It is good for one to be free, and we would cherish liberty even if she traveled alone, but she does not. Because Prosperity and Peace are both the companions of Liberty.War, the spirit of destruction, is the destroyer of Prosperity and Liberty. Should any wonder, then, that Americans are losing both their freedom and their well-being?
read more | digg story
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Thursday, May 08, 2008
"Everyday Anarchy"
Here is a new pocket book from Stefan Molyneux. You can read the PDF or listen to the audiobook version.
A philosophical examination of our ambivalence towards spontaneous order, political compulsion and the liberty of the everyday...
This book is a must read (or listen) for anyone frustrated with the government.
High Quality Audio
Low Quality Audio
PDF
Check out other books, videos and a great podcast here.
A philosophical examination of our ambivalence towards spontaneous order, political compulsion and the liberty of the everyday...
This book is a must read (or listen) for anyone frustrated with the government.
High Quality Audio
Low Quality Audio
Check out other books, videos and a great podcast here.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Ruwart interview on Libertarian Alternative
Dr. Mary Ruwart is seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination for President. Here is a video interview from 2004.
For more information about her campaign visit: www.votemary2008.com.
For more information about her campaign visit: www.votemary2008.com.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Killing and Dying in Iraq for Nothing
by Jacob G. Hornberger
At the five-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. government has hit another milestone — 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead.
And what have those soldiers died for? They died for the same thing that 58,000 soldiers died for in Vietnam — nothing.
Well, okay, not exactly nothing:
(1) They died to oust a dictator from office that U.S. officials didn’t like, only to be replaced by a radical Islamic regime that has aligned itself with Iran, which U.S. officials are still considering starting a war against.
(2) They died because U.S. officials need to save face through some sort of “victory” (whatever that means) despite the fact that the U.S. government has no legal or moral right to be in Iraq.
(3) They died in the destruction of an entire country, one whose government and citizenry had never attacked the United States and which, in fact, did not want a war with the United States.
(4) They died as part of an imperial adventure that has sent the U.S. economy into a tailspin, led by a dollar whose value, not surprisingly, continues to plunge in international markets.
At least we know the exact number of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq. Early on, the Pentagon decided that Iraqis killed in the war simply would not be counted. That’s why there are only estimates of Iraqi dead, estimates that go as high as a million. The idea was that since the goal of helping the Iraqi people was considered a noble one, no one should really care how many of them died in the operation. In the minds of U.S. officials, no price was too high in the number of Iraqi deaths to achieve their goal.
In a fascinating use of language, U.S. military officials are still referring to the Iraqis they kill as “terrorists” rather than as “insurgents.” For example, according to a front-page article in today’s New York Times, “American forces on Sunday reported killing ‘12 terrorists’ who had attacked ground troops east of Baquba.”
But what U.S. officials never explain is why a person who is fighting to rid his country of an illegal foreign occupier (a war of aggression was punished as a war crime at Nuremberg) is a “terrorist.” I thought that a terrorist was a person who attacked civilian targets for political ends. Since U.S. occupation forces in Iraq are military personnel, not civilians, why are those Iraqis who are trying to oust the occupiers considered “terrorists?”
As the occupation of Iraq continues indefinitely, there will of course be more deaths, American and Iraqi. According to yesterday’s Washington Post, at least American widows or widowers receive half-a-million U.S. dollars for the loss of their spouses. While the U.S. government sometimes makes nominal payments to Iraqis, mostly Iraqis survivors are left with nothing but anger, resentment, and grief, which shouldn’t surprise anyone, especially since no one asked their consent to the U.S. invasion and occupation of their country.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
digg story
At the five-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. government has hit another milestone — 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead.
And what have those soldiers died for? They died for the same thing that 58,000 soldiers died for in Vietnam — nothing.
Well, okay, not exactly nothing:
(1) They died to oust a dictator from office that U.S. officials didn’t like, only to be replaced by a radical Islamic regime that has aligned itself with Iran, which U.S. officials are still considering starting a war against.
(2) They died because U.S. officials need to save face through some sort of “victory” (whatever that means) despite the fact that the U.S. government has no legal or moral right to be in Iraq.
(3) They died in the destruction of an entire country, one whose government and citizenry had never attacked the United States and which, in fact, did not want a war with the United States.
(4) They died as part of an imperial adventure that has sent the U.S. economy into a tailspin, led by a dollar whose value, not surprisingly, continues to plunge in international markets.
