Posts Tagged ‘Capitalism’

The Nigel Farage-Nick Clegg Debate No. 2 on the EU: Deutschland Uber England

April 4, 2014

The second of the Farage-Clegg debates, this one sponsored by the BBC, was concluded less than a day ago, and the blood has been mopped up.

This second debate replayed many of the elements of the first, but the post debate polling, which had given the first debate to Farage 58%-36%, gave him this one also, but at 69%-28%.

While both these politicians seemed like scumbags in their own particular ways, Silverwolf would have to concur with the polls, not only in Farage’s debating execution, but also in a general sympathy with many of Farage’s views, while at the same time differing with him on several points in which Silverwolf agreed with Clegg.

We think this debate is quite prescient in illustrating what is going to happen in Western politics, and we think this will follow similar patterns in many societies. Thus, these two debates were quite significant precursers of future political trends.

Nick Clegg sounded very much like the Democrats in America, losing ground, and desperately trying to talk themselves out of a hole, while using inaccurate, legalistic language. Like Clinton’s legal deposition, and Obama’s “If you like your insurance, you can keep it”, Clegg’s assertion than only 7% of British legislation originated in Brussels as per a House of Commons report, was an legalistic lie. Farage then quoted from the same report as saying that an estimated 50% of all British legislation originated in Brussels, and then Clegg had to amend his lie by saying that 7% of all “primary” legislation originated there — that shows what an obfuscating liar Clegg is, and the usual worthless scumbag politician. He also went down the line, hitting all the correct issue buttons and catchphrases which the scientific brainwashing propagandists have told him win votes. It was sickening to see him mouth the same phrases, over and over, the same arguments over and over, and it’s no wonder that he lost. He is the Tony Blair clone, and dares to call himself a Liberal, when all he wants is more power for the mega-corporations, and having Englishmen slave for these foreign-owned companies, while anything the workers accumulate in what Clegg had the audacity to call “hard cash” is inflated away at whim by the Western central banks whenever the corporations call them on the carpet. Inflation keeps people slaving away all over the world; it is one of the chief tools of the collectivists for making sure that people never get out of their poverty, or economic rut.

Clegg had the audacity to say that it was all about “jobs, jobs, jobs,”, but the true aim of the free-market capitalist would be a society in which there was vast leisure, and people didn’t have to do these mind-deadening jobs, 40 hours a week. In a truly Capitalist society, with the Individual always placed above the Corporation, most people would be affluent, and would usually only work when they had the inclination. And they would have that inclination, not only for the remunerative rewards, but also because they enjoyed doing the work.

Such a truly Capitalist society would actually be the fulfillment of the oft quoted goal of the Communists: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. This is exactly what would quickly result in a few generations at most in a truly free-market Capitalist society, with a Jeffersonian-Bill of Rights, and a Republic or Parliamentary Democracy with democratic elections to choose the representatives, and a rigorous separation of Church and State. Such a radically free society, the epitome of Classical Liberalism, or Libertarianism as it is now called, would bring about, paradoxically, a society very close to the Communist’s ideal, and would result in a vast increase in human happiness, as well as a vast decrease in mankind’s misery.

Another very weak point for Clegg was Farage’s production of a Clegg flyer from 2008 saying that he was then in favor of a referendum, but now he was against it, and that original promise had never been fulfilled. Clegg tried to make a case why a Democratic Referendum being put to the British voters was a bad idea right now. (And here he pulled the “our economy is so fragile and just recovering and this would be dangerous” argument while earlier he’d been touting all the wonderful economic benefits that EU membership has brought Britain. Man, do these goons readily think the public is that stupid, that they can’t see the lying words, and the absurd arguments, like a bad lawyer trying to defend a weak case?)

When it came to Farage’s weaknesses, it was his arguments against “involvement” in Syria, as if carpet bombing Assad’s government buildings would have involved British boots on the ground, and the little smile Farage gave when Clegg quoted Farage’s quote on Putin playing Syria masterfully, as if it were a game, showed that Farage is an immoralist too. And to say that Libya would be better under a Li’l Hitler like Moammar Ghadaffi, a Mass Murderer, a Mass Torturer, and a War Criminal (napalm in Chad), than it now is shows that Farage, like Clegg, is also an immoral scumbag. Nor was Silverwolf enamoured with Farage’s enthusiasm for fracking and nuclear energy, or his denial of global warming, which seems pretty self-evidently true from the erratic weather patterns and droughts, and increase in ferocity of typhoons and tornadoes. Global warming may not exist, but it would be prudent to act as if it did exist, rather than do irreversible harm by continuing to ignore it. But look at the lying and hypocritical Obama Administration. While Kerry is wailing about innaction on global warming, Democrat Senators Wyden and Merkley, as well as Liberal Democrat Peter DeFazio are all braying for a vast expansion in logging in the Oregon forests, what is left of them. Solar energy is obviously man’s ultimate solution, the problem of disposal of nuclear waste still not being satisfactorily solved, and sunlight being as abundant and free as air.

 Clegg, for his part was wrong on the Ukraine, where he echoes the Orwellian Newspeak of the West, ignoring the fact that this was a democratically-elected government overthrown by violent mobs which have installed two Nazi parties, Pravy Sektor and Svoboda, in power on the border of Russia. Farage took exactly the correct position on this issue, and said he could well understand why Putin has acted like he has, and why he feels threatened, given the recent words of NATO leaders and Ukraine’s Nazi government.

Clegg’s argument that Britain has more clout being in the EU than it has out was one of his weakest arguments, along with his opposition to a democratic referendum on the issue.  An opposition he shares with PM Cameron of the Conservatives, and MP Milliband, head of the Labour Party,  — all of whom oppose giving the British electorate a democratic chance to state their views via a referendum. Perhaps that was Clegg’s feeblest argument of the whole debate. (And it is interesting that Milliband has asked that Farage be banned from the TV debates in the upcoming elections. Those Leftists love censorship, despite their claims of loving free speech and democracy.)

Clegg made a big show of saying, yes, the British should and, he promised, would vote by referendum on any changes in EU laws, but then Farage pointed out that new laws and regulations are made almost weekly, and that the British haven’t voted by referendum on in EU in over 40 years. This made Clegg’s promise seem very hollow indeed.

