I recently saw a video clip of Michael Moore calling other people’s money “a national resource.” I have to agree that in some cases other people’s money is not truly their own. For example, the wealth of Moore and others who benefit from government privileges, in Moore’s case intellectual property laws, would belong [...]]]>

I recently saw a video clip of Michael Moore calling other people’s money “a national resource.” I have to agree that in some cases other people’s money is not truly their own. For example, the wealth of Moore and others who benefit from government privileges, in Moore’s case intellectual property laws, would belong to others had it not been for the enforcement of arbitrary property claims. The executives of Halliburton and other government contractors benefit enormously from their relationships with politicians.

However, most people are not on the positive end of government privilege, and taxing wealth acquired without the use of government aggression (protections or subsidies) would be theft. Calling taxation theft can sometimes offend people. After all, by alleging that taxation is equivalent to the moral crime of theft, libertarians could be thought of as condemning supporters of taxation, many of whom, including Michael Moore, hold their belief out of an honest moral conviction. For them, not supporting taxation is the height of cruelty.

The purpose for making such a charged statement that taxation is theft (besides being true) is that it challenges conventional political beliefs. It is a contest of values, and libertarians who oppose taxation make this point in order to highlight the inconsistencies in political ideologies. They are demanding some explanation as to why people in governments should be held to different principles than others. Supporters of taxation know this, so they have weaved farcical tales for why taxation is voluntary. Some may call it a social (read: imaginary) contract, which conveys that people residing within a certain geographic territory implicitly agreed to support it. As I will explain below, even if such an explicit contract existed, it would give no credence for taxation.

From what I recall, there are at least six explanations as to why taxation is theft (extortion more precisely). These explanations are often fused together in some arrangement or another, and some are simply incompatible with one another. I do not happen to agree with every one, but I wanted to offer a complete array of moral arguments against the support for taxation. Before I begin, I will note that contemporary argument that an individual consents to the social contract or constitution simply by remaining within a territory or accepting services presupposes what it is trying to prove, that the social contract or constitution is legitimate, the very thing in question. It is a circular, invalid argument.

1. Taxation is founded on the belief that the exercise of an inalienable right is a privilege, a self-contradiction. People who refused to remit taxes for performing a particular right (e.g. owning property or earning an income) would no longer be able to exercise that right without coercion being enacted upon them, which would undermine from the outset the stated purpose of forming a government. If an implicit contract or written constitution did exist that permitted taxation, it would be unexecutable and invalid from the beginning since one’s (inalienable) natural rights cannot be suspended, making the contract unexecutable and thus void. In a previous post, I explained why I believe rights are inalienable for the fact that free will, a basis for the formation of rights, is inalienable. One way to think of inalienability is that rights are in effect moral obligations on others to refrain from using force against someone. That moral obligation is not for another to give away, so signing away one’s inalienable rights is a self-contradiction. A contract to give up one’s inalienable rights could at most be seen as a (non-binding) promise, just as a slave contract would be.
2. The central tenet of government, the final decision-making authority to resolve disputes within a territory, is illegitimate, nullifying the legitimacy of government altogether, let alone the power to tax.
3. Taxation is premised on the claim that the item being taxed is the property of the state or society, as Michael Moore believes. The reason someone might reject that idea is because governments or societies have no rights over citizens; legitimate governments act by permission (which can be revoked), not by right, and nor for that matter could voters grant permission to someone else’s property; therefore, government would never be justified in using coercion to extract payment for taxes. Similarly how a power of attorney can sign contracts on behalf of a client, an agent (the government) is under the authority of its principals (the citizens).
4. Without the liberty to refuse to consent, expressing consent is impossible. So by preventing the option of withdraw by means of secession, it is not possible to express consent to delegate any powers to government.
5. Almost all governments in existence came about by exploiting the existing property claims of land owners, and those who did explicitly consent are no longer alive.
6. Anarchists who adopt the occupancy-and-use theory of land tenure reject the enforcement of rents, which would include taxes, against people in possession and use of a property.

In light of all this, many still defended taxation on the basis that a tax is the fee that must be paid for government services. But this is fallacious. Existing ways that services are provided for include borrowing funds and counterfeiting the government-mandated currency. From a libertarian perspective, taxes could be coerced from people who acquired their wealth by ill-gotten means like government aggression, but only if the taxes were paid to victims as direct payments whenever possible or as services otherwise. For as long as a government did exist, it would not have to be limited to raising revenue by issuing taxes. It could just as well sell off assets, charge user fees for performing services customers ordered (assuming there were no monopoly privileges in place) or just ask for donations.