At least we know the exact number of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq. Early on, the Pentagon decided that Iraqis killed in the war simply would not be counted. That’s why there are only estimates of Iraqi dead, estimates that go as high as a million. The idea was that since the goal of helping the Iraqi people was considered a noble one, no one should really care how many of them died in the operation. In the minds of U.S. officials, no price was too high in the number of Iraqi deaths to achieve their goal.
In a fascinating use of language, U.S. military officials are still referring to the Iraqis they kill as “terrorists” rather than as “insurgents.” For example, according to a front-page article in today’s New York Times, “American forces on Sunday reported killing ‘12 terrorists’ who had attacked ground troops east of Baquba.”
But what U.S. officials never explain is why a person who is fighting to rid his country of an illegal foreign occupier (a war of aggression was punished as a war crime at Nuremberg) is a “terrorist.” I thought that a terrorist was a person who attacked civilian targets for political ends. Since U.S. occupation forces in Iraq are military personnel, not civilians, why are those Iraqis who are trying to oust the occupiers considered “terrorists?”
As the occupation of Iraq continues indefinitely, there will of course be more deaths, American and Iraqi. According to yesterday’s Washington Post, at least American widows or widowers receive half-a-million U.S. dollars for the loss of their spouses. While the U.S. government sometimes makes nominal payments to Iraqis, mostly Iraqis survivors are left with nothing but anger, resentment, and grief, which shouldn’t surprise anyone, especially since no one asked their consent to the U.S. invasion and occupation of their country.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
digg story
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Are Cubans Freer than Americans?
by Jacob G. Hornberger
The U.S. government’s policy toward Cuba is a textbook example of the malevolence and hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy.
In the wake of Fidel Castro’s resignation as Cuba’s president, U.S. officials, led by President Bush and members of Congress, appear all too ready to have the U.S. government “help” the Cuban people achieve democracy and freedom.
Now, doesn’t that notion suggest a love and concern for the welfare of the Cuban people?
Yet, look at the cruel, inhumane, and brutal economic embargo that the U.S. government has enforced against Cuba for decades. Year after year, U.S. officials have steadfastly enforced the embargo with the full knowledge of the horrific adverse effects it was having on the Cuban people. U.S. officials simply blamed the economic misery on Castro’s socialism, even while Castro blamed it on the embargo. The truth is that the Cuban people have been squeezed by both sides of the vise — Castro’s socialism and the U.S. embargo.
In calling for a change in direction in Cuba, U.S. officials suggest that Castro’s communist, totalitarian regime is a miserable place in which to live. That’s certainly true. But then what do U.S. officials do to people who escape Cuba? They attack them on the high seas with such weapons as water cannons, then they kidnap them, then they cooperate with Cuban communist coast guard officials, and then they repatriate the defenseless refugees back into the communist society that U.S. officials say is a miserable place in which to live.
Meanwhile, both Republicans and Democrats continue to tell us that sacrificing 60,000 American men in the Vietnam War was worth it to try to prevent the South Vietnamese from having to live under communist tyranny. Now, they say that it’s worth it to use U.S. force to repatriate people into communist tyranny in Cuba.
Oh, did I mention that there is no U.S. embargo against Vietnam today and that Americans are free to travel to Vietnam and trade with the Vietnamese communists?
U.S. officials, both Republican and Democrat, usually limit their criticisms to Castro’s political system rather than his socialist economic and educational systems.
Why is that?
The answer is simple: Castro’s economic and educational systems are no different, in principle, than those embraced by Republicans and Democrats. That makes them very uncomfortable because they’ve always felt that while Castro is a Cuban socialist, Republicans and Democrats have always been “American free-enterprisers.”
Consider the core element of Castro’s economic system: free, universal health care. Sound familiar? Isn’t that what Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama want? And the Republicans aren’t much better. Don’t they continue to be proud supporters of Medicare and Medicaid and don’t they have their own plans for more federal intervention into health care?
Consider the core element of Castro’s educational system: free public schooling for Cuban children. Can you show me even one U.S. official, either Republican or Democrat, who opposes free public schooling for American children?
Consider the secondary elements of Castro’s economic system: licensing for businesses, income taxation, equalization of wealth, drug laws, economic regulations, old-age retirement assistance, subsidies, a central bank, and government-issued paper money.
How many U.S. officials, either Republican or Democrat, oppose any of those programs here in the United States?
Consider these features of Castro’s legal system: kangaroo military tribunals, condemnation of independent criminal-defense attorneys, denigration of an independent judiciary, torture, denial of due process, arbitrary arrests, no restrictions on search and seizure, and indefinite incarceration. Why, those principles are a dream-come-true for U.S. officials, especially the Republican ones. Why would it surprise anyone that they established their torture camp in Cuba rather than the United States?
