, and penalizing non-participation. There's no justifiable wiggle room for a libertarian argument on this answer. This stance resembles the worst result of Cultural Marxism. 
  •  War: If you can't say "Under no circumstances, ever" to atomic devastation, what can you say no to?  I'm surprised this wasn't the deathblow to his campaign, and it says much about the state of the Libertarian Party that this was passable. I've never heard of a libertarian of any variety that couldn't say no to atomic or nuclear warfare. This stance resembles the worst result of the Warfare State.

But, the Libertarian Party insists, "He's our guy!".

This takes me to Trump. He's definitely no libertarian, contrasting to Johnson's "almost Libertarian on maybe something". But, Trump's also not trying to tell me he's a libertarian either. He isn't pandering for libertarian applause, like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz did. Trump also doesn't seem interested in making terrible things worse, until we talk about additional interventions on the free market. Any of the nasty things he talks about doing in any arena are things I can picture Clinton doing, and maybe Johnson. Should Hillary get her hands on these arenas I imagine she could only do worse.

Trump also appears to be honest to a fault. Honesty doesn't make a person good though. We don't applaud the mugger for his honesty when he holds someone at gunpoint and demands their wallet. I at least know what Trump is thinking. His thoughts change quick though. Even now he's reconsidering his stances on elements in the Gun Control debate - admittedly his stance is only likely to move further from liberty. But take this to the broader conversation - Who knows what else he could reconsider, whether for better or worse? Maybe he chooses another inexperienced (I consider this a good thing) politician for his VP, or someone with minimal experience, ideally someone very sobering. Imagine Peter Schiff as president of the senate for a minute. Unlikely, sure. I wouldn't call it impossible, and this might even be worth suggesting to the proper ear.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but if I had to choose to lend support to the Libertarian That Wasn't, or the Statist that could change his mind on any number of things - and at least seems very uninterested in nuclear fisty cuffs with Putin, I'd probably lean towards the latter - even if the rest of his statist policies pan out to horrific fruition. This gets twice as scary when we see who Trump chooses to associate with, including Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie. Unfortunately, Johnson's lack of libertarian principle put that bad of a taste in my mouth.

Trump may even be a fraud entirely, I couldn't say. It's very possible, even Bush Jr. came out against nation building during his 2000 campaign. We got the complete opposite. This would all be rendered moot, if the LP candidate was in fact a Libertarian. There's something to be said of the Libertarian candidate that struggles to convince another Libertarian. I was hesitantly leaning towards Johnson, until his major errors - and Weld got onto the ticket. Weld alone could drive me away from supporting Johnson.


All of this goes to say, there isn't a libertarian alternative this cycle. I can't help but think the opportunity was wasted. Everything Ron Paul and the Rothbardian wing of Libertarianism warned about is actively happening, and it's only just begun. How many curious and eager minds are out there wondering if there's a better way? How many of them would have become unapologetic libertarians, as we've come to know them, had someone like Ron Paul got nominated?

We won't know. Instead, their frustration with the establishment found a home in Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Sanders lost, and I can't imagine what his supporters will do - but their minds are made up, they believe in Socialism and we'll be dealing with their belief for a long time. Regardless, this fall we'll be hearing from The Joker, Cthulhu, and possibly Gollum (I'll let you decide which is which). Though a subject for another writing entirely, some might say shame on me and other disappointed libertarians for not participating and putting forth an alternative candidate, and they might be right for the wrong reasons.

The ideal candidate wouldn't even need to win - just change minds, change conversations, and show a better way. Ron Paul did this.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Does anyone else smell that?

The entire thing stinks to high heaven. I speak of course, of the Orlando shooting.
I don't like promoting conspiracy theories as a whole. I like focusing on things that I can prove true or false - so I like looking at the facts behind them and choose to make the discussion about these. It accomplishes the same thing while keeping "Official Narrative Defenders" off of the defensive.
Like San Bernardino and several other shooting scenarios, multiple gunmen were reported by witnesses. This fell down the memory hole after about eight hours.
What I find most interesting is the interview Megyn Kelly did with the individual that held the door closed.  His name is Luis Burbano.
He describes a bullet "sticking" out of a victim's leg. This bullet is allegedly pretty long.  Luis begins his description of the effects of the .223 bullets in question at the 3:08 mark in the video, this continues until just under four minutes.
I'm no Wizard, but I'm not ignorant either. I'm familiar with firearms, their use, and what makes them work.