Even if the handful of above objections were overcame, taxes are demanded whether a service is provided or not. It is true that governments do provide services, but they do so out of concern for maintaining popular support, not because there is any legal obligation to do so. In a voluntary transaction, a buyer is entitled to a refund if the service fails to be provided accordingly, which is plainly not the case with government.

In the above post, I gave six explanations as to why taxation might be considered immoral and unworthy of support. I also rebutted the idea that taxes are owed for the performance of government services, which is usually the final objection raised by tax supporters. In many ways, taxation is worse than extortion. When people have wealth taken from them without their consent, that is likely the last time the thief will harass them. But taxation is altogether more insidious. As Lysander Spooner said:

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these.

Obama expressed that the “people of Egypt have rights that are universal.” Later, he added, “Violence will not address the grievances of the Egyptian people. And suppressing ideas [...]]]> Concerning the protests against then-Egyptian ruler Hosni Mubarak, Barack Obama released a supportive statement on Jan. 28 addressing the popular revolt that eventually led to Mubarak’s ousting.

Obama expressed that the “people of Egypt have rights that are universal.” Later, he added, “Violence will not address the grievances of the Egyptian people. And suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.” The goal, as he saw it, was to erect an open, democratic government that enabled Egyptians to govern themselves. How he concluded his statement is what interested me. He said that “all governments must maintain power through consent, not coercion.”

In one respect, I understand the point he was making. That is, in the long run, government power relies on the acquiescence of the vast majority. In Egypt, enough people were willing to raise a fuss. An insight made by Etienne de la Boetie in “The Politics of Obedience” is that revolution does not require that anyone “place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer.”

My objection to Obama’s statement, and to the general notion of a just government resting on consent, is that one cannot consent to a government. My thinking is two-fold.

First, consent can only be granted if the agent responsible for granting consent had a choice. Some people say that everyone in the United States is free to leave, so anyone remaining within a particular geo-political landmass has consented to the government in place.

Now, I concede that being able to leave is one necessary but not sufficient aspect of choice. Even that, however, is not entirely respected. High-income earners who choose to expatriate are still required to pay taxes for up to 10 years after leaving the United States.

Another method of leaving (or withdrawing) that must be respected is secession. A statist might argue that there has to be some fine or penalty for reneging on a contract. Even so, those would have to spelled out in a written contract to be binding, which a wordless (and therefore thoughtless) implicit social contract cannot be. Lysander Spooner said, “To call such a contract a ‘constitution,’ or by any other high-sounding name, does not alter its character as an absurd and void contract.”

Theorists like John Locke might also argue that the merest participation in a governed society is a performative act of consent. But, again, this fails because there is no free choice to participate or not, just as a person imprisoned at the bottom of a well does not consent to his or her capture by accepting tokens of food.

Seeing how the government would (inferrably based on prior incidents) oppose attempts at individual secession, individual consent is impossible. If individuals cannot consent, a society, which consists only of individuals, cannot consent either.

The second point is an ontological claim that consent to government, as a matter of fact, is impossible. Ontology has to do with the empirical study of the nature of things in existence.

In a recent post, I explained why my understanding of the principle of rights does not naturally allow for the central tenet of government, the coercive enforcement of its ultimate decision-making authority to resolve disputes, to be logically construed. A contract for individuals to grant such a power to government would also be invalid.

It has to do with inalienability of rights. Free will is indivisible — all or nothing — and inalienable. To act on one’s will is the essential feature of the right to life, the fundamental of all corollary rights. Had someone made a contract for a transfer of will, the contract would not be executable and is thus groundless and unenforceable. For the sake of argument, were a contract to transfer one’s will executable, the slave would have no means of discerning when an order to act was given (having no will on which to act) and no obligation to follow those orders. The idea of alienable rights is ridiculous from top to bottom.

Were I even to agree with the statement from the Declaration of Independence that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” it just so happens that as a practical concern and a philosophical one, no consent has or could have been given. The only just powers of government, then, are none at all.

So what should chaining ourselves to a 220-plus-year-old political compromise between Northern protectionist merchants [...]]]> The constitution was written by men over 200 years ago to reflect their own interests at the time. Along with a deeper understanding of the natural world, people today have different interests and different values (along with not being sexist racists).

So what should chaining ourselves to a 220-plus-year-old political compromise between Northern protectionist merchants and Southern slave owners have to do with achieving freedom?

