Tag Archives: libertarianism

Libertarians Have the Right Solution for the Coronavirus Crisis

For many decades the two major political parties, Republicrat and Demopublican, have been stealing from the people (“taxes,” taken without any mutual contract), imposing property-violation and person-violation intrusions by making up “laws” and enforcing them at gunpoint. It’s not the “America” envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

And it’s just gotten much worse, with the coronavirus panic incited by corrupt government officials and promoted by their brain-dead media spokesmen and governors ordering businesses shut down, and the economic collapse which mainly began in February with Wall Street panic selling.

So the solution for the statists in power is to print more Monopoly money and helicopter money and give people an extra thousand or two to prevent or delay the inevitable protests in Washington and state capitols.

So all this is yet another reason why I don’t vote for Republicrats or Demopublicans, and instead have been voting for Libertarian Party candidates since the 1980s. Except for the terrible Gary Johnson and the neocon Bob Barr, two invaders of the Libertarian Party in recent presidential elections.

But a current Libertarian candidate for President, Jacob Hornberger, is someone that people who value liberty and prosperity can and should vote for. He is certainly much closer to past Libertarian presidential candidates, including Ron Paul in 1988 and Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000. I have mentioned Jacob Hornberger here before. He is the founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF). Here is Jacob’s campaign website.

For instance, in a recent blog post Jacob points out that there is only one way out of the coronavirus crisis: separating healthcare and State. Like separation of church and State.  “In other words, no governmental involvement in healthcare at all. No regulations, no controls, and no central planning. No FDA. No Center for Disease Control. No Medicare. No Medicaid. No medical licensure.” (And no National Institutes for Health, no disease commissar Dr. Fauci!)

Jacob writes:

Americans don’t like to admit that they live under a socialist healthcare system. They like to think of themselves as capitalists, free-enterprisers, and ardent supporters of the Chamber of Commerce. But the fact is that while America doesn’t yet have a healthcare system that is fully owned and operated by the federal government, the core features of America’s healthcare system are based on socialist principles.

The U.S. healthcare system is also based on a core feature of socialism: central planning, control, regulation, and management. That’s what the FDA and the Center for Disease Control are all about.

Medicare and Medicaid are based on the federal government’s forcibly taking money (through the IRS) from those to whom it belongs and use it to provide healthcare to seniors and the poor. That is the essence of the socialist principle of coercive redistribution of wealth.

Prior to America’s socialist healthcare system, our nation had the finest healthcare system in the world. Prices were so low, stable, and predictable that no one needed major medical insurance. Doctors and hospitals provided free medical care to the poor, on a purely voluntary basis. Doctors loved what they did in life. Medical innovations, inventions, treatments, and cures were soaring.

That’s what a free society is all about. That’s also what a charitable society is all about.

And then came central planning, regulation, and control, along with Medicare and Medicaid, two socialist programs that launched America’s decades-long, ongoing, never-ending healthcare crisis. Owing to the enormous government-imposed demand on the healthcare system, healthcare costs began soaring. People began buying insurance for protection. Doctors began forming contorted associations to adapt to the crisis.

And no one can rationally doubt that America’s socialist healthcare system is a major cause of the high death toll from the coronavirus. Every day, one can read any number of articles in the mainstream press about the incompetence of the central planners — about the shortages of masks, supplies, ventilators, and other essential medical supplies — about the ludicrous restrictions imposed on healthcare providers from providing treatment — about the shortages of healthcare providers.

All that dysfunctionality is classic socialism. The economist Ludwig von Mises called a system of central planning “planned chaos.” Can you think of a better term for what is going on today?

In contrast, things wouldn’t be nearly as terrible with the coronavirus crisis today if the system in place right now were a freedom-based, free-market system in healthcare.

A free-market system produces the best of everything. In contrast to a socialist system based on central planning, which is limited to the “expertise” of government planners and planning agencies, the free market takes advantage of the knowledge and expertise of countless individuals, including entrepreneurs, each of whom is coordinating his efforts with others that always reaches fantastic results that no central planner, in all his wisdom, could ever conceive. In a free market, people are free to make rapid adjustments without governmental permission or interference. Essential supplies and equipment and innovations flood the market.