1. I have never heard of a bullet "sticking out" of a victim's leg. These things are designed to penetrate - flat head, hollow point, or "plinking" round, how deep depends on the material it's getting shot into, the caliber, the head of the round itself, and less interesting factors such as trajectory, distance, and velocity. Unless this round hit a mystery steel plate in someone's leg, I'm not convinced that the observer is accurately describing what he saw. This shooting took place in a very confined space.
2. Burbano describes this bullet. It's really long, he shows us by utilizing negative space between his thumb and index finger. It's a few inches . A .223 bullet is not that long. A .223 round might be that long, if described from memory by someone with little to no firearm experience. What I find really interesting is that when inexperienced observers describe firearms and firearm accessories, they do so from the vantage point of someone that's never seen one in person, let alone operated one. They assume the entire round is what comes out of the gun, brass casing and all. Perhaps he filled the gaps in on his own, on the spot. If a round that large was "sticking out" of someone's leg, my first question would be:

Are we describing an AR-15, or a 20mm cannon? An anti-material rifle? Anything larger than a .223?  Okay, maybe someone did some gunsmithing on the weapon, and re-bored and re-chambered the weapon for a different caliber entirely. I doubt it, as I can't picture the AR-15 standing up to the blowback of such a high caliber round - certainly not long enough to kill 50 people and maim countless others - after two magazine reloads and a phone call. This would also require some serious work to turn the AR-15 into something it's not, and we wouldn't be talking about an AR-15 in the mechanical or the aesthetic sense. We'd instead be talking about DIY Firearm Manufacturing.
Objects in motion can ricochet based on velocity and trajectory, but when they penetrate they penetrate, until they lose momentum from resistance or a secondary movement via ricochet. Maybe this round hit bone? Allegedly this same round split someone's arm down the middle, under similar penetration conditions (in the same club, a confined space) as the individual that has a very long .223 bullet sticking out of his leg.

This aside, the bullet that comes out of an AR-15 isn't multiple inches long. The round that goes in is comparable to that, if described by someone that's never seen them in person regularly. I reiterate, it's common for an inexperienced firearm commentator to assume the entire round is what comes out of the gun. What comes out is far less impressive in size.
It begs to question: What did this guy actually see?

Somethin' ain't right. Either there were more actors on this stage with more powerful equipment than what's being said, or this Burbano's entire testimony is in dispute.

Speaking of actors, it's a shame when a stellar actor falls victim to piss poor script writing. It's getting harder and harder to wave off accusations of crisis actors in real tragedies.

It's pretty stinky in here.


There are now reports that the rifle used was not an AR-15. It was allegedly a Sig.  Despite this, many of my points still stand.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Response to a Non-Response

 "When you don't like what they're saying, change the conversation."
-Don Draper, Mad Men

I'd like to thank Jacob Hornberger for his reply to my piece. I may sympathize with Hornberger's ideal, but he hasn't convinced me this practice is fruitful in a Statist world.
Maybe I wasn’t very clear, despite my clarity. I’m not in favor of government borders, open borders, mixed borders, closed borders or sealed borders. I see problems with all of them in a world of Statism. Hornberger argues with me as if I've firmly planted my feet in the "Closed Borders" camp.
Thus, Flag is right when he writes, “Removing the State from social and economic activity is the only libertarian position.” But that’s precisely what the removal of immigration controls does — it removes the state from social and economic activity involving commerce across international borders.
What are borders and immigration policy if not a creation of the State, for the State? Freedom didn't draw these lines for the states behalf. Why expect the State to work on Freedom's behalf? Will any border policy be decided on anything that couldn't achieve desired and planned results? Every other mechanism of the State operates with State interests, but there's an expectation that a Federal border will operate as a separate entity from the Federal Government.

But Flag is wrong when he states that our aim as libertarians should be “decentralization.” Perish that thought!
Decentralization gives us freedom of choice. This freedom doesn't have to be perfect liberty in all places; This isn't possible, but we'd have an avenue to aim for it. He does say to perish that thought. To what ends? Further centralization? Maintaining current centralization? A decentralized world could yield Hornberger the opportunity to put his ideas on migration and borders into practice. But, disregard. Let's perish those thoughts.
Why isn’t Flag condemning all of them, even as he condemns the state in general? Why refuse to condemn immigration tyranny or any other tyranny? If I wrote an article condemning drug laws, would Flag praise the “otherwise sound libertarian arguments” in the piece but then “disagree with [my] overall message” calling for drug legalization?
Hornberger doesn't address what I say. He shifts course to talk about what I didn't say. Imagine: "Hornberger didn't talk about immigrants from the Middle East raping and attacking Germans. Why refuse to condemn rape tyranny over any other tyranny?"