Since government, as popularly constructed, is given the sole discretion of interpreting and enforcing the law, even in conflicts between [...]]]> If authority is the willingness and ability to command obedience to one’s will, authoritarianism would be a belief that someone is superior in some manner (ethically, politically, ect.) because he or she has such authority.

Since government, as popularly constructed, is given the sole discretion of interpreting and enforcing the law, even in conflicts between the government and an individual, a government of limited constitutional powers is still authoritarian by nature.

In many cases, authority is based in aggression. But that is not necessarily always true. Widespread racism and sexism, for example, enforced through rightful private property claims could also constitute instances of authoritarianism. Some forms of indoctrination could manifest non-aggressive means of gaining authority over others as well.

In a society of widespread authoritarianism, liberty would have very little substance. Even if we achieved a libertarian society, it would be short-lived if the prevailing notion about the non-aggressive authority that can be held over others were left unchallenged.

Conservatives are getting into a big huff about Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein telling the truth about the United States Constitution. For all the talk about the constitution clearly setting forth limited, enumerated powers for the central government, that is hardly the case.

As some people would like to think the framers of the [...]]]>

Conservatives are getting into a big huff about Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein telling the truth about the United States Constitution. For all the talk about the constitution clearly setting forth limited, enumerated powers for the central government, that is hardly the case.

As some people would like to think the framers of the constitution favored smaller government, their actions say otherwise. Legal tender laws, the granting of patents and infrastructure subsidies were all part of the original deal. After all, the reason for abandoning the Articles of Confederation was because they did not think the government was powerful enough. They were traitors to the Revolution.

Now I do happen to believe that some the Federalists (like John Adams) intended to delegate only select powers, but intent is not good enough. There are all sorts of loopholes, from the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause and even the taxing power. The fact remains that there was never a consistent interpretation even among the Federalists as to what the centrals government’s powers would entail.

It would not have mattered if there was a consensus then or now. Laws and constitutions do not enforce themselves. Once approved, they fall under the domain of those who enforce it, and they are going to enforce laws in a manner that serves their ends. Laws and constitutions also do not interpret themselves, so the same problem ensues.

When it comes down to it, Kevin Carson said, “Law isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.”

In her own way, commentator Diana Wong [above] made some good points about Rand Paul. [Note: I encourage everyone first to watch to the video, which was also uploaded to YouTube; otherwise, this response might not make sense. The title for the video apparently comes from another video posted by Lyndon LaRouche [...]]]>

In her own way, commentator Diana Wong [above] made some good points about Rand Paul. [Note: I encourage everyone first to watch to the video, which was also uploaded to YouTube; otherwise, this response might not make sense. The title for the video apparently comes from another video posted by Lyndon LaRouche supporters that laughably claims Barack Obama is a supporter of the Austrian school of economics.]

Wanting to privatize Social Security, if that indeed is Paul’s position, would be a complete boondoggle on behalf of the politically connected who would manage the program and serve to centralize wealth into corporate hands more so than it already is. Often times, governments create dependency on their programs or crowd out alternatives from springing up, so it is not as easy as saying that the welfare rolls should be dropped immediately. I have said before that my problem with government welfare is not the welfare, in and of itself, but the means by which it is funded. A more fruitful and politically expedient solution might be to offer alternative funding sources that do not violate the rights of others.

Wong recognizes that indeed the Austrian school of economics is a threat to the existing American system of political economy, and so it could be characterized as anti-American in the same sense it is anti-Canadian, anti-French, anti-Russian, and so forth. Principally, it is individualistic and peaceful, everything government is not. Characteristic of Lyndon LaRouche and his supporters, Wong’s modus operandi is to call someone a fascist. LaRouche called Paul “virtually an animal” and a “strict fascist, no question about it. And he has to be taken out of office, or neutralized” for his “Hitler-like policy.”

The ironic thing is that LaRouchites are closer adherents to anti-austerity Keynesianism, which John Maynard Keynes, though not a socialist himself, acknowledged is “more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of free competition and a lance measure of laissez-faire.” In addition, Ludwig von Mises, who was Jewish and a pillar of the Austrian school, was hunted by the Nazi out of Europe. That is why he moved to America.

I cannot speak to the “physical breakdown crisis” since I do not know what that is, and only the most vulgar Austrian thinkers who hold to private property universal absolutism would tolerate anything like free-market feudalism. I also do not know what was meant by the vague reference to Hayek denouncing the Renaissance. In “The Road to Serfdom,” he praised the Renaissance for its development of individualism, which he said was responsible for “the respect for the individual man qua man.” After all, the American-inspired constitutionalism that Hayek favored was an offspring of that time.

