President Obama's Address: Senator Rand Paul Responds

Following President Obama's national address Monday evening regarding the situation in Libya, Sen. Rand Paul released the following remarks in response to the President

War? What War?

From ReasonTV:

Since at least the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, American foreign policy has been drifting- comprising a series of ad hoc interventions absent a national consensus about when to use force and lacking an underlying set of reliable, core principles.

That drift continues with President Obama's speech about our war with Libya- and includes the simple fact that our commander in chief couldn't even acknowledge that we're in a war and that we've taken sides against someone he calls a "tyrant who murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world -- including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents."

Dropping bombs, shooting missiles, deploying massive amounts of personnel and power - all of these are generally understood as acts of war. But Obama can't admit that we're waging war because then he would have to acknowledge what his critics correctly underscore: Constitutionally, he doesn't have a right to do this sort of thing unilaterally when the country isn't facing a clear and present danger.

We know this because of Obama himself. In 2007, while a US senator and presidential candidate, he flatly told The Boston Globe, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

No president was worse at foreign policy than George W. Bush, who came to power amid promises of a "humble foreign policy" and then mired us in two intractable conflicts that even supporters grant were poorly executed under his command.

Eminent Domain For Private Gain

The Institute for Justice examines another case where politicians are destroying a community in order to hand it over to developers and "increase the tax base". I think it is a pretty sure thing that these same politicians bemoan the lack of affordable housing. The developers give the campaign contributions, lining the politicians pockets. The developers win twice, they get cheap land acquired for them by the government, profit from the development and then later get to build "affordable housing" for those people (or others like them) they displaced with their first development. What a scam!

From the Institute for Justice:

The township of Mount Holly, N.J., has been systematically destroying the Gardens—a close-knit community of over 300 garden-style row homes—for the past decade. Officials want to hand the property over to Keating Urban Partners, for luxury townhomes and apartments. This is what happens when eminent domain is abused for private gain.

Three Worst Cases of Police Abuse in 2011

From Reason TV:

Due to the violence depicted and discussed in this video, viewer discretion is advised.


The 1991 beating of Rodney King by the Los Angeles Police Department, which came to light after being caught on video by a citizen trying out a video camera, ushered in a new age of transparency and openness when it comes to law enforcement.

Since then, sound and vision from any number of sources - including cell-phone cams and pocket recorders, not to mention footage shot by police themselves - have captured law enforcement in action in a wide range of circumstances. Sometimes, the footage exonerates the police and sometimes it incriminates them. Always, though, we as citizens gain from having a better sense of how law enforcement operates, even (or especially) when what we see is hugely disturbing.

Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie talked with Reason columnist Radley Balko, proprietor of The Agitator and a long-time student of the increasing militarization of police. We asked Balko to talk about he thinks are the three most-schocking videos of police abuse that have come to light so far in 2011.

Ironically, Balko notes that widespread video of police at work gives rise to the misimpression that such violent abuse is on the rise while police are almost certainly more respectful of civil liberties than they were 50 or 60 years ago. He argues that it's precisely because citizens and watchdogs (including many with the law enforcement community) have more tools at their disposal to ferret out abuse that better practices are being employed.

Approximately 5.30 minutes. Shot and edited by Josh Swain, with camera assists by Meredith Bragg and Jim Epstein.

For longer videos of the incidents show in the interview, go http://reason.tv/video/show/radley-balko-interview-on-3-17.

Presidential War Powers

Tom Woods comments on presidential war powers and the false claims made by modern interventionists.

Our Frenemy in Libya

Afghanistan Part II? Lionel says that eastern Libya is home to Al Qaeda terrorists. Are we repeating our mistake from the 1980's in Afghanistan?

Why They Fought And Died

Just a reminder of why we fight:

1. To be able to be groped by TSA agents
2. To be  xrayed at the airport and to put our toiletries into small bags
3. To be able to pay taxes on everything
4. To be told what we can consume

From ReasonTV:

As American warplanes patrol the skies of Libya and American boots continue to keep the peace in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, Spain, Cuba, the Netherland Antilles, and more than 140 other countries, the international Interwebs recording sensation Remy unveils this timely song reminding all of us back on the home front about why they fight now. And why they fought then.


"Why They Fought" is the first of a series of collaborations between Remy and Reason.tv. To watch Remy's other videos, go to http:youtube.com/goremy

North Dakota Oil Boom

AlJazeera English reports on thr oil boom in North Dakota:

North Dakota is on track to become the second biggest oil producing state in the US.