Clegg also made a royal lie when he claimed that Farage had said that 400-plus million EU workers would flood Britain, while Farage had clearly said that they could, he never said they would. He merely said that, under current EU rules, they would be able to. This is the type of cheap shot that destroys a politician’s credibility.

There were two more sickening and subtle lies these politicians put forth in there delivery: one for each of them.

Clegg has this collectivist way of saying “we” and “us” when he refers to the wealth of the whole country, but when a stock-owner of a foreign corporation takes a dividend out of British industry, how does that benefit the charwoman? These collectivist’s “we”s and “us”es are used by American and British politicians to refer to the entire society, but the only reality you have of America or Britain is the everyday experiences you live through, the specific people you meet and interact with, and your relationship with them, and the place you live in and the surroundings. These are “you”, not some fictious “we” when the politician says “we are stronger for being in the EU” or similar lying generalities. That generality is not a reality, but the purchasing power of the charwoman’s hourly wage is, to her. She could care less about Britain’s balance of trade, or getting rid of roaming charges for the bourgeoisie tourists who go to Europe, when she can barely afford bus fare to and from work. When politicians say “we” and “us” in refering to the economy, run from them.

Farage’s big lie was on the function of government, which he put as some vague increasing of opportunities. Pure pablum, and way off base. You’d think that a British politician would know better, but things must have gone way down in Old Blighty since the days of Cromwell and the Glorious Revolution. Libertarians know that government has one fundamental function: the defence of property rights, which includes your body, and the defence of the Jeffersonian Bill of Rights and your inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which in earlier documents was termed “property”. (Jefferson had the insight to see that the only real use of property was the pursuit of happiness, and that varied with each individual.) Moreover, the Libertarian has one core axiom to measure any political proposal: the non-aggression axiom which states that no man or group of men may aggress against the property rights of any individual.

Incidentally, it is interesting to speculate that, while England fought a ferocious war for survival against the German Nazis of WW II, they could now be legally invaded by tens of millions of Germans, and not be able to say a word agin it. So much for British Sovereignty. Deutschland Uber England may be the slogan of the future if Clegg gets his druthers.

We’d guess these debates will go a long way to strengthen Farage’s political position, and the positions of politicians who parrot his views. These views are on the rise, and as he correctly pointed out, the failures of Euro-collectivism are leading to more and more extremism from Nazis and other, economically-starved masses. Jeffersonian free-markets lead to true Liberalism; Clegg’s brand of “Liberalism”, which is its opposite in reality, leads to political extremism and Fascism. You can see it in Greece, in Hungary, and in Ukraine. Western governments, like Obama’s and Cameron’s, and their collaborating “opposition” parties, are losing ground with the public, who now get to hear clearly stated real opposition.

While both Clegg and Farage are propagandists and liars, it is clear from the debate results poll in whom the public places more credence.

Hooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Advertisements

Arizona’s SB 1062: Here Come the Racists

February 25, 2014

Arizona’s SB 1062 is an unlawful, and probably unConstitutional, Racist attempt to overthrow the laws of the United States, which forbid discriminating in business based on race, color, creed, etc. and now so-called sexual orientation.

Now, Silverwolf discussed in detail in his blog, “Is It Constitutional in America to Discriminate in a Business?: An Internal Debate”, https://lobobreed.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/is-it-legal-in-america-to-discriminate-in-a-business-an-internal-debate/, whether it was Consitutional and/or legal to discriminate in business, and he went through an entire series of arguments and counter=arguments with himself, finally arriving at the conclusion that it was indeed illegal. Why?

It is illegal simply because businesses advertise their products priced in U.S. dollars, that is, Federal Reserve Notes. Now, it says on those notes that they are legal tender for all debts, public and private, and thus, if someone operates a business, and offers a good or service priced in U.S. dollars, then they must accept your legal tender note, since the government has promised you already that such a note is legal tender for any private debt, which is the price of the goods or service. Thus, the seller would be forced to accept these notes if he has offered goods or services to the public, either by being open for business, placing his prices in his windows or attached to the items in the store, or advertising them in the media. They are publicly offered debts, and in a real sense, that person has offered a contract to all comers that he will trade his good or service for their Federal Reserve Notes. To refuse to serve them would be to Violate a Contract, which is a Crime in both theoretical Libertarian doctrine and actual U.S. Law. This would be true even if the note was an old Silver or Gold Certificate note, backed by precious metal. (However, if the person paid in Silver or Gold Coinage, then they might well be able to discriminate, but that is another legal discussion, and here we are dealing solely with Federal Reserve Notes. But we’re certain, given the “dedication” and religous purity of these people who don’t want to do business with Gays, that if they were running a Restaurant that served $300 dinners, and a Gay wanted to purchase a dinner and pay his bill in $20 Gold pieces or Silver Dollars, that they would steadfastly refuse them service — that’s how religiously dedicated and pure they are.And we’re sure that if they suddenly needed emergency medical assistance and were rushed to a doctor, and the doctor was a Muslim, and refused on religious grounds to treat, or even touch, the sinful flesh of any non-Muslim, that they would understand, and respect his Religious Liberties, and die quickly.)

Now the so-called Conservative Group that is advocating this anti-Capitalist Law, the Center for Arizona Policy, states “SB 1062 seeks to ensure that state laws that violate the religious liberties of private persons cannot be enforced simply because the government is not technically a party to the case.”

But that “the government is not technically a party to the case” is precisely a big whopping Lie, as we have illustrated above. The Federal goverment is a party to the case, because it says on the Federal Reserve Note that the Federal government says this is a legal tender note that can be used to service any private debt anywhere in America, regardless of in what State, and the seller of the goods or service is refusing to accept what the Federal government has ordered him to accept if he is going to price his goods and services in U.S. Dollars. So the government is right in the midst of the trade, and is thus very clearly a party to the case. The contract they promised to the bearer was violated by the seller, and thus the seller must be punished under Law.

Now, if the seller could price his goods or services in, say, Swiss Francs or conch shells or ounces of tea, then perhaps the seller might be able to legally discriminate in his business, but this again is a different political theory question, and alternate currencies are viewed with askance by the U.S. Treasury and the government, although in a Libertarian Free-Market Society we should be able to price or purchase items in whatever currencies we, the buyer and seller, can agree on. If we think the Zimbabwean Shilling is sounder than the U.S. Dollar, then we should, in a Libertarian Society, be able to conduct our Free Market in whatever currency we choose. That would be a truly Free Market, and will come in the Future. But, here and now in America, if you price something in U.S. Dollars, and publicly advertise it, the buyer should be able to settle the debt in U.S. Dollars, whomever they are, and the government must guarantee that reality.