If we had had the free-market healthcare system that FFF has been advancing for 30 years, today we would be looking to the healthcare industry, not politicians, bureaucrats, and mini-dictators for guidance and direction. Test kits would be cheap and plentiful, even delivered overnight to people’s homes. Those testing positive would be urged to self-isolate while everyone else would be going to work, keeping the economy going. Testing kits, ventilators, masks, and other essential supplies would be in abundant supply. Entrepreneurs would be rushing into the market with new and innovative tests, treatments, and even cures. The death toll would have been minuscule compared to what we have today, especially among seniors.

Now, there are many people who think that such a change back to that freedom way of life would be too radical a change. But believe it or not, things really were better prior to the imposition of Medicare and Medicaid. He is right about medical care being much less expensive prior to the 1970s, many more doctors having more ability financially to provide for the poor for free, which many did, including Dr. Ron Paul in his ob-gyn practice.

The problem is government central planning. That is indeed the problem in our society in every single area of life in which government has seized control away from the people.

And Jacob also has addressed Donald Trump’s dictatorial response to the coronavirus crisis, including Trump’s ordering companies to make ventilators or other products they ordinarily don’t make. And this outright fascism has been exercised by governors as well, quite frankly, in their ordering private businesses to close down.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano commented, these are violations of people’s rights as protected by the U.S. Constitution. Napolitano reiterated those comments in his excoriation of governors and mayors’ police-state crackdowns. (All those “public servants,” by the way, swore an oath to obey, support and defend that Constitution, whether they agree with it or not!)

In this video, Jacob Hornberger and his FFF colleague Richard Ebeling discuss the police-state crackdowns and constitutional rights-violations imposed by dictator governors and mayors as well as Trump, and why all that is a bad thing.

So, if you believe in freedom and want to live in a free, prosperous and healthy society then you might want to consider ditching the two major political parties and supporting the Libertarian Party this time around.

Can We Return to the American Founders’ Vision of Freedom?

Jacob Hornberger, a Libertarian Party candidate for president, has written a blog post at his organization the Future of Freedom Foundation, on the American founders’ distrust of centralized government officials. And that is why they insisted on including a Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution also includes specific enumerated powers of the federal government, so if a function or office was not enumerated, then the feds may not do it, according to Hornberger.

He expands on why the people forming a new government insisted on a Bill of Rights in the Constitution:

Why did Americans see the need to expressly prohibit the federal government from destroying such rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to own and bear arms? Because they firmly believed that that is precisely what federal officials would do if they were not expressly prohibited from doing it!

Why did Americans demand the enactment of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments? Because they firmly believed that without those express restrictions on power, federal officials would use their power to do such things as kill or jail people or seize their money and property without due process of law, use kangaroo Star Chamber-like courts to convict them, barge into people’s homes or businesses without warrants to search for incriminating evidence, jail people indefinitely without trial, and subject people to cruel and unusual punishments like torture.

Hmmm, sound familiar? Yep. That’s today’s America. Bush-Obama-Trump’s America, that is. And there are millions and millions of Americans who agree with policies that do away with those protections in the Bill of Rights.

And what about a crisis or emergency? Hornberger writes:

The fact is that there is no emergency or crisis exception in either the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights. That is, there is no provision that says, “In the event of an emergency or crisis, the federal government will be permitted to exercise powers that are not enumerated and to ignore restrictions on its power.”

There is a good reason why the Framers and our ancestors chose not to include an emergency or crisis exception that would enable federal officials to exercise omnipotent, totalitarian-like powers over the people. The reason is that they understood that throughout history, emergencies and crises have furnished the excuse for federal officials to wield and exercise tyrannical powers.

In fact, that’s one of the reasons that rulers oftentimes do their best to generate emergencies or crises. They know that it is during emergencies and crises that people become so afraid that they are willing, even eager, to surrender their liberties and their rights, “temporarily” of course, in exchange for being kept “safe.” Of course, “temporarily” almost always means “permanently” because rulers are loath to give up powers once wielded and exercised.