But with many of the oil fields located on a native American reservation, tribal members are wondering how the sudden boom will affect their way of life.

Al Jazeera's Cath Turner has more.

Obama's Female Troika

Lionel comments on the new order of the world, along with the pro war female troika in the Obama Administration: Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Powers, wife of Cass Sunstein. Cass Sunstein is Obama's Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Cass Sunstein advocates that the government should infiltrate groups that oppose the government by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the government's message (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).

Mark Levin Are You Serious?

Jack Hunter says that liberal and conservative ideologues support the Constitution as they would like it to be, not as it is.

From Jack Hunter:

Nationally syndicated radio talk show host and bestselling author Mark Levin's argument that the Constitution does not require the President to consult Congress concerning foreign interventions resembles the Left's argument concerning the constitutionality of Democrats' domestic interventions.

From James Madison:

The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it.

Pacific Northwest Overdue for Major Tsunami

Is the United States prepared for a Japan scale tsunami?

From AlJazeera English:

Following the disaster in Japan, the US is looking closely at its nuclear plants' safety. The northwest coast sits on the Pacific Ocean's Ring of Fire. Scientists say it's only a matter of time before a big earthquake hits the area. 

Rob Reynolds reports from Cape Lookout in Oregon on the precautions being taken there.

War Is Peace: Change We Can Believe In

Lionel says he doesn't want change, he wants improvement.

You've Got to be Cruel to be Kind

Nick Lowe, Cruel to be Kind, featuring his then wife, country singer Carlene Carter.

In Concert: Summer of 69

War Goddess

Lionel says Hillary Clinton is the new minister of war.

Discrimination An Act of Choice

ReasonTV interviews economist Walter Williams:

In 1981, Secretary of Health Education and Welfare Patricia Harris wrote in the Washington Post that libertarian economists Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are "middle class" so they "don't know what it is to be poor."

In fact, Williams grew up in a single-parent household in a poor section of Philadelphia. He was raised by his mother, who was a high school dropout. The family spent time on welfare, and eventually moved into the Richard Allen public housing project. (Sowell, whose father died before he was born, was the son of a maid.)

Drafted into the peacetime Army, Williams eventually earned a PhD from UCLA in the late 1960s and quickly became a sought-after researcher and public intellectual. His best known book, 1982's The State Against Blacks, argues that a major cause of black unemployment is government intervention in the labor market.

Williams' contrarian views have had wide exposure through documentaries, public appearances, and for the past 30 years, a syndicated weekly column. Since 1992, Williams has also been a frequent guest host of Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Now a professor emeritus at George Mason University, Williams has taught at Temple University, California State University-Los Angeles, and other universities. (Go here for his personal web page.)

His new book, Up from the Projects: An Autobiography, is a fascinating look at his childhood, his half-century-long marriage to his recently departed wife, his unusual career path, and the genesis of his views on race, economics, and politics.

Throughout his career, Williams has used his own life to illustrate how government regulations often work to deny opportunities to poor blacks, and his memoir is no exception. For example, Williams recounts that when he was a teenager, he was fired from a great job at a hat factory when a fellow employee complained to the Department of Labor that his boss was violating child labor laws.

Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie recently sat down with Williams to talk about his life, how his experiences have informed his scholarship, his lead role in turning George Mason University into a center for libertarian scholarship, and whether the Obama presidency has improved the lives of blacks in the United States.

Williams is also an emeritus trustee of the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that produces Reason.tv.

For more on Williams' new memoir, check out Damon Root's review (http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/28/man-versus-the-state), which calls the book "a revealing and sometimes hilarious account of his rise from Philadelphia's Richard Allen housing projects, where his neighbors included a young Bill Cosby, to 'brown bag' lunches at the White House where he gave advice to President Ronald Reagan and his staff."

March Sadness: Odyssey Dawn Explained

March Sadness:

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Here is the official explanation of Odyssey Dawn, not a war mind you:

The Daily Show - Odyssey Dawn - Unconstitutional War
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Unintended Consequences in Libya

Texas Congressman Ron Paul addresses the Libya conflict, including President Obama's disregard for Congress, the lack of change in the U.S.' foreign policy, the unintended consequences of the initiative, and the need for Americans to take a stand against abuse of power.