And finally, if your religous liberties make it impossible for you to conduct your business in America in Federal Reserve Notes, as under current law, then you’re always free to not start a business that will violate those liberties, and your always free to seek your living in some other manner, or starve to death. (Oh, we forgot, there are food stamps even for Racists, paid for by some poor Black working stiff.)

This Bill is nothing but a Communist-Racist attempt to instill that Ol’ Southern Segregation in the midst of Arizona.The Governor of Arizona should lob a big lunger of Libertarian Free Market Spit on this unAmerican Bill, and veto it.

If the Governor signs the Bill, all Free Market non-Racist Americans should use that grand old Irish Free-Market weapon: the Boycott, and Boycott Arizona. Don’t go there, and don’t buy their products.

If the Governor signs the Bill, then, as they used to say in the ghetto, “Boycott, Baby, Boycott!”

Hooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww — Silverwolf

Fresh Thoughts on Libertarianism

October 5, 2013

Certain ideas about Libertarianism have coalesced in Silverwolf’s mind, and the cats have threatened to go on strike if he doesn’t disclose them to the Public. (Labor Union Coercion!)

First off, Libertarianism is a vast, vast field or ocean, that is just being entered upon. It’s a long way to the other side, before one is debouched into Paradise. So this means that all thinking about the political Philosophy of Libertarianism is in the stage of infancy. It is as if “Democracy” had just come on the scene and was five years old, and every Greek was throwing in his two drachmas as to what it meant and how to define it.

So “Libertarianism” is just beginning, and since it is such a powerful philosophy — this Philosophy of Classical Liberalism — it will have many courtiers claiming that their brand is “His” brand above.

In Silverwolf’s brand of Libertarianism, four ingredients are necessary.

First, Individual Libertarianism must always be put above Corporate so-called Libertarianism, although Libertarianism should not entertain any unnecessary hostility towards Corporations, as long as they obey the Libertarian Non-Aggression Axiom. A share in a Corporation which has value on the open market should be treated just as any other form of private property, although while an individual income tax would be anathema to the Rights delineated in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, a Corporate Income Tax would not necessarily also be, because it taxes a Collective notional Institution, not an Individual.

So first, the Individual’s Rights must always be placed above the so-called rights of a coroporation.

Second, Libertarianism must fight to shore up and defend Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation” between Church and State. Church-State linkages throughout history have been disastrous both for the people and for Free-Market Capitalism, with the exception of the military hardware suppliers. We only have to look today at “religious” regimes throughout the world to see the most despicable forms of tyranny and torture being perpetrated, and to realize that little has changed since the Spanish Inquisition if Organized Religion once gets its bloody paws on the reins of government. Just as Free-Market Capitalist Libertarians call for separation of Business and State, so must they call for and maintain separation of Church and State, and a very strict separation at that.

Finally, while Libertarians believe that unconstitutional governmental laws should be overthrown in a day — laws like the individual income tax, or being forced into a government-run pension or medical-care scheme, or a “national service” involuntary servitude requirement, or the jailing of Americans by the hundreds of thousands for cannabis possession, or forcing Hindus, at the tax collector’s gunpoint, to fork over the fruits of their labor to pay for USDA beef inspections — we know that, given the public’s socialistic, big-government, brainwashing, it will not be so.

Thus, although you’d like to overthrow tyrranical laws in a day, Libertarian’s should probably settle for a gradualist framework for their change, because the American public is essentially conservative, and a conservative is someone who likes moderation. Southern Slavery, one of the Great Human Rights Crimes of recorded history, should have been overthrown in a day, but it took decades to burn its rotten carcass. Thus Libertarians should probably offer five to ten-year phaseouts of government programs like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance or Obamacare, not because we don’t think their injustices should be eliminated immediately, but because such a call would not be accepted by the majority of voters, but a gradual phaseout would be. We also think that maintaining these programs for those Socialists who think they are the greatest thing since Marx would be OK, as long as all the costs and all the liabilities fell completely on the shoulders of the program’s participants.

For example, if the State of California ended its mandatory, forced participation of all workers in the Unemployment Insurance Program, but then maintained a program called “California Unemployment Security Program” in which all costs and liabilities were thrown onto the program’s participants, and not the general taxpayer or anyone working in California, then we wouldn’t really object, although such programs should certainly not be within the pale of government functions in the mind of a true Jeffersonian Libertarian.

However, it is obvious that such a “State” program would be “State” only in name, and that such a program would not differ at all from a private, free-market insurance fund. The Socialists and Patriots could feel they were contributing to “their” government, since they both are fond of saying that “the government is us”, and they could walk away with that glow lonely Socialists feel when they kid themselves that “we’re a village”. Yet, they never seem to pool their bank accounts.

Lastly, Libertarianism must be fiercely anti-racist in its outlook, because the racist looks at others with an image in his mind, a pre-judgement. Just as the Marxist defines Individuals by their class, and always attempts character assassination by class association instead of argument, so too will the racist define individuals according to whatever images his exposure to propaganda has inclined him. A racist can obviously utter words that reflect Truth and point out an injustice, while a non-racist or anti-racist can utter false propaganda (and all propaganda is a lie!) and keep mum about heinous injustices which they perpetrate (the Democrats, for example, jailing people for cannabis possession and keeping it illegal, or deforesting the National Forests to benefit major corporations while spreading toxic pesticides far and wide).

So a racist, like a Marxist, pre-judges people based on the most infantile and neanderthalic thinking, whereas a Libertarian sees all men as possessors of sacred Natural Rights, which make them the highest creation of Nature. A True Libertarian would have a positive, non-aggressive attitude towards all, except those who want to violently aggress against the property rights (which include the bodies) of their fellow citizens, or those who want to incite hatred or violence against whole economic classes, religious groups, races, or nationalities. Such Individuals are anti-Libertarian and anti-Capitalist, though they may mascarade as Libertarians, or friends of Natural Rights.

The essence of Capitalism is Liberty, the Freedom of two Individual Human Beings to engage in a trade of commodities voluntarily, in which both parties are happy with the results. Primitive tribesman did this in the jungle, but the modern day Socialists say that such actions are wicked.