I don’t understand why he wouldn’t come down with a full-throated, unconditional support of open borders. There are a number of anti-freedom things that the government is doing that both anarchists and limited government advocates do not hesitate to condemn — the drug war, Social Security, foreign interventionism — indeed, the entire welfare-warfare state gamut of socialist, interventionist, and imperialist programs.

What if I did talk about even some of these things without shifting the conversation? After all, immigration doesn't exist in a vacuum. How does it effect all, or any of these? How high would taxes have to go to fund entitlements for all of these when hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands more partake? Why not a million more recipients? Hornberger is asserting a position that favors completely open migration into a welfare state, after all. I got curious, and wondered if Hornberger has addressed this problem. Fortunately, he has - sort of. He cites the book “Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them” in a piece documenting his experience at The Pomona College debate on Immigration. Hornberger insists the author of this book dispels the myths about the costs of immigration. Hornberger cites the book, but says nothing of it's contents. Another time, I might read it and offer a critique.

Who is Phillipe Legrain, author of this piece that should alleviate all concerns? I’ve never heard this name invoked in libertarian discussion.  He's a visiting fellow of the London School of Economics, which boasts the stellar libertarian credentials of being founded by the Fabian Socialists. Well, at least this school gave us Hayek (I know, but I'll take what I can get.). Further reading on Phillipe Legrain reveals that he’s been an economic advisor in EU circles, the WTO, and in favor of British participation in the EU.

Hornberger is able to put a person with this background on a pedestal in defense of a "libertarian" position, with a straight face.  Were there no libertarians available to champion this cause?

Not surprisingly, Flag chose to ignore the hypothetical I posed many years ago, and which I restated in my article, which exposes the fatal flaw in the pro-immigration control paradigm.
Much less surprisingly, at this point I’d have to wonder if Hornberger read the entirety of my writing or skimmed and cherry picked a few points that he could argue with easy and well-practiced answers. I'd encourage him to give the beginning and the end of my writing at least a glance.

Is his hypothetical scenario of dinner invitations the practice behind immigration and resettlement of any variety? Everyone just wanted to go to Uncle Ted’s for ribs, potato salad, and a beer?

Flag also takes me to task for not addressing the refugee crisis in Europe. Maybe my failure to do so was because the focus of the article was on only one particular aspect of the immigration controversy — i.e., that there is only one position in libertarianism on immigration rather than two contradictory positions.

At least now, Hornberger admits his very important, years old, tried and true hypothetical focuses on one aspect of what is a very large subject. Earlier, he had insinuated that I ignored this hypothetical to my own chagrin, and it was impossible to not openly embrace all immigration everywhere based on it's irrefutable libertarian applications. But now that this theory is put to the test in the real world, we can move on.

Having said that, however, as I have written before, yes, people in the Middle East have the absolute right to flee the chaos, death, and destruction that the U.S. death machine has wreaked in the Middle East. They have a right to seek to preserve their lives and to pursue happiness by moving to other places. The fact that people are dying on the high seas trying to escape the horror is a direct consequence of both foreign interventionism and immigration controls.
...  Well, go on. The story isn't over, what happened next? What's happening right now? The story stops when his position gets a crash course. Make it an  R-Rated flick, and press on. Too late, the credits are rolling and there's no sequel on the horizon. The Director's Cut might be a little more forthcoming. There's no sincere critique to make without addressing the balance of the situation described.

Hornberger gets at least one thing right in his piece, this is a foreign policy problem conducted and operated by the State, nothing to do with freedom.  I won't be filling any holes in his version of the story. Ideally, Hornberger will do that on his own when he's done dancing around them.


I was curious if there was some unseen gem somewhere in the camp that was least likely to agree with me, thus my challenge to Hornberger.

Hornberger's efforts had little to do with defending his position, and more to do with addressing little of what I said while trying his darnedest to make it look like he was. He assigned me stances to make the comfort of his position easy.