Second Amendment Tutorial

Lionel (Michael William Lebron) comments on the real world examples of the purpose of the Second Amendment. It is of course so that people can defend themselves from a tyrannical government and overthrow it if necessary.

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

Ralph Nader says that Barack Obama is continuing the same illegal policies of George W. Bush.

From DemocracyNow.org:

Ralph Nader and Daniel Ellsberg plan to participate in a major protest on Saturday in Washington, D.C., to mark the eight-year anniversary of the U.S-led invasion of Iraq. They were interviewed on Democracy Now! March 18.

Ellsberg will risk arrest by participating in nonviolent civil disobedience actions by Veterans for Peace, among others, to protest the ongoing military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. "Innocents are being slaughtered," Nader says. "Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts? That the Obama administration is committing war crimes. And if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached."

A Few Questions About Libya. Who Will Answer Them?

Lionel (Michael William Lebron) has a few questions about our intervention in Libya. Why do we care now after 42 years? Why did we only care about Egypt after 30 years? Why don't we care about central Africa?

Mission Creep: Obama's Libyan War

Jack hunter comment on our foolishness in getting involved in another war. Another war like Iraq and Afghanistan that could bog us down for years.

From Jack Hunter:

Our intervention in Libya is simply the latest example of how our current president is no different from his predecessor.

The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Both Major Parties

From ReasonTV:

Rand Paul (R-Ky.) took an unusual path to his seat in the United States Senate: Though his father, the libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has spent decades in office, Rand Paul had never previously held public office before winning in 2010. Throughout his campaign, Paul fils identified more with the Tea Party than with the Republican Party, and he ran against the hand-picked candidate of one of the most powerful Republicans in America, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). After trouncing both his primary challenger and the Democratic nominee, Paul did not mention the GOP once in his victory speech last November, saying instead, "Tonight, there's a Tea Party tidal wave."


Since entering office, the freshman senator has quickly proven himself to be the most interesting and radical voice on Capitol Hill, proposing immediate budget cuts 500 percent steeper than anything else Republicans have contemplated, speaking eloquently against the PATRIOT Act and runaway defense spending, and going bonkers against nanny-state regulations in the home. He's even taken on the sainted 19th-century Kentucky statesman Henry Clay ("the Great Compromiser") in a speech that caused McConnell to leave the room. And this all happened just in Paul's first two months in office.

Now the freshman senator has a new book out, The Tea Party Goes to Washington, that discusses his political journey, the intellectual bankruptcy of both major parties, and the urgency of our clear and present fiscal crisis. Reason's Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie interviewed Sen. Paul in his temporary Senate office in March 2011.

It Is Time To Leave

Texas Congressman Ron Paul speaking in favor of a resolution to leave Afghanistan by the end of the year.

Nuclear Energy Overreaction

So far no one has died from the problems with the nuclear power plant in Japan. Of course we don't know what the final outcome will be, but life is dangerous. Most things we do involve some risk. The hysteria over nuclear energy ignores the fact that people die every year to provide electricity that is generated in coal fired power plants. The new natural gas power plants could have a gas leak and blow up.

We don't know yet how many people have died in Japan from the earthquake and tsunami, but we know it is in the thousands. Should we stop people from living in earthquake zones or in coastal areas because there is danger? Compared to nuclear power, living in earthquake zones and coastal areas is far more dangerous.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul discusses this and more with David Asman on America's Nightly Scoreboard.

Shut Up Is Not An Argument/They Don't Hate Us For Our Freedoms

Americans have been fed a set of falsehoods when it comes to the cause of terrorist attacks on this country. Unfortunately a majority of Americans have accepted those falsehoods. Anyone who dares challenge these falsehoods is basically told to shut up and/or has their patriotism questioned.

Jack Hunter comments on the refusal of the Washington political class to address the cause of radical Islamic terrorism against the United States.

Green Energy: Tilting at Wind Turbines

Does mandating "Green Energy create jobs? Does it make sense? Who pays the cost? How is it working in California, the leader in "Green Energy"? Not surprisingly, as with any use of government force the actual results don't match what the advocates of force promise.

From ReasonTV:

Switching from conventional sources of electricity like coal and natural gas to renewables like wind and solar, our elected leaders tell us, will reduce pollution, advance renewable technology and spark a green jobs revolution.

Is renewable energy really a green pathway to a brighter economic future? Or is it nothing more than a heavily subsidized impossible dream?