So Libertarianism, at least Silverwolf’s brand, must include placing the Individual above the Collectivist Corporation, a fierce separation of Mosque and State, an anti-racist and anti-xenophobic ferocity, and a defense and championing of Liberty, as the essential ingredient of Free-Market Capitalism.

What’s your brand of Libertarianism?

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Is it Constitutional in America to Discriminate in a Business? An Internal Debate

August 5, 2013

Silverwolf cleared the decks of his internal Parliament, and presented to the tabula rasa MP’s the following question: Should it be legal and is it constitutional to discriminate, on whatever basis one wishes, in one’s business in America? For example, should it be legal for an American Citizen, of Turkish cultural background and ethnicity, to refuse to sell to American-Armenians, or not let them in his store, which is open otherwise to the general public?

Obviously, this was one of the key questions and objections in the Civil Rights Act of 1963, Few doubted that picketing in protest outside of a business was a legitimate exercise of Free Speech Rights as long as the thoroughfare was kept open to the flow of pedestrians, but was it legal to enter the premises and then sit-in, in effect crippling the owners ability to do business?

This was the question that tormented Silverwolf through the long, stormy, frigid nights of the winter of ’11. Tossing and turning in his wolf’s lair, Silverwolf debated with himself this key issue which is so weighty for American jurisprudence and political theory.

First off, if I can discriminate in whom I let into my private residence, why should I not be able to discriminate in whom I let into my business premises? The meateater, the Nazi, the hunter, the fisherman, the vivisectionist, and the Stalinist all pay taxes, but if I choose not to let them into my private residence or property, nobody cries foul or racial discrimination. So why should it be different for a business?

I put this question to the late Blue Dog, a bluedog Democrat. His snap answer was that businesses were there to serve the public.

Silverwolf chewed this over, but it seemed a little idealistic to him after a few hours mulling. Come on, businesses ain’t there to serve the public; they’re there to make a profit for the owners and stockowners, and they wouldn’t start it if they didn’t think they would materially gain from it (unless they were a Good Samaritan starting the business solely to serve the public, with no interest in any profits over and above those necessary for a rude self-maintenance — not your typical business owner in America). The businessmen’s interest in profit, to further their personal pleasures, was no different than my interest in my own personal pleasure in keeping the meateater, the hunter, and the Nazi out of my desmesne, even though the meateater, hunter and Nazi might all pay taxes that pay for police and fire protection that benefits me and my property, and from which they are excluded. If it’s fair for me to exclude them from my Residential Property, why is it unfair, and even immoral, for them to deny me access to their business property, simply because I’m a wolf?

This really puzzled Silverwolf, and he recalled that Senator Barry Goldwater had objected to the Civil Rights Act precisely on this point of business owners being able to have property rights over their business premises.

Then Silverwolf argued with himself against this business discrimination with the following argument: the business district in town in limited to a certain area; if businesses were allowed to discriminate, it would be possible for a block of racist business owners to effectively exclude everyone in an area from vital necessities and services which would, de facto, force them to leave the area. For example, if all the hardware stores and food stores in the business district of a rural town were owned almost exclusively by a group of White racists, they could in effect make it impossible for all the Black people in an area to obtain the food and building materials they would need to survive in that area, and no new Black entrepreneurs could come into the market because the White racists held a virtual monopoly on all the available business licences and rentals.

Now this problem bifurcates into two problems for the Libertarian, for his reply might be that zoning laws are anti-Capitalist restrictions on Free-Market activity, and in a Libertarian society one could set up a business wherever one deemed fit. This would in effect end the monopoly on business licences that occurs when a business district is created, and business permits are required to conduct trade, that blatantly Communist restriction on Capitalism which has been so miserably tolerated for so long in America. This ending of business zoning would mean that would-be Black entrepreneurs could set up shop wherever they willed, and the racist monopoly over business licences and premises would be smashed.

But here we come to another problem in the road. So far, we have only discussed discrimination in those businesses which front onto public thoroughfares, and let’s assume for the moment that such discrimination is illegal exactly because these businesses, due to their location, can be called public businesses which have a moral duty under some undefined natural law to serve all customers, regardless of race, religion or creed. But what if we postulate a business that does not front onto a public thoroughfare, a business which was contained completely within the property of a private landowner? Should the owner of such a business be free to discriminate on the basis of race or religion?

For example, say a Korean Supremacist opens a business on a 40 acre parcel of land he is fortunate enough to own in the midst of a major downtown metropolis. The parcel is divided into two 20 acre parcels. He operates a public business that faces onto the public street in which he does not discriminate, located on the front 20 acres, But on the back 20 acres, which at no point border public property, he creates a 5 acre business zone, enclosed entirely by the private 20 acres, to which he will only permit admittance to those he regards as racially pure Koreans, who share his Korean-Supremacist views. No Whites or non-Koreans or “Whitey-lover” Koreans are allowed in this complex of stores, and the stores only accept Korean Won in payment. Is such a store illegal under the 1963 Civil Rights Act?

At this point, a great Rothbardian White Light seemed to blind Silverwolf, although he had his eyes closed to give his eyelid muscles their usual afternoon nap. He suddenly saw the solution to his dilemma, but it proved not to be final.

The solution was actually very simple. What does it say on the money? A Federal Reserve note, legal tender for all debts, public and private. It was herein that the solution lay.

If a Federal Reserve Note is legal tender and a store owner on a public street (or in a public announcement like a newspaper ad) advertises something for sale in his storefront window, then the asking price of that good or service becomes a private debt publicly advertised, and any person with the requisite amount of federal reserve notes should be able to satisfy that private debt and obtain the good or service touted. In other words, offering something for sale in terms of Federal Reserve Notes requires that you accept those notes from anyone who offers them if the private debt was publicly advertised. Not to do so would violate the contractual conditions printed on the money.

So the real reason why it is illegal to discriminate on business properties but not on private residence properties is because the Federal Reserve Note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and anyone in America who has these notes has a right to exchange them for any publicly advertised private debt.

However, what would happen if we had precious metal coinage, as is stipulated by the U.S. Constitution? Since this coinage would not be a Federal Reserve Note, (and the Federal Reserve itself would hopefully not exist at that point) then it seems to us that the argument we made above, for non-discrimination when it comes to the use of Federal Reserve Notes, might no longer be valid. And the same problem might arise if the store only displayed its prices in foreign currency or currencies, since these are not legal tender for all debts public and private in America.

