Liberty Forged

the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. ` Nock

Archive for May, 2008

What is the future of the Republican Party?

Posted by Jesse on May 23, 2008

Ron Paul’s son Rand talks about the best selling book, convention experience and future plans.

The Revolution: A Manifesto [from]
“Ron Paul wrote this book in the midst of his 2007-2008 educational campaign for the Republican nomination. It is a response to the demand from so many to understand the political and economic philosophy that led to his campaign, which was a defining moment in modern libertarian history. The result is outstanding. He patiently explains why the average voter must care about liberty and what can be done about it in terms of public policy. He explains the workings of the free market, the incompetence of government, the real purpose of the Constitution, the dangers of an imperial foreign policy and much more.”

[assistant editor at and hosts Antiwar Radio]
Scott Horton writes:
“Dr. Paul, whose steadfast opposition to warfare in the U.S. Congress extends back to his first terms in office in the 1970s, makes his standard case that rather than leading to some abstract “national greatness,” empire, in fact, weakens America. He says the cost of maintaining our empire is nearly a trillion dollars a year and that we just can’t afford it. Paul maintains that rather than protecting our freedom, war is nearly as destructive to our society as those of the people we wage them against. War leads to unchecked executive power and the destruction of our most highly valued liberty. Paul denounces our government’s policy of “preemptive” aggressive war as always morally and consequentially wrong and never justified. He also explains the anti-imperialist legacy of the Old Right and the antiwar sentiments of the more thoughtful leaders of the middle-to-New Right such as Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, and Robert Nisbet. Paul explains that there is nothing conservative about waging war; it undermines every principle that conservatives claim to cherish (i.e., the Constitution, the rule of law, family values, free markets, fiscal restraint.)”

Check out these links for more on the subject of the Old Right.

Murray N Rothbard, “The Betrayal of the American Right“; Article; PDF

Bill Kauffman, “Ain’t My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism” — Listen to a recent interview with Kauffman on antiwar radio
And the latest review of the book by Doug Bandow

Justin Raimondo, “Reclaiming the American Right“; “How the War Party Captured the Right


Posted in antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, economy, Education, free market, Politics, republican, Rights, Ron Paul | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Discrimination. Complimentary or Durogatory?

Posted by Jesse on May 22, 2008

So I’ve been commenting on, another wordpress blog managed by several persons whom I think are all affiliated with Harding University. I spend time making comments there due to the fact that they have good posts, appear to take the issues seriously, and remain professional in the process.

But I think I’ve been a bit of nuisance, in that I don’t give up too easily and make multiple posts at times. As Walter Block says, libertarians are crazy and rabid about the non aggression axiom and are obnoxiously persistent in adhereing to the principles set forth. Otherwise, what’s the point?

The reason I bring this up now is because David Manes wrote a post about ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) and asked why people would oppose this legislation. Manes did cite a few reasons that are oft given in opposition but I found them to be quite insufficient. I think, so far, I am the only one who attempted to give some insight from another perspective.

David begins the blog post: “The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is one of those pieces of law with such a great name that you wonder how anyone could ever have a problem with it”
With a lead-off sentence like this, one can imagine how intrigued I was to state a case for discrimination, or more specifically, the decriminalization of discrimination.

One argument made against the legislation that Manes reproduces in his post is:
“ENDA gives special privileges to homosexuals.”
Now, I can see how people arrive at this idea. Basically, what rights could any group have if all people are created as equal? Only individuals have rights, not groups. That should be obvious to anyone. Hence, it is easy to deduce that this legislation must “give” special priveleges to those of a different sexual orientation.

Manes takes the position that the law doesn’t actually “give” anyone anything and it is only protecting people from discrimination. He posits that this is a defense from those who seek to harm people and therefore is a “negative right.” He concludes: “It would be nice if businesses would solve this problem for themselves, but once again, it appears that the only way we can guarantee protection from sexual orientation discrimination is by passing federal legislation.”

Of course, Manes is not upholding the right to freedom of association and the right to private property when advocating such policies. As a business owner it should be my choice about whom to hire or fire. It really is that simple. If a contract is at issue here, then the situation becomes a little more complicated. Discrimination is a matter of judgement. Whether good or bad judgement, in so far as no property rights have been violated, there is no crime. Discrimination on the basis of color, ethnicity, or gender is a vice, it does not make one a criminal.

Manes has stated that: “I believe that we can only solve some problems as a society through the mechanism of government.”

So essentially he and I resemble the tension that exists between individual and collective rights.
I am of the ilk that claims collectivism is slavery. Logic tells me that collective rights are contradictory and only serve to perpetuate issues like racism and other civil rights issues.


Walter Block, “Discrimination: An Interdisciplinary AnalysisThe Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11, 1992, pp. 241-254
[mp3] Walter Block, “A Libertarian Analysis of Law“, Cumberland School of Law, Birmingham, Alabama; January 9, 2008
Lew Rockwell, “The Economics of DiscriminationGeorgia State University School of Law in Atlanta, April 1994

Posted in Current Events, Education, free market, Politics, Rights | Tagged: , , , , , | 6 Comments » needs your input!!!

Posted by Jesse on May 20, 2008

see my updated post on the subject of discrimination here……

actually they seem to get a good number of views, and some posts have many comments.
i have been peppering them with comments though. i’d love to see more input from various people on the subjects and water down some of my own writing. i don’t like to hear the sound of my own voice too often you know!!

but i thought i’d staple my last few comments from kcross’s Let us in! posting.

lifting sanctions might help!!