To learn more, we spoke with Cal State Fullerton economist Robert Michaels and Mark Tholke, an executive at enXco.

Who Is A Terrorist? Why It's The Other Guy

Lionel (Michael William Lebron) comments on the use of the word terrorist.

End the Fed Gets Animated

ReasonTV talks filmmaker Tad Lumpkin:

"Any time you give unlimited capacity to print money, then the government's going to grow," says filmmaker Tad Lumpkin.

Lumpkin created the animated feature The American Dream, which is available on YouTube, to explain U.S. monetary policy and its consequences in a way that would be accessible to a mass audience. Although some in the media, and at the Federal Reserve, blame a lack of regulation for the financial crisis, Lumpkin argues that the Fed itself is the primary cause for the collapse of the housing sector.

Lumpkin sat down with Reason.tv's Tim Cavanaugh to discuss the folly of central banking, why Ron Paul is an important political force, and why it's time to end the Fed.

What Is Seen and Unseen: Our Economic Policy Makers Believe in the Broken Window Fallacy

In the aftermath of the devastating earthquake in Japan, Larry Summers, former Director of the White House National Economic Council for President Barack Obama, Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton and a former head of the World Bank, said on CNBC that rebuilding could provide a temporary boost to the Japanese economy. How scary and sad that people with power over the economy believe such drivel. Is it any wonder that we have economic problems when these are the people in charge?

Summers statement is an example of the Broken Window Fallacy, the idea that destruction can somehow benefit the economy. It is simply not true. The destruction of ANY property that is still useful/servicable is ALWAYS an economic loss. The two videos below explain this truth.

Big Government Need Not Fear The GOP

Jack Hunter comments on the Republicans commitment to big government.

May A Libertarian Take Benefits From The State?

 Walter Block says yes and I agree:

May a Libertarian Take Money From the Government?

by Walter Block

Prof. Block,


First of all, I want to say what a huge fan and follower of your work I am. Of all the contributors to LRC and the LVM Institute I look forward to your articles the most and Defending the Undefendable is a truly entertaining and insightful work.

I have a question that I hope you might find the time to answer. Next fall, I will be starting an Assistant Professor appointment at the University of A in the Department of B. I understand that while possibly less-than-ideal, the anarcho-libertarian academic can justify employment at a State university because academia is a profession that has been monopolized by the state and therefore we make do given our circumstances, much like when we use government roads. As Murray Rothbard said, it's not necessary for us to become martyrs. My question, as a young faculty member on a tenure track at a research university, what is the anarcho-libertarian position on state research grants? Obviously, we cannot lobby the state to increase funding for these, but since they exist anyway, may we pursue them and still remain consistent libertarians? (I am assuming that any technology developed would not be directly used to perpetrate aggression, but for basic science and technologies that could lead to higher production, safety, better standards of living for all.) My plan is to pursue every opportunity possible to work with private industry, and ideally not take a penny from the State, but this may not be a successful strategy.

I would very much like to hear your opinion on this issue and I thank you in advance for any time you may give to respond.

Regards,

Professor C



Dear Professor C:

Thanks for allowing me to address you (anonymously, for obvious reasons) in this public setting. I wanted to do so, instead of replying to you alone, since I get many, many letters from people on this very question, or closely related issues. And, for every letter of this sort I get, there are probably dozens of others who either do not take jobs they would relish, or do so, and feel guilty about this since they think they are violating libertarian principles. This letter, then, although addressed to you, applies to all these others as well. Hopefully, at least some of them will find solace from what I am about to say.

1. It is only a libertarian, and a thoughtful one at that, such as you are, who would ever think to ask a question like this. This issue would never in a million years arise on the left, or even the right. They both believe in statism. In contrast, we libertarians support the non-aggression principle (NAP) and thus are quite properly leery of having anything to do with the government (the prime violator of the NAP), and, certainly, to take money from the state is to be involved with it. So, this question in and of itself is a great credit to you.

2. This question most often is articulated by academics such as you. They, we, are brighter than many, and, as libertarians we do not want to contradict our principles. (In contrast, the leftie egalitarians are happy hypocrites; they preach equality, and yet run around with two eyes, when they could have donated one of them to a blind person; and so are the chicken-hawk generals on the right, who would like the U.S. to invade every country on the planet, and, maybe, some on Mars, too, and yet do not volunteer for the military.) In a sense libertarianism is simple: just keep your mitts to yourself, don’t steal, rape, murder, etc. But, being true to the NAP is difficult when the state has its tentacles in virtually every aspect of life. The state violates rights with a vengeance, and it is difficult to lead a normal life without being ensnared in its web.