So under current law, could business owners legally discriminate against customers if they only accepted gold and silver (and copper?) coins or foreign currency as payment for their wares?

This question remains unanswered, and Silverwolf is still as Libertarianly-puzzled as before. As to what the truth of the matter is, and if there is an unshakeable political reason why discriminating in one’s business premises is immoral, it remains unclear to him.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww—Silverwolf

Uncle Ben Franklin’s Lessons in Capitalism: The Best of Poor Richard’s Dictums

August 4, 2013

For one taking the first steps upon the long Capitalist road from penury to wealth, there are few more valuable guideposts of Reason than the observations and wisdom of “Uncle” Benjamin Franklin, who was the physical embodiment of the economic philosophy of America. In his Poor Richard’s wise sayings, we find the basic wisdom that guided the men of the 18th century in their economic thinking, and which undoubtedly reflected a general psychology that must have existed for centuries before Franklin wrote down these gems of wisdom. Some of them are not originally Franklin’s, but come to us from general sayings of the times, or from various specific cultures. But they all seem to reflect a basic wisdom and insight into universal human behaviour when it comes to economic matters, and we can easily recognize ourselves and our own past economic follies when we read them.

Silverwolf read these when he was a wage-slave, beginning the miserable process of accumulating Capital, a process in which the first hundred steps are the hardest, and which, the longer one works at it, becomes easier and easier. They provided inspiration and insight into the truths of Capitalism and general human economic psychology that were invaluable, not only in observing ones own economic behaviour, but also in observing the behaviour of others. Make a foolish mistake and learn from it, and one will be able to recognize that mistake in others.

Anyway, for what it is worth, Silverwolf gathered together all the dictums of Poor Richard, published by Franklin in the 1730s and 1740s, and selected those which he thought were the most relevent to the budding Capitalist in terms of economic behaviour, but also those that reflected wisely on the necessary psychological outlook of the would-be Free-Marketeer. And here they are:

Light purse, heavy heart.

When bread is wanting, all is to be sold.

Would you live with ease, do what you ought, and not what you please.

Hope of gain, lessens pain.

All things are easy to industry, difficult to sloth.

Necessity never made a good bargain.

Diligence is the mother of good luck.

Wealth is not his who has it, but his who enjoys it.

He that buys by the penny maintains not only himself, but other people.

The use of money is all the advantage in having money.

If you have time, don’t wait for time.

There are three faithful friends, an old wife, and old dog, and ready money.

At a great pennyworth, pause a while.

Industry need not wish.

If you’d be wealthy, think of saving more than getting.

Industry, perserverance, and frugality make fortune yield.

Sloth (like rust) consumes faster than labour wears; the used key is always bright.

Light gains, heavy purses.

He that resolves to mend hereafter, resolves not to mend now.

Want of care does us more damage than want of knowledge.

What maintains one vice would bring up two children.

Many have be ruined by buying good pennyworths.

Tis a well-spent penny that saves a groat.

Great estates may venture more; little boats must keep to shore.

Patience in market is worth pounds in the year.

Diligence overcomes difficulties; sloth makes them.

Sloth moves so slowly that Industry must run all day to catch up to it.

Get what you can, and what you get hold, Tis the stone that will turn all your lead into gold.

Diligence is the mother of good-luck.

Creditors have better memories than debtors.

If you desire many things, many things will seem but a few.

After crosses and losses, men grow humbler and wiser.

The creditors are a superstitious sect, great observers of set days and times.

Buy what thou hast no need of, and e’er long thou shall sell thy necessaries.

Lend money to an enemy and thou’lt gain him, to a friend, and thou’lt lose him.

Lying rides upon Debt’s back.

Well done, is twice done.

He that hath a trade, hath an estate.

He that speaks ill of the Mare, will buy her.

If you’d lose a troublesome visitor, lend him money.

He who multiplies Riches, multiplies Cares.

The second vice is lying; the first is running in debt.

Wise men learn by other’s harms; Fools by their own.

Drink does not drown care, but waters it, and makes it grow faster.

The busy man has few idle visitors; to the boiling pot the flies come not.

If you’d know the value of money, go and borrow some.

Beware of little Expenses, a small Leak will sink a great ship.

He who buys had need have 100 eyes, but one’s enough for him that sells the stuff.

When the Well’s dry, we know the Worth of Water.

The Borrower is a Slave to the Lender, the Security to both.

Spare and have is better than spend and crave.

The Art of getting Riches consists very much in THRIFT. All men are not equally qualified for getting Money, but it is in the Power of every one alike to practice this Virtue.

Well, there you have it. All the distilled wisdom you need to set the Capitalist world on fire with your activities in the Market. Just add in a reading of Professor Murray Rothbard’s “Man, State, and Economy”, along with its adjunct, “Power and Market”, and you’ve got all the basic true knowledge you need to be a Capitalist.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

The Paranoia of Absolute Power: From King John to Modern America

June 26, 2013

It seems that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were, unfortunately, dead right. ‘Twould be much better if absolute power made the Chief into a benevolent angel, using his power for moral ends, to better the lives of the people in one way or another, if only to get out of their way.

In the future perfect Capitalist society, where the industrious will happily work at their callings, and be materially rewarded for it, and those who wanted little but the freedom to wander, or write poetry, could go to voluntary welfare societies set up by Capitalists who believed in Socialism, — in that society there will be no coercion. One Capitalist may be greedy, but another Capitalist may be a Socialist who thinks that  everyone is entitled to the basics of food (vegan of course), clothing, and shelter. The Socialist-believing Capitalist could donate, or set up himself,  a charity, and set the rules according to his Moral Views. Such a man might agree with Erich Fromm”s argument for Socialism, once made in an interview with Los Angeles television reporter Jerry Dunphy,: “You don’t expect your dog to work. But you feed him. I think a man should be treated as well as a dog.”

Such an argument carries much weight with Silverwolf. But it presupposes and forgets two facts: Firstly, while I may feel compassionate enough to give a meal to a hungry man, the next fellow on the block may not feel the same way, and I don’t have the right to impose my moral beliefs on my neighbor. As a Libertarian, I am only concerned with his actions; and that those actions do not constitute a violation of the Libertarian non-aggression axiom: No man or group of men may aggress against the Person or Property of another man. Such an aggression is regarded by the Libertarian as “invasion”, and it is. Such an invasion is a Crime against the Property Rights of that Man, and since we own our bodies, an attack on our persons is also technically a violation of Property Rights.

