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.

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.

It could have been me, it could have been you

The greater liberty movement suffered a loss on October 16th. Irwin Schiff, a prominent income tax protester and father of Peter and Andrew Schiff passed away. He did not die comfortably, having succumbed to cancer whilst chained to a bed in a Texas prison. Despite the pleas of a caring family, Irwin was not released to enjoy his final moments with his family.

Certainly Irwin must have been a danger to you and me if he had to be chained to a bed during his last days. What could have been his crimes? Answering a question about one of his books on the Income Tax, in public. After a judge ordered him not to discuss his book further.

Let that sink in. Irwin harmed nobody. He committed no murder, no rape, and inflicted no loss upon any individual.

However, he was sentenced to one-hundred and fifty one months in prison.

It's not uncommon for inmates to be released early, regardless of crime. Provided they behave. This includes murderers and rapists - those who have clearly initiated aggression against another individual and caused real damage.

But a tax protester? Obviously, this is the cardinal sin of the State religion. Ba'al demands his tithes and slaughtered lambs, after all. To shackle an ill and dying eighty-seven year old man to a bed would otherwise be called elderly abuse. But for heresy against the State, this may be invoked as a righteous retribution against an unruly sinner.

 It begs to ask, what champion of liberty is immune to the state? In an age of increasing hostility toward individual liberty, it's getting a little less hard every day to foresee a near future where disenters of State action could be rounded up as a "National security risk".  Irwin was sentenced in 2006. We're now in 2015, an age where State Aggression is no longer something talked about in the corners of Conspiracy Theorists. It's out in the open, no longer disguised, openly admitted to by it's executors without shame, regret, or apology. Just the opposite, in fact.

When will the communication of any idea hostile to the State apparatus be punishable? A day where the likes of Ron Paul or Lew Rockwell being in the same position as Irwin Schiff doesn't seem as unreal now as it would have on October 15th.

Irwin Schiff's strength and conviction are praise worthy, willing to take his fight against theft to his grave. Though ill and elderly, his strength clearly frightened a weak, fragile Leviathan.

I'd say in many ways, Irwin won this fight. It takes a monster to make a martyr.

The Freedom to Coerce

To start, I don't have it out for the LGBT community. I don't mind what they choose to do with each other using their own resources, more so when they aren't compelling me to partake. This doesn't necessarily compel me to celebrate the recent SCOTUS decision. This post isn't going to bemoan the SCOTUS decision, or lament the cultural decay of the West. However, it will take a long hard look at what has happened to freedom of association.

If you've been living in a cave for a little bit, you likely haven't heard of the case involving Aaron and Melissa Klein, a married couple from Oregon who own a bakery called Sweet Cakes. They've recently declined the opportunity to serve Laurel Bowman-Cryer and Rachel Cryer, a lesbian couple slated to get married. Why deny the opportunity to sell your product? It turns out that the Klein's are devout Christians, and it so happens that Christians, as many religious groups are inclined, find homosexuality offensive in the eyes of the Lord.

It seems the engaged couple may have missed the memo over the past few thousand years. Traditional religious participants across a wide variety of faiths still, and will continue to, find homosexuality offensive. This includes several denominations of Christianity (except the Unitarians), Islam, Judaism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints, and likely more.

So outraged by this shocking and unheard of revelation, Laurel saw fit to file a complaint with the Department of Justice. She was further outraged to learn that, as a direct result of her action with a public entity, sensitive private information of hers could be learned very easily. It is important to note the liberal left's outrage at this, completely disregarding the fact that this same tactic was used to map private, registered, and law abiding gun owners in the state of New York following the Sandy Hook massacre. While the left cheered then, they certainly aren't cheering now.

The situation begs inquiring minds to ask, “When am I allowed to make a decision to not partake? Am I still within my rights to associate with who I do or don't want to?”

While I anticipate that most of the readers here have no sympathies or associations with the left, I submit the following scenarios to the left. I'm genuinely interested in response from those who sit left of center on social issues, so please send this to your friends that are likely default fans of the Cryer couple.

A Jewish baker is approached by a Neo Nazi group. Said Neo Nazi group wants to celebrate the Holocaust, and commission the Jewish baker to craft a cake in the shape of a Swastika. Is the baker within his rights to refuse service?

An african american seamstress is approached by a Klansman that has torn his signature robes and hoods, rendering the garments unwearable. Said Klansman commision the seamstress to repair the garments. Is the seamstress within her rights to refuse service?

A homosexual artist is commissioned to paint a mural by malignant individuals who want to celebrate the anniversary of the death of Harvey Milk. Is the artist within his rights to refuse service?

I imagine this still isn't enough for the social justice crowd, so I'll keep going.

What if an Armenian catering company was asked to cater a celebration of the Armenian Genocide? Or a Lakota sculptor was asked to make a statue of James W. Forsyth, colonel and leader of the Wounded Knee Massacre?

I can hear the objections already. “It's not the same, you can't possibly compare.” These scenarios may not be comparable in name, but they are certainly comparable in spirit. The issue at hand isn't individual instances, but the ability to coerce an individual to partake in an activity that said individual finds offensive. Should said individual refuse, they run risk of enduring the same fate as the Klein family.

Social Justice advocates who are cheering for Laurel, Rachel, and the powers that be in Oregon should be just as concerned as the spiritually devout. An unfortunate and disastrous precedent has been set where having a set of values leaves you utterly vulnerable and at the mercy of courts, lawyers, and bureaucrats.

A refusal of service due to belief isn't unheard of, but also encouraged, by the likes of those who would defend the Cryers. In the case of Governor Susanna Martinez, she has been refused service by Antonio Darden, her former hairdresser and a homosexual. The reason? Her stance on gay marriage.

Consider, for a moment, if Governor Susanna Martinez did to Antonio Darden as the Cryer's are doing to the Klein's. Consider, a quote from Antonio Darden provided by the Huffington Post, regarding his refusal to provide a product and service he would otherwise provide, particularly regarding the formula for coloring the Governor's hair:

"A lot of people think that the formula, when it’s made from a hair colorist, that it’s your right to have," he explained. “It isn’t. You came here for me to formulate and do your hair color. Normally I sell the formula to people if they want to go to a different salon that is cheaper. I normally give the formula to clients if they’re moving out of state because I care about my clients. But I would not give that formula to her."

Per Darden, many businesses are following suit and refusing business to Governor Martinez. I can't imagine those advocating for the Cryer's would advocate for Governor Martinez, even considering the spirit of the situation is identical. Both Darden and the Klein's are within their rights ethically. They've made a choice to not spend their resources to provide service. They've since not taken anything tangible from the party requesting service. The relationship has ended, and everyone should move on to other opportunities.

To otherwise be compelled to serve an activity or individual one finds offensive is something that, looking through the broader scope, effects all of us, and may ultimately discourage otherwise capable individuals from participating in the market as owners and entrepreneurs, and one can only wonder what innovative goods and services society will not see as a result.

Permission to reprint or reproduce is granted and encouraged, provided a link is included back to this post and/or blog, and the author is credited as Black Flag.