3. My take on this is that it is a positive virtue to relieve the government of its ill-gotten gains. Suppose Z steals an apple from Y and then X comes along and takes this fruit away from Z. Did X do anything wrong? Did he act incompatibly with the NAP? Is X no longer a libertarian? Of course not. Very much to the contrary, X did something entirely compatible with our philosophy. Certainly, all libertarian theories of private property rights, of punishment, would agree that of all people in the world, Z is the absolutely least deserving of this foodstuff. Now, it might be nice, it might be virtuous, for X to return the apple to Y. Indeed, this was precisely the relationship between Ragnar Danneskjold (X) and Hank Reardon (Y) in Ayn Rand’s magnificent and monumental novel, Atlas Shrugged. The government (Z) stole from Reardon (and of course others) and Ragnar was just returning these stolen goods to Hank, the victim. But, Ragnar’s behavior constituted a double or two-stage act. First, he grabbed gold from the government; then, and only then, did he return it to Hank. But, if a double act is to be licit, then each and every part of it must be, too. Two wrongs cannot make a right, and neither can one right and one wrong. So, I deduce, it was entirely proper for Danneskjold to relieve the evil government depicted in Atlas of its stolen property, even if he did not give a penny of it to Reardon. Taking money from a thief is an unadulterated good deed. Returning it to victims is virtuous, too, but it is supererogatory: it is not needed to convert the first part of this double-stage act into righteousness; the first part is good in and of itself!

4. If you take statist money, and I, personally, have, more on this see below, suppose someone else asks you for it, on the ground that the government stole his money, and you should return to him what you took from them. Well, first off, you wouldn’t owe him all of it; you could keep a sizeable portion of it as a salvage payment (the private law of the sea judges in medieval times commonly awarded the rescuer of a boat at sea one third of the value of the vessel). As for the rest of it, the person requesting money from you must come with clean hands himself. He cannot be anything but a libertarian; if he is not, he is a supporter of this theft in the first place. He is thus in cahoots with this criminal gang. And, if he is a libertarian, he will fully realize that you are the first homesteader of this wealth, and thus its proper owner. If he wants some, too, as is his right, he should go to the same place as you did, and seize it from the same bad guys.

5. I have in my time been "guilty" of accepting subsidies from the state. I shop for food in supermarkets, and eat even more of it in restaurants. I therefore indirectly avail myself of agricultural subsidies (I full well realize that farm goods would be cheaper in the fully free society, but, still, given our lack of economic freedom, there may well be a subsidy in it for me from dining.) I have U.S. fiat fractional reserve bank currency in my wallet and use it too, even though as a libertarian I favor free market (e.g., gold or silver) money. I use streets, sidewalks, roads and highways, brought to me courtesy of our least favorite institution. I went to public schools as a student, and taught at a few of them as a faculty member. I had a New York State Regents’ Scholarship, and I’m not giving back a penny of it to the government. I use public libraries, art galleries and museums, shamelessly. I avail myself of the services of statist parks: Central Park in New York City, Stanley Park in Vancouver, Canada, and Audubon Park when in New Orleans, and others besides. And when I do so, I give off with a little smirk of satisfaction for a job well done. I have written about these transgressions of mine and other aspects of this challenge here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Please, as the Jewish Mother of the libertarian movement, I absolve all you kinder regarding the guilt you may have accepting these and other such subsidies. Go out there, and proudly get everything you can from the government. Hold your head high; you are doing a mitzvah!


6. Which organizations may properly accept government subsidies? May the typical private university do so? My answer is no: while there may be a few free enterprise professors on staff, typically in the economics department, virtually all of the rest are hand in glove with the state, supporting its depredations. For example, it is very rare indeed that there will be even one freedom oriented professor in American higher education in departments such as sociology, anthropology, philosophy, law, political science, history, religion, literature, to say nothing of multicultural departments as feminist, black and queer studies. In my experience, the majority of the faculty even at business colleges are critics of the free enterprise system, not supporters.