I can only conclude that there's no good libertarian answer to the issue of borders and immigration in a world of Statism whatsoever. A move to preserve or ignite liberty in either direction creates more obstacles or violations to liberty elsewhere. This is no fault or burden of freedom, it is a fault and burden of Statism and centralization.

I appreciate Jacob Hornberger participating in the dialogue with what is essentially an anonymous person. It's not hard to imagine all of us experiencing Hornberger's theory first hand soon enough. Let's hope not, but if so maybe we can regroup when that day comes and talk about the results.

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Hornberger: Right, but still Wrong

Some time ago, shortly after Bionic Mosquito refuted one of the first articles to try and dismantle his stance on borders, I could only conclude that the problems described in this debate are problems that libertarian theory doesn't address, because they'd likely not be a problem in a libertarian world.

I read Hornberger's article in its entirety - I can't see anything that necessarily flies in the face of Libertarianism. But again, he makes the assumption that being against open borders in a world where the state controls the border means that you favor not just closed, but sealed borders in this same world. I'm going to conveniently ignore, for Hornberger's sake, he did not mention Germany or Europe at all in his defense. I'll also conveniently ignore that he assumes anyone concerned with a flood gate border, being directed by the Federal Government, is in the same camp of “Liberventionists”. I’ll also ignore that nobody is talking about an issue of anyone being invited over for dinner on private property with private resources, surrendered voluntarily in an act of love for your fellow man.

I guess I didn’t ignore it after all.

There's common ground in here somewhere that advances the conversation - to the point that it dead ends, which I can't say that it hasn't already. We seem to continue in circular maneuvers, with the same arguments. Some are sound, some assume stances that never were. Some make exceptions for more State action and pass this as core planks of Libertarianism.
What is seldom addressed, is the common factor in all arguments – State action.

If the libertarian position is that a free market (or even, the lack of a state) operates best, why do elements of the conversation lend an endorsement to one State border policy or the other? Many of us seem to have reached this conclusion already over the past several months.

In any other social or economic arena, when have we applauded State Action A or B? Or C?

Do we endorse Romneycare over Obamacare? Or Hillarycare? Is MediCare the best libertarian alternative to any of these? What about the Canadian model? Should we consider the Sanders plan?

I've yet to hear a compelling argument in favor of any of these from the libertarian view. The proper libertarian position, most commonly advocated and rightfully so, is that Government is grossly incompetent at best, or operates with the interests of the State in mind - at its worst. Which of these two, or somewhere in between these two polarities, is what is happening in Europe right now? I couldn't say with absolute confidence, and neither could Hornberger (How could he? He seems to be looking in the opposite direction.).

This is why, despite the otherwise sound libertarian arguments in Hornberger's piece, I disagree with his overall message, summarized in the title of his article. Open borders aren’t the proper libertarian position at all. Closed borders isn't a proper position either. Removing the State from social and economic activity is the only libertarian position. Our aim should be, and likely is, decentralization.

We cannot give Libertarian traits to the United States Federal Government. At very few points in its history has the United States held a libertarian position. It’s existence and modus operandi are not libertarian. I’m willing to accept the belief that, though a country based on enterprise for quite some time, has never been libertarian in practice.

An encompassing state will have an encompassing policy. As the borders we know today are a creation of the state, there will never be a libertarian solution to state borders - or county borders, or city borders. If things continue down the path we're on today, it's not hard to imagine the debate evolving to a discourse about how government will split our property to make room for additional serfs to fund the evil it perpetrates.

A libertarian would object to this outright, as I’d hope libertarians still believe the State operates in its own interests with illicit funding.

If we could imagine a libertarian application to state borders in our reality, we could just as well assume a justification for implementing libertarian stances on other state interventions. I hear no (serious) libertarian justifications on applying Libertarian ideas to execution of the war in the middle east, domestic surveillance, gun control, or how best to select who gets what corporate subsidy. There is no libertarian stance to any of these - outside of firmly stating there is no justification for the state to make these decisions with resources and labor that have been pillaged from all of us.

I'm no fool – market based decisions on the matter will not be likely as long as the State stands. As long as it stands, it will manage its border policy for its own ends. If the influx of migrants ends up working against a State agenda, the borders will be closed. And of course, in the reverse - as it is in many westernized countries today.