Secondly, the Socialist argument above flounders in the face of the fact that by confiscating, or voting to confiscate from my neighbor, money or “taxes” to fund my own personal Socialistic moral views, I am committing an act of Violence against my neighbor, which in itself, is a form of treating a Man like a dog, the very argument used above to justify Socialism.

So, what are we to do in the face of this inconsistency between Capitalism and Socialism?

To Silverwolf the answer lies in a radically free-Capitalist free-market society, where 95% of all people had voluntarily, through no coercion, found something they loved or liked to do, and so there would be a vast Middle Class. Some people, who for their own personal reasons, wanted to accumulate truly vast amounts of Capital and Wealth, could go ahead and do so, but most people would be satisfied with a type of upper class-Middle Class life, choosing leisure and amusement over passion-driven, fanatical accumulation. Emelda Marcoses could accumulate 700 pairs of shoes if they liked, but most sane people would settle for three to seven. More than that would become encumberences to all but the collector.

In this Free-Market  prosperous Free Society, with Thomas Jefferson’s Bill of Rights rigorously enforced, a certain percentage of people would be inclined to give to charity, which would, in turn, support those who were completely physically disabled, like someone in an iron lung, or those who wanted to live completely outwardly indolent lives, but focus all their energy on the Inner Life. These would be called Philosophers and Poets, but the Philosophers and Poets would know that if the people ever became hardened enough, they might stop giving to charity, and then the Philosophers and Poets would have to deal with a precarious situation.

All these arguments are pretty academic now that we live in a world where, given the capacities of our factories, everyone could easily be given a daily ration of grains and beans, a few Mao Suits to wear during the year, and a tent that could easily be Solar Heated. Mist collectors, as we recently saw reported, can now collect and condense enough water out of the air that people can survive on it in very dry climates or areas without a well. (Just the thing you need next time you break both your ankles hiking in Chemehuevi Valley, and your car battery goes dead when you try to start it.) With such condensers,  many desert areas could become livable again. Composting toilets, and the sanitary advantages of the vegan diet, or even charity built septic systems, could serve individuals or tribes when it came to the unthinkables of these few Philosophical Indigents and Poets. (But who would read them, or join in their philosophical explorations? The rest of Mankind would be busily working away at their Callings, havin’ a great ol’ time.) Some Philosophers and Poets would even be so brilliant and engrossing that their productions of Thought and Word would sell on the open- and Free-market, and they’d grow wealthy. Look at the Stones. Jagger is a Damn Good Poet.

But say we didn’t live in such a world. Say that five or ten men owned all the land in America, that they could charge a grand-a-night rent for every man, woman, and child, and since they owned all the agricultural land, they could charge a $100/lb for cornmeal and oats, those delicacies of a vegan society. Obviously people would starve to death, and there would soon be five or ten men left, and their families, and maybe some favored buddies and their concubines.

 Such circumstances of material inequality, Professor Rothbard maintained, only exist where the Crime of Land Theft has taken place in the past, as in Central and South America, and, on a local scale, in parts of the Old American West. In other words, such inequality indicates a massive violation of the Libertarian non-aggression principle, and would have to be rectified.

But in a truly Free-Market Jeffersonian Bill of Rights Society, with a vast Middle Class, no such draconian inequality would be possible. Monopolies and Trusts, though they may exist in certain markets and local economies, soon break down, as happened over and over again to the various “Trusts” in America, because of the phenomenon of the “Price Buster”, the guy in the Monopoly or Trust who starts giving secret kickbacks to favored customers in order to take advantage of the absurd price rise the Trust has created. This happened in Sugar, Kerosene, Train Freight Charges — every kind of Trust. They always went Bust. That is, until they learned to have Government help them restrict competition, from FCC licenses to Teaching Credentials to Barbers Licenses to the Screen Actors Guild, to that crucifier of Youths, the Minimum Wage Law.

So the arguments Socialists always pull out, about how a free-Market would lead back to the poverty of the 19th century and the robber barons, is absurd, and obviously a lie to justify their religion. The Industrial Revolution, as harsh and brutal as it was, had led by the 1920s to the possibility of a comfortable, Middle Class society, although still in the 1920s, 90% of Americans were poor farmers. But the momentum of prosperity was clearly there, and now in 2013 we have an absolutely incredible technological society, so complex that no individual can hope to understand it all, unlike the American Indian and the Kalahari Bushman who could completely understand their environment. They knew Everthing they needed to survive, and were Masters at it. We know nothing, except perhaps our little niche.

For example, in the future, modern  factories could easily manufacture super suits of clothes that were especially perfect for each of the four seasons. Each citizen could buy, or would be given by the Socialist charities, one or four of these suits, and that is all the clothing they would need. The suits would last a few years or decades. But the suits would probably be boring and functional, like Mao suits, as sterile and heartless as the modern bureaucratic services one sees in Great Britain, Australia, and America Northern. Only those who worked would have the capital to obtain their clothing on the free market, where they could satisfy their personal predelictions, like the late Brian Jones, or the connoisseurs of Saville Row.

One thing the anti-Capitalists don’t like to admit is that as people as a whole get wealthier, and the Middle Class grows, the number of goods and services that people want increases, providing more work or jobs, in increasingly more specialized areas, thus creating an even more prosperous society. There would be no end to this in a truly Free-Market society. In a poor society, a hungry arthritic pensioner is not going to hire someone to walk their beloved dog; in an upper-Middle Class society it is possible, and so someone who is unemployed but loves both to walk and to be with dogs, may and probably will be able to earn a wage. In a wealthy Rich society, you might even have those who specialized in walking certain breeds, or had a magical rapport with such breeds, and their wealthy arthritic owners might pay through the nose to hire such people to walk their dogs. Such walkers might become wealthy and noted celebrities, (and then there would be the profits from their book sales when they retire: “Vicious Great Danes I Have Known and Loved”).

But all this wealth, Freedom, and non-coercion is only possible if that Free Society has the Jeffersonian Bill of Rights, and it is here that we see in the Modern World the greatest threat to that great Capitalist Libertarian Society.