7. Now, at long last, let me reply to the specific points you make. I don’t think that the "anarcho-libertarian academic can justify employment at a State university because academia is a profession that has been monopolized by the state." First of all, the government has not fully monopolized education. There are, after all, numerous fully private institutions of learning. Even on the college level, there is Grove City College and Hillsdale. There are many, many ostensibly private universities that are only partially subsidized by government. The government, moreover, has not fully monopolized information flows: there are many alternatives to its Post Office. Yet, it is entirely justified for libertarians to avail themselves of snail mail. You are quite right: Murray Rothbard truly said that it's not necessary for us to become martyrs. Libertarianism does not at all require any such thing.

I have no objection, at all, to your plan of pursuing "every opportunity possible to work with private industry." But, realize that if you do, you will not be awarded any libertarian brownie points at all for helping to relieve the government of its plunder. Please understand me: I certainly don’t oppose private industry (under present institutional arrangements, there’s very little of that out there, except for a few mom and pop operations). It should not at all be an "ideal … not take a penny from the State," at least not for the libertarian. No, no, no, a thousand times no, it is a virtue to take money away from this illicit organization, and way more than a penny too.

8. But wait! If you cooperate with the government in this manner, can you not be properly accused of "aiding and abetting" an evil institution? Well, yes, sort of. If you take money from the state, you are indeed giving it your imprimatur, or "sanction" as the Randians would say. And, indeed, you are helping the government in the ex ante sense, in that both parties always and ever, and necessarily so, benefit from any voluntary exchange, and, here, you are both agreeing: you to accept the funds, they to give them to you.

However, you are not promoting statism any more by taking their money than by carrying around their cash, patronizing their libraries or streets, etc. And, too, while you are of course benefitting them in the ex ante sense, you are certainly not doing so in the ex post sense. That is, they are giving you the money in the hope that by doing so, they can better promote statism than by the use of it in any other way. But you, by your actual actions, will not be doing any such thing. Now, I am not at all knowledgeable about your own specialty, B. So, I cannot say how this will play out in your field. So, let me talk about my own. I have previously taught economics at several public colleges and universities. What the powers that be would have liked me to teach was moderate neoclassicism; the doctrine of market failure, according to which while free enterprise does indeed function well under the conditions of perfect competition, in the real world these conditions are often not met, and thus there is an important role for the government to engage in anti-trust, welfare policies, to enact pro-union legislation, tariff barriers, etc. As you can imagine, while I did indeed acquaint my students with these claims (not to have done so would have left them helpless, and would have been to cheat them), I have also pointed out serious, nay, fatal, flaws in this analytic framework. So, when the libertarian Nuremberg trials begin for me, and I shall indeed be in the dock for consorting with the enemy in this manner, I fully expect that I will be exonerated, and fully so. But what about the Marxist, socialist, mixed economy or interventionist professor? Will he also be found innocent by the libertarian jury? Not at all. In contrast to me, he really did "aid and abet" the evil state, by promoting its doctrines, inculcating them among the youth.

What of your field, B? Let us posit that it is impossible for you to promote liberty in it. If you do your job (if not, you’ll quickly be fired so your question is all but moot) you cannot promote liberty, since your calling is too orthogonal to freedom for that purpose. Here’s a suggestion for you. If you still feel guilty about becoming enmeshed in statist finance (which feelings I strongly urge you to squelch), and have no way to promote liberty (as I do in economics), then how about the following. Take a hefty part of your salary (net not gross), say 5% or even 10%, and donate it to an organization that promotes freedom in a spectacular manner. Hint, hint: I can think of no better group than the Mises Institute, and/or, at least in the short term, a contribution to Ron Paul.

9. To conclude. Enough of pure theory. Let us now get down to practical reality. It is entirely legal under the present laws of the land for you to apply for, and receive, wealth from the government of the sort you describe, so all of this talk of "theft" is beside the point from the pragmatic perspective. I urge you to apply for all of the grants you possibly can. Murray Rothbard said that a man’s contribution to society is proportional to the profits he earns. I say in similar vein, other things equal, the more money you take from the coffers of the state the better libertarian you are.

March 11, 2011

Dr. Block is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable and Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective. His latest book is The Privatization of Roads and Highways.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

You Restrict Our Choices

Senator Rand Paul tells it like it is at the Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing:

Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco And Firearms Involved In Smuggling Guns To Mexican Drug Cartels

From the Libertarian Party:

War on Drugs leads to gun smuggling nightmare

WASHINGTON - According to CBS, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been involved in undercover operations to smuggle high-powered weapons into Mexico, probably as some sort of tracking operation. Now many of those weapons are in the hands of ruthless drug traffickers, which they are using to intimidate and kill people.