However, like the rest of our woes - only when we remove the state from the equation can we find the libertarian solution. The best we can hope for, today, in the reality we are actively present in, is that there are fewer excuses with which to dismantle our liberty. What libertarian could object to such an ideal?

I object to the State sealing borders in practice – I object to the state itself as it is today. A libertarian would be hard pressed to ignore foreseeable (or even unforeseeable) evils of the state – by the State directing refugees into our fold by decree, complete with quotas on a specific demographic.  Then further, subsidizing their relocation and assimilation.

This all would assume the subjects of objection were even interested in productive participation, at that.

I see no libertarian merit to supporting such an activity. My argument would be much the same if they sought to inhibit market participants from crossing borders to engage in commerce, or even to visit a friend for dinner. It’s outrageous to assume the State could make sincere and educated endorsements or denials on individuals in either scenario.

I challenge the camp that's been dubbed "Open Borders Libertarians" to refute this on libertarian grounds. There is no libertarian application to a mechanism of the state.

I would especially welcome a reply from Jacob Hornberger.

*Editted due to some pretty gross formatting errors.

Addendum 5/23:

I'd like to thank Jacob Hornberger for taking the time to reply to my rebuttal. I'll be posting a response sometime this week.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Where does it End, Part II

Libertarianism has much room for development. This is apparent when two, twelve, or any number of believers don't agree with a proper application of the non-aggression principle, whether in this reality or the Utopian ideal. Worse yet is when this argument has both sides arguing from one perspective or the other, without clarity on what "world" is the setting for their championed stances.

At least, for this subject, the where, when, and/or "what reality" isn't an issue.

If a property owner has absolute right to said property, are they granted carte blanche to operate as they see fit with the property, and to defend their stake from involuntarily giving up said property? The short Libertarian answer is "yes", the asterisk to the answer is "provided they do not initiate uninvited aggression on another." Then what of defense against trespassers, burglars, or any possible villainy that might come to violate an individuals property rights? I'm hard pressed to demand that someone being aggressed against isn't allowed to respond, or has an obligation to discern motive and goal of the aggressor - particularly in circumstances where it's clear that the individual doesn't want trespass, such as breaking through a locked door or window. Insisting on such an obligation could cost a person everything.

What happens when circumstances are clear, and it's been discerned that life and physical well being isn't in danger? Does the owner have the right to operate as Judge, Jury and Executioner? Would he judge where property begins and ends? Would he impose the maximum value upon lost property, and perhaps the maximum penalty? Does this property owner define the minimum and maximum penalty?

Most importantly, is there a Libertarian justification for the property owner to act on these gauges of justice? Some believe so. I disagree. Others do as well, for reasons that are theirs.

In an earlier writing, I posed such questions - tackling the belief that the Property Owner has this right in the most extreme:

If I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, and I can smell my neighbor's cigarette smoke wafting onto my property, am I within my rights to kill said neighbor for robbing me of air on my property that would otherwise be clean? Is my neighbor's wife within her rights to kill me for the loss of household revenue and the destruction of the family unit?

What if my neighbor's newborn won't stop crying at a time that's most disruptive, taking away my right to a peaceful property? Do I have the right to exact a righteous justice of my choosing, raising high my knife as I roar triumphantly for Anarcho Capitalism? Could I use a tiny nuclear device instead?

If a farmer has the right to shoot a juvenile apple thief, why not operate in the extreme for these scenarios? If this is the case, then where does the right to retaliate end? If there's a universal answer regardless of the infinite scenarios that carry a heavy weight, I don't have it. Even if I did, I wouldn't be within my Libertarian rights to impose it on the entire human population. Unless I'm a Libertarian central planner, and I enforce my rights by initiating force. But I thought Libertarians weren't necessarily champions of that.

But what happens when we answer in the affirmative to all of the above? I'd say there's no work left for such Libertarians to do, except buy the Champagne and choose where to host the party. Our goal is achieved, as there is at least one of such property owners, operating on funds they call theirs, all to inflict punishments for transgressions in extremes of their subjective choosing, steadfast in belief that their property lines end where their gaze does, and fully within their rights to enforce outrageous penalties on "aggressors".

We could go to Washington D.C, this property owner's base of operations, to host this celebration of Libertarian victory, then applaud and cheer for exercised property rights as we are incarcerated, or executed on sight by merit of their self-granted rights, for a transgression that the property owner believes happened and is owed infinite restitution.

I'd insist that we instead get back to the drawing board.