I know for sure that “The Counter-Revolution of Science” was completely misrepresented in the video. Hayek’s point was to criticize economic positivism and scientism (in the strong sense), not that “individuals are incapable of scientific discovery,” as the video claims. He was making an epistemological criticism, not a metaphysical one. In that way, Hayek was driving a Kantian model that empirical objects depend (to some degree) on a priori knowledge derived beforehand.

Hayek, correctly I think, rejected the view that human beings are ordered about as molecules are in the natural sciences, which was thought to give license to the state to begin treating society like a lab experiment. Murray Rothbard said, “[I]t is the essence of human beings that they have goals and purposes, and that they try to achieve those goals. Stones, atoms, planets, have no goals or preferences; hence, they do not choose among alternative courses of action.” As Rothbard pointed out, people are capable of learning, of changing their mind to pursue different values, including none at all.

Frederic Bastiat highlights this point in “The Law.” He said:

It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator’s genius. … To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.

Alas, I would have more solidarity with Wong if she were not so openly pandering on behalf of institutionalized state violence.

I knew there would be a fair share of Republicans hitching [...]]]> I attended the Wake Up America Tea Party in Fort Worth on Saturday as part of a nationwide tea party event. While volunteering at the Campaign for Liberty booth, I got a lot of positive reaction talking with attendees about conventional constitutional ideals.

I knew there would be a fair share of Republicans hitching onto the liberty message, so I thought it was important to present a more comprehensive small-government message, even if I do not subscribe to those views myself. Mostly, I emphasized the importance of decentralizing political power and scaling back American foreign policy.

I was there with Debbie McKee, the CFL state coordinator in Texas, and her daughter Adrienne. Our most popular item was CFL’s newly released pocket constitution that included the Declaration of Independence and the Kentucky and Virginia nullification resolutions written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively.

A few people scoffed when the saw Ron Paul’s Revolution or End the Fed on our table. We also had Bruce Fein’s new book American Empire. (I have not read Fein’s book, but here is an interview with Scott Horton on Anti-War Radio.) However, many more I spoke with expressed that they thought the government’s belligerent foreign policy was doing more harm than good.

The most talked-about speakers were Bridgette Gabriel, who preached the dangers of “Islamic supremacism,” and conservative commentator Ann Coulter. They received the loudest applause lines I heard from the booth outside the auditorium. From a post on “The Whited Sepulchre,” Gabriel asked all the military veterans to stand and take an applause, which garnered a thunderous applause. The veterans obediently remained standing well into her speech.

Debra Medina, the founder of We Texans, spoke of the declining freedom in Texas. She said that Texas has went from a top-10 state in terms of economic freedoms and has fallen 23 spots to 31st in the nation since Rick Perry has been in governor’s office. Despite an impressive showing against establishment candidates in the Texas Republican gubernatorial primary, Medina had a distinctly less friendly reception because she highlighted that conservative rhetoric does not match the empirical evidence of a decade of Republican rule in Texas.

A few minutes before I was planning to leave, a man who described himself to me as a “constitutional conservative” wandered to the CFL booth and said he did not want to listen to Coulter. I gave a sympathetic nod. He said that he wanted nothing do with the Coulter and went on the explain that she attends meetings with pro gay-rights groups. That, he said, was unacceptable.

He talked about the source of this information, and how a website had been tracking Coulter for the past 18 months. As I recall, he went on to say “There is no place in the Republican Party for homosexuals or anybody with them.” From my reading of the state party platform, he is probably right. I guess he felt comfortable confiding this nugget of bigotry with those of us at the booth.

I kindly asked if he supported making it illegal to practice homosexuality. Without hesitating, he said he would and that it already is according to the Bible. I asked, then “would you think that all sins should be made illegal under political government?” So I asked about divorce. I went on the say that the Bible calls divorce a sin, and I asked if he thought it should be illegal too.

He danced around the question, so I asked again. He said that couples who have underwent counseling before marriage and before splitting up should be allowed to divorce on the condition that they would forfeit custody of their children to already-married couples.

After some prompting, he reiterated that the Republican Party was a party for Christians only, and that I would have to do some “soul searching” before becoming a genuine Republican, which I have no desire of becoming anyway. He said I should become a Democrat instead. I didn’t bother telling him, but neither sound that appealing. I should have told him, “Fuck You (Very Much).”