Libertarian Party chair Mark Hinkle issued this statement today:

"This is another sad chapter in the long story of the terribly destructive War on Drugs. Now our own government is apparently involved in smuggling weapons to drug lords in Mexico. This story is as bizarre as it is depressing.

"The War on Drugs has caused far more death and destruction than it has prevented. The War on Drugs is a failure in almost every measurable way. The War on Drugs should end.

"It's becoming more and more unclear whether the U.S. government even wants the violence to decrease. More drug violence means more jobs for federal drug agents. More drug arrests mean more jobs for prison construction and management contractors. There are a lot of people whose income depends on a big, thriving, unsuccessful War on Drugs.

"If the War on Drugs were halted, there would no longer be any such thing as 'drug trafficking.' Violence in Mexico would decrease very dramatically, as drug lords would quickly go out of business.

"A lot of liberals and libertarians were hoping that President Obama and a Democratic Congress might at least tone down the War on Drugs, but they have done nothing of the kind. They have kept this war going as strong as ever.

"It looks like those of us opposed to the War on Drugs can forget about help from the Democratic Party. Only the Libertarian Party will fight to end the misguided, wasteful, and destructive War on Drugs.

"One of the things that saddens me is that our foolish and unjust drug laws are leading to the deaths of thousands of Mexican citizens. Those Mexicans can't vote in our elections to change our drug laws -- they just have to wait and hope they aren't the drug lord's next victim.

"We Libertarians call for an end to the War on Drugs: an end to federal prohibition of the possession and sale of narcotics. Would that lead to increased drug abuse? It's hard to know -- probably not much -- but nothing could be worse than the death and destruction our government has unleashed with its War on Drugs."

A True Revolution Will Work Better In Libya

Texas Congressman Ron Paul on Neil Cavuto comments on the situation in Libya and energy policy in the US.

You Can't Buy Friends: Intervention Will Backfire

From Texas Congressman Ron Paul:

Buying Friends Creates More Enemies


Last week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and I had the opportunity to raise some of my concerns regarding US foreign policy and the costs of our interventionism around the world.

Many observers claim that the recent overthrow of governments in northern Africa and the Middle East will result in more liberty for individuals across those regions. I sincerely hope this proves to be true, but history is replete with revolutions that began as a cry for freedom against oppressive governments but ended badly. There are no guarantees that Egyptians, Tunisians, or others will be better off after these heralded regime changes.

We do know, however, that these conflicts in Africa and the Middle East can be made worse if the U.S. government attempts to intervene and support certain candidates or factions. Such intervention would not further US interests or win us new friends, but in fact would undermine the legitimacy of any government that may emerge after the end of old regimes. Just as we would resent and reject any political force that came to power here with the sponsorship of a foreign government, Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, and others are not likely to take kindly to what they view as one US puppet being replaced by another US puppet. It is ironic, but the US government’s endless promotion of “democracy” overseas actually distorts and undermines democracy in targeted nations. The involvement of a foreign power often undermines true self-determination.

Radicals who understand this may use rising resentment and anti-Americanism as leverage to gain power, thus defeating the stated purpose of US involvement in the first place. I have never understood how the US government justifies subsidizing a newspaper or political party abroad in the name of promoting independence and pluralism. It makes no sense.

Unfortunately it seems to me that the administration has learned nothing from recent events in the Mediterranean region. Secretary Clinton emphasized several times at the committee hearing that “nothing is off the table” with regard to a US response to internal civil unrest in Libya. Since when is it our obligation to use political pressure or even military force to solve every problem overseas? Washington is currently buzzing with talk of “no-fly zones” and even a land invasion of Libya to aid rebel groups seeking to overthrow the Gadaffi regime. Some military leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have rightly warned the more enthusiastic interventionists that such military operations can be enormously costly both financially and in lives.

The costs of trying to run the world are unsustainable, and we simply don’t have the money. Morally, it is inexcusable for the US to pick sides in such conflicts overseas, no matter how odious either side may be. Financially, it is no longer possible. The 2012 budget request from the administration for “international affairs,” which is code for “foreign aid”, is two and a half times larger than it was just nine years ago! As our economy shrinks at home, our obligations increase abroad. As our infrastructure crumbles at home, we continue to spend billions expanding infrastructure in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. If the interventionists have their way, no doubt we will be soon pay to reconstruct the infrastructure we destroy in a Libyan military operation. It does not take a genius to see that we are going broke, but Washington remains in denial and intent on business as usual. I fear that if we continue this way we may soon be out of business altogether.