Americans view the embargo against Cuba only as an attack on the well-being of the Cuban people, but it is much more than that. It is also an attack on the freedom of the American people. If an American travels to Cuba and spends money there without the permission of U.S. officials, he will be criminally and civilly prosecuted by his own government. Doesn’t freedom entail the fundamental right to travel wherever you want and spend your money in any way you want?
While Cubans understand that the economic and educational systems under which they live are socialism, Americans honestly believe that their economic and educational systems, albeit the same, are “free enterprise.”
Given Goethe’s pithy observation, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believed they are free,” one cannot help but wonder whether the Cuban people, despite their misery and suffering, are actually freer than Americans.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
The U.S. government’s policy toward Cuba is a textbook example of the malevolence and hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy.
In the wake of Fidel Castro’s resignation as Cuba’s president, U.S. officials, led by President Bush and members of Congress, appear all too ready to have the U.S. government “help” the Cuban people achieve democracy and freedom.
Now, doesn’t that notion suggest a love and concern for the welfare of the Cuban people?
Yet, look at the cruel, inhumane, and brutal economic embargo that the U.S. government has enforced against Cuba for decades. Year after year, U.S. officials have steadfastly enforced the embargo with the full knowledge of the horrific adverse effects it was having on the Cuban people. U.S. officials simply blamed the economic misery on Castro’s socialism, even while Castro blamed it on the embargo. The truth is that the Cuban people have been squeezed by both sides of the vise — Castro’s socialism and the U.S. embargo.
In calling for a change in direction in Cuba, U.S. officials suggest that Castro’s communist, totalitarian regime is a miserable place in which to live. That’s certainly true. But then what do U.S. officials do to people who escape Cuba? They attack them on the high seas with such weapons as water cannons, then they kidnap them, then they cooperate with Cuban communist coast guard officials, and then they repatriate the defenseless refugees back into the communist society that U.S. officials say is a miserable place in which to live.
Meanwhile, both Republicans and Democrats continue to tell us that sacrificing 60,000 American men in the Vietnam War was worth it to try to prevent the South Vietnamese from having to live under communist tyranny. Now, they say that it’s worth it to use U.S. force to repatriate people into communist tyranny in Cuba.
Oh, did I mention that there is no U.S. embargo against Vietnam today and that Americans are free to travel to Vietnam and trade with the Vietnamese communists?
U.S. officials, both Republican and Democrat, usually limit their criticisms to Castro’s political system rather than his socialist economic and educational systems.
Why is that?
The answer is simple: Castro’s economic and educational systems are no different, in principle, than those embraced by Republicans and Democrats. That makes them very uncomfortable because they’ve always felt that while Castro is a Cuban socialist, Republicans and Democrats have always been “American free-enterprisers.”
Consider the core element of Castro’s economic system: free, universal health care. Sound familiar? Isn’t that what Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama want? And the Republicans aren’t much better. Don’t they continue to be proud supporters of Medicare and Medicaid and don’t they have their own plans for more federal intervention into health care?
Consider the core element of Castro’s educational system: free public schooling for Cuban children. Can you show me even one U.S. official, either Republican or Democrat, who opposes free public schooling for American children?
Consider the secondary elements of Castro’s economic system: licensing for businesses, income taxation, equalization of wealth, drug laws, economic regulations, old-age retirement assistance, subsidies, a central bank, and government-issued paper money.
How many U.S. officials, either Republican or Democrat, oppose any of those programs here in the United States?
Consider these features of Castro’s legal system: kangaroo military tribunals, condemnation of independent criminal-defense attorneys, denigration of an independent judiciary, torture, denial of due process, arbitrary arrests, no restrictions on search and seizure, and indefinite incarceration. Why, those principles are a dream-come-true for U.S. officials, especially the Republican ones. Why would it surprise anyone that they established their torture camp in Cuba rather than the United States?
Americans view the embargo against Cuba only as an attack on the well-being of the Cuban people, but it is much more than that. It is also an attack on the freedom of the American people. If an American travels to Cuba and spends money there without the permission of U.S. officials, he will be criminally and civilly prosecuted by his own government. Doesn’t freedom entail the fundamental right to travel wherever you want and spend your money in any way you want?
While Cubans understand that the economic and educational systems under which they live are socialism, Americans honestly believe that their economic and educational systems, albeit the same, are “free enterprise.”