Sadly, very sadly for America, the fact that the two most powerful other monolithic Powers in the Modern World. who are completely anti-Libertarian in their attitudes and rule (Russia and the Old Soviet Republics, and Fascist China) and ruled by Paranoid, self-delusional Powermongers, are now in the process of being joined by the one place in the world where there still seemed to be some remaining spark of Libertarian creativity and Freedom left: The United States of America.

That was solely due to the Bill of Rights, and the fact that a large part of her economy was still in the hands of private Capitalists (the Small Businessman and the Investor). But these two Siamese twins, the Bill of Rights and Free-Market Capitalism, were dependent on one clear inalienable Right: the Right of Privacy.

It seems that when the Paranoia of Absolute Power strikes, it strikes first at this sacred, Natural Right, the Right of Privacy, the Right to be left alone if one is not violating the Libertarian Non-Aggression Axiom. This is what that beautiful thinker, Jefferson, as well as Madison and many of the others, could see so clearly, and what the modern politicians are trying to overthrow: that Beautiful Fourth Amendment.

They’ve succeeded in that overthrow of Privacy in the Totalitarian Societies, like Fascist China, and all the dozens of other unspeakable dictatorships that curse this globe, be it North Korea or Zimbabwe.

And they’ve succeeded in the castrated Socialist societies like Australia, where the Australian Board of Statistics can throw you in jail and fine you $170/day if you do not answer questions about your sex life, as we recently saw on a report. And England and the EU, where the individual is tracked and kept track of, from Birth to Death. Never his own Man, but always a cog in the Socialist Machine.

And now, thanks to the Paranoiac in the White House, and the Politicians of both Parties, this violation of the Right of Privacy is coming to America.

Sir Richard Evans, in his brilliant series of lectures on Victorian England, pointed out that it was entirely possible for a man to go through life in Victorian England without ever once having had contact or engagement with Government or the State.

Not so in Modern America, with her dog-sniffing random searches of law-abiding motorists, or Socialist Australia, or Fascist China.

When the Lords put the squeeze on King John, he was forced to cede to them with Magna Carta, and Libertarian Freedom had its first Outbreak.

But when we come to the psycopathic Criminals and Mass Murderers, Hitler and Stalin, we can see what those who achieve absolute power, by absolutely destroying Privacy, are capable of doing. And the more power they have, the more paranoid and bloodthirsty they become. It’s almost like a Law of Nature, a Law that Thomas Jefferson well understood. Go read defecting former-KGB agent Oleg Gordievsky’s great “KGB: the Inside Story”, and you will see what Absolute Power does to the men at the top, as we are now seeing in America, as it becomes more and more a bureaucratic police state, that can harass anyone who criticizes it.

The road from The Lords of England’s victory over King John with Magna Carta, to the Libertarian Jefferson’s victory over King George III with the Bill of Rights, was a long one.

The degeneration from Hitler and Stalin until today is a short one, made all the more sinister by the perversions of modern science and technology. And the Politicians are exploiting that technology to overthrow the Bill of Rights, a Bill that doesn’t talk of “balance” when it comes to Natural Rights, but “Inalienable Rights”, Rights that can never be taken away from any Human Being without violence being perpetrated.

Is Mankind to go forward into a bright upland of Prosperity, non-coercion, and Privacy, or is he to be the plaything of Socialists and Fascists like the head of Fascist China, or the sexually-prying questions of a perverted Hag like Australia’s PM, Julia Gillard?

Strangely enough, Silverwolf believes that Libertarian Man will eventually Prevail over the Fascism and Socialism of the modern Politicians at the top.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Obama and The Bipartisan Fascists Attack Privacy and Capitalism

June 13, 2013

Once again, thanks to the voters who voted for Obama, Fascism is on the rise, reaching peaks it had not achieved since the days of Hitler and Mussolini. Its animosity towards Individuality and Privacy are well noted, and now the very people who put the Fascist Obama into the White House are cringing with fear as they realise that every intimate revelation, every minor misdemeanor, and every detail of their private lives, and business and financial transactions, have undoubtedly been stored and perhaps seen by one of the thousands of private contractor NSA financial snoopers. Soon all their medical history and conditions will also be up for blackmail, thanks to Obamacare. Capitalism and the free-market have been dealt a blow that they will probably never recover from. For Obama voters, and the rest of us, it’s too late.

Undoubtedly, many people will be blackmailed by NSA snoopers who now know intimate secrets about them. Their financial deals and trades, their sitting orders to buy or sell, can now be frontrun by NSA snoopers who can give this information to their friends, family, and business associates. The absolute necessity of Privacy to the conduct of the Free-Market has been forever destroyed by a coalition of Liberal Democrats like political commentator John Rothmann, who strongly supported Obama’s reelection, and Fascist Republicans like Lindsey “Cracker” Graham, who doesn’t mind that your Privacy has be destroyed.

However, the real criminals in this case are the people who voted for Obama over anti-Fascist choices like Congressman Ron Paul and Governor Gary Johnson. The Obama Voters have destroyed the Fourth Amendment, the inalienable Right to Privacy that Jefferson so well understood, and Free-Market Capitalism, all by sticking that stylus through the name of Barack Obama in the voting booth. The crimes that they have committed in their private lives and have put online in emails and social media are now stored on vast databanks, waiting to be used against them if they ever threaten the Fascist’s powerstructure. Thanks to their stupidity, faith in government, and lack of political science knowledge, the Obama voters have elevated the Fascist State to a new level of power.

The only benefit of all this is that now a vast swathe of the public has become deeply cynical about Collectivist Politics. They remember that Classical Liberals like Oregon’s Peter DeFazio, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, who now are making such a big stink about their own privacy being invaded, were the very ones who only a few months ago were urging the people to reelect the Fascist Obama. And they continue to remain in the Fascistic Democratic Party, while the Republican Fascists actually are endorsing this heinous overthrow of the Bill of Rights under the Fascist Obama, showing that they haven’t changed much since the days of the Fascist Bush (the second one), save for the exception of Senator Rand Paul.

With a new Gallop Poll showing only 10% of the public think Congress is doing a good job, the only good news coming out of this is that there is a growing Libertarian revulsion amongst the public against the intrusions of the Fascist State against the Individual and his most intimate secrets. They now feel instinctively that Jefferson was right in saying that government is a necessary evil, but at heart an evil institution, and that its evil can only be kept in check when tied down by the Bill of Rights. But the Democratic Party politicians and voters have put an end to the Bill of Rights, now a part of past History.