Completely devoid of historical evidence, he then went on to explain for a second time that libertarianism and socialism were spawned by Karl Marx in “his communist books” and the political environment of revolutionary France.

Tea Party Reflections

The tea party has no founding principles on which the movement is based, and most of its grassroots members are political newcomers who have a deep-seeded resentment for the direction that the country is going. It does not take long to realize that the government has been royally screwing up, and not just for the last 20 months.

Originally, the tea party movement was focused on excessive government spending as a reaction to the bailouts of the same large financial bodies that enabled the current economic collapse. The loudest voices were crying “Socialism” when Barack Obama was just adding to the same policies of his predecessor. Even still, so long as the movement was a reaction to fiscal mismanagement, there was some possibility that it would affect positive policy changes. But more and more, the tea party has less to do with battling run-away spending than it does with embracing cultural conservatism. The undertones of the currently embodied movement are based in the fears of white Christians of losing political power, fear that the same government many white Christians have exploited to their own advantage will be turned against them. “To take back our country.” That is the root cause for the present wave of backlash against Muslims and immigrants.

A poll [PDF] published in March from the University of Washington said that those who strongly support the tea party had more hostile views of gays, racial minorities and immigrants. On average, tea party supporters consistently thought less of the intelligence, trustworthiness and work ethic of blacks and Latinos than did the average Republicans. In a separate poll [PDF], and for all their talk about liberty, supporters of the tea party were far more likely to favor indefinite detention without trial of anyone accused of a crime, less privacy, and racial profiling. They were also less supportive of equal rights.

Even for the self-described constitutional conservative I talked with, he was more than willing to set aside any pretence of a modern society for an opportunity to enforce his morality on peaceful people. The momentum I witnessed Saturday will springboard into big electoral gains for Republicans, including many of the same responsible for this mess, in the mid-term elections. It will not amount to many policy changes for more liberty. No major tea party candidate is calling for cuts to any of the largest expenditures, not the military empire nor entitlement programs like Social Security.

It is a sad reality, but the ditching of any libertarian sentiments is inevitable so long as tea partiers are concerned with gaining the reins of power instead of abolishing that power altogether.

For me, the least impactful line of argument I would think is the constitutional argument. That so [...]]]> For context, I have written before why libertarians, and particularly libertarians committed to small government, should support open immigration as a matter of principle. Further, I have given a consequentialist argument for open immigration and what that entails.

For me, the least impactful line of argument I would think is the constitutional argument. That so many constitutionalists nevertheless support uniform immigration restrictions demonstrates how meaningless the constitution is if its most ardent defenders conveniently pervert it so far from the original meaning.

As an Implied Power

A common line is that the Naturalization Clause, which gives the legislature the power to make a uniform process of becoming a citizen, implies the power to regulate immigration in context with the Necessary and Proper Clause.

That is an interesting idea, and it would have been worth mentioning by the Federalists since immigration had been under the domain of the states during the existing constitution. Yet, the framers who supported the constitution never so much as hinted at that idea during ratification. In fact, “Agrippa,” the Anti-Federalist who is supposed to be John Winthrop, lamented that congress would have no such power under the then-proposed constitution.

It was not until 1875, after congress had passed four separate naturalization bills, did the Supreme Court discover the new-found power to control immigration.

As a Protection from Invasion

Further in Article 1, Section 8, congress is also given the power to summon the militia to “repel Invasions.” This line of argument has been given by Ron Paul and other less distasteful politicians as a reason to resist open immigration.

For this to be true, we would need to look at the meaning of the word “invasion” at the time of ratification. The widely circulated Johnson’s Dictionary defined an invasion as “a hostile entrance, an attack.”

I have defended extending open immigration, at a minimum, to peaceful, honest people. Obviously, that would exclude violent criminals who have not offered restitution for their crimes. With that said, peaceful, honest people entering the country to better their lives should not fall within the scope of “a hostile entrance” by any means.

As a Limit on Slavery

I do not encounter this argument often, but the constitution does provide for the prohibition of “Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit” after to 1808 in the 13 original states. Ironically, this was meant as a check on congressional power to control the importation of slaves.

In all other cases, immigration control should be reserved for the states, according to the constitution. However, as a practical matter, any federal immigration controls like that would break down under political pressure within a generation, so soon enough all the states would be setting their own policy. After all, it is unlikely that the other 37 states would be willing to pay for the immigration enforcement of others states.

Lessons from History

Mary Ruwart once wrote, “We reap as we sow. In trying to control others, we find ourselves controlled. We point fingers at the dictators, the Communists, the politicians, and the international cartels. We are blithely unaware that our desire to control selfish others creates and sustains them.”