Given Goethe’s pithy observation, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believed they are free,” one cannot help but wonder whether the Cuban people, despite their misery and suffering, are actually freer than Americans.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Electing Our Dictator
The debate between Obama and Clinton over Iraq, along with the positions on Iraq taken by the Republican presidential candidates (except for Ron Paul) reflect what the presidential race is all about. It might not be politic to say so but the fact is that what Americans will be electing in November is not just a president but also a dictator
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Friday, February 01, 2008
Ron Paul Quotes
Ron Paul Quotes from RonPaulBlogs.com
“We can achieve much more in peace than we can ever achieve in these needless, unconstitutional, undeclared wars.”
“Don’t we know if we sacrifice security for liberty we lose both, that’s what is happening in this country today!”
“If you look at every problem we’re facing today its because for the lack of rule of law and the constitution.”
“We live way beyond our means, with a foreign policy we can’t afford and an entitlement system that we have encouraged.”
“With politicians like these, who needs terrorists?”
“NO! I’m saying that we should take our marching orders from our Constitution!”
“…[the neo-cons] said we’d be in-and-out in 3 months, it’d be ducksoup, and it wouldn’t cost a thing because the oil would pay for it.”
“When we make a mistake, it is up to the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not continue the mistake.”
“We stood up to the Soviets when they had 40,000 nuclear weapons, and now we’re fretting about third-world countries with no Army, Navy, or Air Force, and we’re getting ready to go to war.”
“They don’t attack us because we are rich or free but becuase we have been over there.”
“I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas.”
“When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.”
“The freedom message unites us all, it does not divide us.”
“I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect.”
“There’s a risk I could win.”
“Terrorism is a tactic. You can’t have a war on a tactic”
“Freedom Is Popular!”
“Aggressive wars, income taxes, national IDs, domestic spying, torture regimes, secret prisons, Federal Reserve manipulation — we don’t have to take it any more.” — Ron Paul, Sept 27, 2007
Q and A
“I would start with the departments. . . the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security. . .”
On if he would abolish the IRS:
“Immediately!”
On the war on drugs:
“You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let’s just get rid of all the drug laws.”
On foreign policy:
“If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred then we have a problem. . .”
On Romney consulting lawyers for war:
“This idea of consulting lawyers absolutely baffles me– Why don’t we open the constitution and read it! You’re not allowed to go to war without a declaration!”
On the Iraq war:
“The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is the US military.”
On the Iraq war:
“We just marched in, we can just march out.”
“We can achieve much more in peace than we can ever achieve in these needless, unconstitutional, undeclared wars.”
“Don’t we know if we sacrifice security for liberty we lose both, that’s what is happening in this country today!”
“If you look at every problem we’re facing today its because for the lack of rule of law and the constitution.”
“We live way beyond our means, with a foreign policy we can’t afford and an entitlement system that we have encouraged.”
“With politicians like these, who needs terrorists?”
“NO! I’m saying that we should take our marching orders from our Constitution!”
“…[the neo-cons] said we’d be in-and-out in 3 months, it’d be ducksoup, and it wouldn’t cost a thing because the oil would pay for it.”
“When we make a mistake, it is up to the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not continue the mistake.”
“We stood up to the Soviets when they had 40,000 nuclear weapons, and now we’re fretting about third-world countries with no Army, Navy, or Air Force, and we’re getting ready to go to war.”
“They don’t attack us because we are rich or free but becuase we have been over there.”
“I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas.”
“When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.”
“The freedom message unites us all, it does not divide us.”
“I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect.”
“There’s a risk I could win.”
“Terrorism is a tactic. You can’t have a war on a tactic”
“Freedom Is Popular!”
“Aggressive wars, income taxes, national IDs, domestic spying, torture regimes, secret prisons, Federal Reserve manipulation — we don’t have to take it any more.” — Ron Paul, Sept 27, 2007
Q and A
“I would start with the departments. . . the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security. . .”
On if he would abolish the IRS:
“Immediately!”
On the war on drugs:
“You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let’s just get rid of all the drug laws.”
On foreign policy:
“If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred then we have a problem. . .”
On Romney consulting lawyers for war:
“This idea of consulting lawyers absolutely baffles me– Why don’t we open the constitution and read it! You’re not allowed to go to war without a declaration!”
On the Iraq war:
“The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is the US military.”
On the Iraq war:
“We just marched in, we can just march out.”
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The War on Immigrants Is a War on Freedom
If a businessman wishes to associate with a foreigner, either personally or in a business relationship, why shouldn’t he be free to do so? Under what moral authority does the government interfere with a person’s freedom to associate with another person?
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Sunday, January 06, 2008
The real deal.
A presidential candidate actually answering real questions from real people. What a contrast to the Fox and CNN gameshow BS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