And in his very next blog post, Hornberger points out how different America was during the first century or so of its freedom and independence. Back then, there was no “military-industrial complex, empire of domestic and foreign military bases, CIA, NSA, or FBI,” there were no drug laws, no immigration controls, and there were very little to no economic controls. The founders wouldn’t have approved of centralized economic planning from the feds, because the federal government has no moral authority to get involved in the people’s economic and financial lives, and it especially had no constitutional or moral authority to demand any of the fruits of their labor.

As I have mentioned here recently, the Democrats and Republicans are all the same, except for their social programs that each wants to shove down our throats. They all believe in government central planning, central economic planning, and coveting your earnings but letting you have some of your earnings by their acts of legislation. They all believe in tax-funded empire abroad in search of monsters or opportunities to create new monsters to destroy. They do not believe in civil liberties and due process.

More recently the Libertarian Party candidates for president have been largely in agreement with the Demopublicans and Republicrats, such as Gary Johnson and Bob Barr. Those were terrible presidential nominations, and the Libertarian Party really should be ashamed of that political compromise of principle. But in the old days of the Libertarian Party, there were Ron Paul, Harry Browne, and David Bergland. Let’s hope the Libertarian Party nominates Jacob Hornberger for president to present a real choice between the usual statists, authoritarians and communists.

Independence Day in the U.S.

It’s not really “Fourth of July Day,” or “Fireworks Day,” but Independence Day, the celebration of America’s independence. I don’t think we have as much “independence” in America as people may have had many decades ago here, but whatever.

So the Declaration of Independence is an important read, I think.

The Declaration of Independence

Written by Thomas Jefferson, with changes made by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin

July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Lengthy Article on Medical Quackery

I came across this article by Carl Watner of the “Voluntaryist,” on medical “quackery,” or alleged “quackery,” and it reminded me of my own medical ordeal during the 2000s with the bad doctors, their bad advice and prescription drugs and bad side effects and the basic dishonesty and outright corruption of at least one of the doctors (I wrote about that here). Even in the 21st Century, with my being totally reliant on my nutritional medicine for my condition and with no prescription drugs, I am the one who would be referred to as the “quack,” not the bad and corrupt and dishonest doctors. That seems to be the way things are now, sadly.

The Watner article talks about how alternatives to treating diseases such as cancer get suppressed by the government and by establishment medical elites such as the AMA. He looks at the “collusion between governments (at various levels) in the United States and the medical associations that began forming around the mid-1800s, and eventually became de facto monopolies,”  the “great diversity of heterodox medical traditions that once existed, some of which are still with us…their punishments at the hands of Official Medicine” and the “ethical and legal parameters, which might serve to guide health seekers and practitioners in a voluntaryist world.”

FYI, this other page on the “Voluntaryist” website states:

Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily.

People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people’s ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.

Hmmm. I like that and agree with those principles. Everything should be voluntary, and not coerced or forced.

While Watner doesn’t mention vaccines in the article linked at the top here, I see how such a philosophy can apply to the vaccine issue that’s been in the news recently. People should have the freedom of informed consent and the freedom to refuse vaccines or any kind of physically intrusive “treatment” or medication. No one should have anything forced on them, especially when there are many documented cases of vaccine injuries and vaccine-related deaths (and even if there aren’t any documented cases, quite frankly).

Libertarian Murray Sabrin Running for Senate from New Jersey

If you live in New Jersey, and you don’t like the two major party candidates for U.S. Senate, the incumbent Democrat warmonger Bob Menendez or the Republican challenger Big Pharma Bob (the other Bob),you might want to consider voting for Murray Sabrin the Libertarian Party candidate. Dr. Sabrin is a professor of economics and wants to dismantle the military empire overseas and supports due process rights and civil liberties, and at the same time believes in economic liberty and doesn’t support the current structure of taxation because it is involuntary and involves coercion.