The decentralization of power is a good thing. For one, it would slow plans for this New World Order that so many constitutionalists tell me about. The expansion of immigration controls follow closely with the expansion of government power in general.

For the most part, peaceful, honest foreigners are trying to escape exploitation so they might live somewhere they do not have to get permission to create wealth. It is a false choice to have to choose between our own happiness and abundance and that of others. All interests are served by practicing non-aggression. By refusing to aggress against others, the special interest groups and politicians in government have no authority over of us.

Last week, Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan, the White House’s solicitor general, was being questioned by Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) about natural rights.

The day before, he had unsuccessfully tried to get Kagan to concede that the constitution’s Commerce Clause does not give government the power [...]]]> It is frustrating having politicians talk about rights.

Last week, Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan, the White House’s solicitor general, was being questioned by Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) about natural rights.

The day before, he had unsuccessfully tried to get Kagan to concede that the constitution’s Commerce Clause does not give government the power to mandate by force (“Law is force,” Bastiat said) that Americans must consume fruits and vegetables. Kagan, by the way, never answered definitively but seems to say that non-economic activity, which presumably means eating, falls outside the scope of federal powers. Yet, in the case of marijuana, just possessing the substance was considered a commercial activity if the law were part of a larger regulatory (control) framework. So a stand-alone law mandating everyone in America eat their veggies would be unconstitutional, but if it were part of a national health care initiative, it is probably a go.

In his follow-up questions the next day, Coburn asked if self-defense was a natural right pre-existing the constitution. Kagan’s response was revealing. According to a CNN transcript, she said,”Senator Coburn, I believe that the Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I’m not saying I do not believe that there are rights pre-existing the Constitution and the laws. But my job as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws.”

I am not defending the constitution by any means, nor do I expect the government to abide by its own rules and laws. However, it should be pointed out when government people do not live up to their own rules. Kagan is directly in conflict with the ninth amendment of the Bill of Rights, which states that “the people” possess other rights not previously enumerated. Famously, the founders said that we are endowed “with certain unalienable rights …. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” For Kagan to say “I don’t have a view of what are natural rights, independent of the Constitution” means she is completely unfit by the government’s own standards to serve on the Supreme Court.

I cannot just fault Kagan. Though widespread, the idea that government should exist to defend our liberty and property is already completely contradictory. Government systematically assaults our liberty and property. From “all men are created equal” to “Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes” signals a complete defiance of inalienable rights and the natural law of equal liberty. Taxation is modeled on the idea of paying royalties for the privilege of engaging in commerce, owning property or earning a living.

I am aware Kagan is all but guaranteed to be confirmed. She will be one of nine people who ultimately interpret what the constitution means. So when it comes down to it, the rule of law is still the rule of men (and three women). But through indoctrination and guilt-laden propaganda, people have come to accept and embrace the authority over them. The whole show — the law, the authority and, ultimately, the government — are just manifestations of bad ideas.

Ideas fuel fear and avarice. You cannot shoot an idea or dynamite a myth. They are invincible to violence, even self-defense. Luckily, ideas also fuel truth and beauty.

Liberty supporters are at a distinct advantage though. Lies require constant supervision and constant maintenance. Lies must be heaped upon lies. Truth and beauty stand on their own. Like scientists, philosophers and intellectuals must transmit their discoveries if their work is to have any value. In business, that is the role of the entrepreneur, to turn concepts into consumables. For truth and beauty to have any power, they too must be communicated and acted upon to be made real. They must be practiced. That is the most admirable role of the liberty activist. That is how we will get our certainty and our freedom now, by living it.

In the video (above), I was returning home from a day of political activism in Dallas a few weekends ago, when I was met by a census worker at the location at which I was present. We had an interesting conversation. Without any provocation, he talked about the proverbial gun in [...]]]>

In the video (above), I was returning home from a day of political activism in Dallas a few weekends ago, when I was met by a census worker at the location at which I was present. We had an interesting conversation. Without any provocation, he talked about the proverbial gun in the room and said that I was compelled to answer his questions. He did not believe that compulsion was made by the threat of force, however, because he did not have the police in the driveway. I think I answered that OK, but I need to better expose the violence behind him nonetheless. Looking back, that is a point I should have continued to harp on.

I mostly asked questions about my “legal” obligations and the consequences for not participating in the census. One question I was meaning to ask is what the legal obligation the federal government had to me.

(For privacy reasons, I removed mention of the street address from the beginning of the video.)