US Media Monopoly Is Losing Ground

The us dominance of international media is slipping and I say that is a good thing.

From RT:

The US is losing the global information war, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared while appearing before a congressional committee to ask for extra funds to spread US propaganda through new media.

Why Are Property Rights Important?

From LearnLiberty.org:

Why are property rights important, even for those who own the least? Professor Tom W. Bell of Chapman University School of Law explains that property rights allow people to live together in peace, prosperity, and freedom. They prevent conflicts over scarce resources, encourage productive labor, and discourage waste. Bell bolsters his argument by drawing on classical liberal scholars such as Friedrich Hayek, Randy Barnett, Robert Nozick, and Ludwig von Mises.

The Moody Blues

From the Sixties: Ride My See Saw




From the Seventies: I´m Just a Singer (in a Rock and Roll Band)

Libyans Don't Want the Foreign Community to Get Involved

Report from RT that Libyans they have talked to do not want foreign intervention in their struggle with the despot Gaddafi.

From RT:

Muammar Gaddafi has launched widespread offensives with reports of live ammunition and airstikes used to regain control over the eastern part of Libya. And with the country locked in bloody battles, the British government has confirmed its troops are on standby for deployment to the violence torn area. The U.S. is also gathering its naval forces in the Mediterranean close to Libya, adding to fears of possible intervention.

Liberals and Conservatives are the Same. Libertarians are Different

Liberals and conservatives are the same because they believe that in certain circumstances the force of government should be used to make people behave a certain way. Libertarians believe only individuals should decide how to live their lives.

From LearnLiberty.org:

What does it mean to be a libertarian? Dr. Jeffrey Miron at Harvard offers one answer. According to Miron, libertarians have enormous respect for individual decisions. While other ideologies attempt to use government force to advance their ideas of how people should act or behave, libertarians think that individuals should be able to live their own lives as they see fit.

The Federal Gocernment Is Worse Than A Ponzi Scheme

Lionel (Michael William Lebron) comments on the false left/right paradigm and our fiat money system.

This Must be Love

Aimee Allen and Scott Russo from the album : Sitting in a Tree

Supreme Court Correct In Snyder Versus Phelps Case

Lionel explains why the Supreme Court ruled correctly in the Snyder vs. Phelps case. Yes, Fred Phelps and his followers say rotten and hurtful things, but freedom of speech includes words that hurt peoples feelings. If it didn't, what speech couldn't be censored?

At The 2011 Students For Liberty Conference

From ReasonTV:

Reason.tv attended the Students For Liberty International Conference 2011 at the George Washington University in Washington, February 18th to the 20th.


Students For Liberty is a nonprofit organization geared toward aiding libertarian student groups on campus and abroad. Formed in 2008, SFL has grown from thirty students to over 500 and begun to gain the media attention of Fox Business Network and Stossel. Reason.tv sat down with Co-founders Alexander McCobin and Sloane Frost, Executive Board Member Ankur Chawla, Communication Manager Blayne Bennett and SFL Student of the Year 2011 Michelle Fields to talk about the organization's exceptional growth and if it is connected to a increased interest in libertarianism in the general public. Reason.tv also interviewed the students attending about why they are libertarian and what they hoped to take away from the conference.

David Letterman: "There Must Be Something Wrong"

From Jack Hunter:

When David Letterman had Sen. Rand Paul as a guest on his television show, the late night talk host let his liberal faith dictate his own facts.

Childish Harry Reid

Busybody Harry Reid finds a problem that doesn't exist. Harry wants to ban legal prostitution in Nevada. Are there problems with legal prostitution in Nevada? No. Are there problems with prostitution in those counties in Nevada where it is illegal? Yes.

When will people learn that outlawing vices does not eliminate them, but only serves to drive them underground and into the hands of criminals?

From ReasonTV:

Last month's Nanny tackled the scourge of distracted walking, and this month's runners-up have their sights set on banning big-leaguers from dipping and toddlers from talking.

But top dishonors go to the nanny from Nevada who's picking a fight with prostitutes.

Presenting Reason.tv's Nanny of the Month for February 2011: Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)!