Salvation by Starvation

everyone knows the american military has far superior morals than ex-burma’s
of course they won’t let us in!! it would no dount become a place of peace and trade!!
December 7, 2005
“A policy that endorses peace over war, trade over sanctions, courtesy over arrogance, and liberty over coercion is in the tradition of the American Constitution and American idealism. It deserves consideration.”

what’s ironic too is that the numbers cited above regarding displaced and dead are in similar comparison to the tragedy in Iraq. And although some are calling for immediate action to take root in Myanmar, the excuse in Iraq is that the situation could get worse if any immediate action is taken…..hmmm…..
interestingly, eric margolis brings up the china connection with reference to the situation in Burma.

(if anyone has been watching the news you have no doubt heard the negative coverage of china, often in parallel with russia. my first thought is NATO)

anyhow, margolis continues :
“This is the kind of operation that America’s armed forces should be doing instead of bombing tribesmen in Afghanistan and Somalia.

However, the Pentagon would very much like to oust Chinese influence from Burma. So would India, China’s Asian rival. The disaster in Burma offers an interesting opportunity to begin loosening the junta’s hold on power and asserting Western influence in a strategic, potentially resource-rich nation that has been in self-isolation from the world since the 1960’s.”

ah yes, gotta love the state…..
And then he went on to define the state, or government, as “the organization of the political means,” i.e., the regularization, legitimation, and permanent establishment of the political means for the acquisition of wealth.

Posted in antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, economy, Education, free market, Politics, republican, Rights, Ron Paul | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ron Paul vs Lobbyists

Posted by Jesse on May 19, 2008

“This is one reason I was so skeptical when friends urged me to run for president. There are far more interest groups lobbying in Washington for special benefits and privileges than most Americans can imagine. I do not oppose just this one or that one. I oppose the whole apparatus, the whole immoral system by which we use government to exploit our fellow citizens on behalf of our own interests. For someone like me to win, there would have to be enough Americans who believed in freedom to be able to offset the combined power of interest groups that have grown accustomed to treating the people as a resource to be drained for private gain. Were there really enough people for that task?”
exceprt from the revolution: a manifesto

Ask yourself…..has anyone been trying to buy your vote with tax dollars lately?

Posted in antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, economy, Education, free market, Politics, republican, Rights, Ron Paul | Leave a Comment »

Policy is the issue. Get deep, not superficial.

Posted by Jesse on May 19, 2008

If we’re willing to consider a different foreign policy, we should ask ourselves a few questions:

January 26, 2005

What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, policing the world, nation building, and spreading our values through force are deeply flawed?

What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction?

What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never allies?

What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to enhance our national security?

What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of our client oil states in the region?

What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq war, and 9% of our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?

What if it turns out there are many more guerrilla fighters in Iraq than our government admits?

What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some claim, and what is an acceptable price for “doing good?”

What if Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and things become worse under a Defense Secretary who demands more troops and an expansion of the war?

What if we discover that, when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis support Islamic (Sharia) law over western secular law, and want our troops removed?

What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq are never asked for their opinion of what should be done now?

What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into three separate regions, recognizing the principle of self-determination while rejecting the artificial boundaries created in 1918 by non-Iraqis?

What if it turns out radical Muslims don’t hate us for our freedoms, but rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs and Muslims?

What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden?

What if we discover that democracy can’t be spread with force of arms?

What if democracy is deeply flawed, and instead we should be talking about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted through persuasion, not force?

What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and occupation of Arab/Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us, and it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?

What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?

What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and their warnings were ignored or denied?

What if the argument that by fighting over there, we won’t have to fight here, is wrong, and the opposite is true?

What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?

What if the principle of pre-emptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, “justified” by current U.S. policy?

What if pre-emptive war and pre-emptive guilt stem from the same flawed policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?

What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally, and turns on us when conditions deteriorate?

What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions that would be used to justify a military response and pre-emptive war against them?

What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails, and ends up fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret – an alliance not achieved even at the height of the Cold War?

What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is deeply flawed?

What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial leads to the total undermining of constitutional protections for American citizens when arrested?

What if we discover the army is too small to continue policies of pre-emption and nation-building?

What if a military draft is the only way to mobilize enough troops?

What if the “stop-loss” program is actually an egregious violation of trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers?

What if it actually is a backdoor draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and women?

Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political leadership running the war?

What if the Pentagon’s legal task-force opinion that the President is not bound by international or federal law regarding torture stands unchallenged, and sets a precedent which ultimately harms Americans, while totally disregarding the moral, practical, and legal arguments against such a policy?

What if the intelligence reform legislation – which gives us bigger, more expensive bureaucracy – doesn’t bolster our security, and distracts us from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?

What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors, and we are losing an unwinnable guerrilla war?

What if we discover, too late, that we can’t afford this war – and that our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a severe economic downturn?

Why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the #1 function of the federal government – to provide for national security – has been severely undermined. On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14 aircraft in place to protect the entire U.S. mainland, all of which proved useless that day. We have an annual DOD budget of over $400 billion, most of which is spent overseas in over 100 different countries. On 9/11 our Air Force was better positioned to protect Seoul, Tokyo, Berlin, and London than it was to protect Washington D.C. and New York City.

Posted in antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, economy, Education, free market, Politics, republican, Rights, Ron Paul | Leave a Comment »