The damage done to Privacy and Capitalism is irreparable. Thanks to the Obama Voters and the Bipartisan Fascist Politicians, Human Freedom has been destroyed in America.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Libertarians: Capitalists or Free-Marketeers?

April 12, 2013

In re-reading Professor Murray Rothbard’s wonderful essay, “Capitalism vs. Statism”, we were reminded that “capitalism” is a term invented by Marx and used by the Marxists. In contrast to this is the idea of the “free-market”, which arises naturally whenever men are left to their own devices, as in a peasant or jungle society. It needs no central planning, as each man produces or does what he has in abundance or trades his unique skills for the products of other producers, without any coercion. Any contractual disputes between producers and consumers are brought before the wise elders of the community or tribe, and settled.

So, this distinction set us thinking about whether we should use the term “capitalist” at all, and choose rather to employ the term “free-marketeer” in its place. Is not using a term coined by Marxists to describe the free-market  playing into their hands?

Indeed, what image does the term “capitalist” conjure up in the mind? Does it not mean someone whose one drive is to acquire capital, or money? In other words, someone obsessed with money? In getting this term dispersed in wide-spread usage, the Marxists have achieved a popular view that capitalists are money-obsessed individuals.

Now, what does the term “free-marketeer” imply? Much more that someone who is money-obsessed. Firstly, it stresses that one wants freedom not only for oneself, but for the other party in the transaction. And also, one wants freedom for everybody else doing transactions, and making markets. Freedom for all! Not just for me. Secondly, it shifts the emphasis from the money-half of the transaction to the commodity-half of the transaction. In other words, the true free-marketeer is interested in the commodity he is either getting, or getting rid of in the market, much more than the money-half of the transaction. Certainly, the seller is very interested in taking receipt of the asking price in terms of cash, but that cash is almost always as a means to some commodity or service that the seller values. The wealthy seller may find it in the added security of having his cash balance just a little bit larger, and further away from bankruptcy; the hungry seller in the lentil sandwich he just bought with the proceeds of his last sale. But in both cases there is some value, be it the elimination of the physical discomfort of hunger or the psychological gratification of being slightly more financially secure, which makes it worthwhile for the seller or buyer to engage in his action.

This emphasis on the commodity and its implimentation by the new owner for some physical or psychological value is the real meaning of the “free-market”, not two parties to a transaction who are only interested in the capital-half of the transaction. Obviously, the buyer is far more interested in the thing or service he is receiving for his money rather than just his money, or he wouldn’t have spent it. Even when one is “forced” to sell or buy, it is always to achieve a desired physical or psychological need, be it bread or selling one thing to pay off the debt on another thing. So “free-market” implies not money, but action, i.e. the action to which the acquired commodity is put.

Now, it seems to us that Mr. Libertarian, Thomas Jefferson, saw this subtle distinction between physical property and the ends to which it is put. Jefferson, in our view, was a Renaissance Man; one of the greatest. In his life’s actions, one can see the intellect of the Renaissance Man constantly at work, whether he was approaching gardening and farming, the construction of Monticello so that the U.S. Mint could put it on the back of the nickel 180 years later, playing the violin, collecting and reading books, arguing for the Abolition of Capital Punishment in Virginia, or putting forth the most lucid case ever for the Natural Law philosophy of Libertarianism in his masterpieces, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

In earlier documents the phrase “Man is endowed with certain inalienable Rights, amongst which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” had read “Life, Liberty, and Property”. But we believe Jefferson had the amazing insight to make the Libertarian leap from mere “property” to the much larger cause or aim to which it is put, that is “the pursuit of happiness”. This insight directly correlates to Ludwig von Mises subjective valuation principle which is one of the major breakthroughs in economics of the Austrian School — that the value of anything is its subjective value to the owner or purchaser, and that value can never be predicted. No wonder all the other schools of economics could never ever figure out how to measure the value of an object; it cannot be done except subjectively. It can only be measured it terms of its psychological gratification and value to the property owner.

Now, Professor Rothbard in his essay breaks Capitalism down into two breeds: “state Capitalism” and “free-market Capitalism”. State capitalism is what we have in America and the West: the government and associated industries looting wealth from individual Capitalists, a form of Mussolini’s Fascism. “Free-market Capitalism” would be — well, no one really knows exactly what it would be like since it has never really existed except in remote peasant and jungle communities that are probably unknown to modern history. Free-market Capitalism’s days as a world economic system are ahead of it, in the future, and not in the past which has never known it.

Whether we should use the rather longwinded terms “free-market Capitalism” and “free-market Capitalist” every time we want to refer to Capitalism or the Free-Market, or whether we should comply with the Marxists by using a term they coined which, as we have pointed out, has prejudicial connotations, or lastly whether we should always use the term “free-marketeer” instead  of “Capitalist”, is a hard decision which each Libertarian must make for himself. The subtle distinctions are probably beyond the comprehension (or interest) of most Socialists.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Euro-Socialism Unravels: The Cyprus Rip-Off

March 27, 2013

If you needed any additional proof that State Socialists are thieves, all you have to do is look to the example of Cyprus. The EU Commissioners, in their gall, have basically decreed that it is quite alright to rob outright “large depositors” of a huge percentage of their savings, although their earlier attempt to rob all depositors was so vociferously met by the Cypriot people that the Socialists had to back down. Then they “democratically” decided amongst themselves that they could pull the rip-off off if they only hit the “large depositors”, appealing to class hatreds which almost always work on Western Democratic electorates. Since they are only hitting the “rich”, those with just enough to buy a barely habitable home in Euroland, they knew that popular dissent would now not be harsh enough to be able to stop their pulling off the theft. And they have pulled it off.

As with most Socialist Bureaucrats, who have never worked in the real world where their income depended on themselves alone, or their business or employer’s business, but have had their Socialist wages paid out of the public coffers which are almost endless, they do not have any psychological conception of what their holy decisions have on those in the Free-Market economy, who have probably slaved for decades to build up their savings.

Socialist “solutions” always create additional problems which the Socialists never forsee because their thinking is mired in an economic ideology built on false and deeply immoral principles. Economic thinking needs to be based on sound principles, or it will always fail, and since Socialism is based on coercion, violence, the gun and the jail cell (try not paying your taxes and see what happens), it can never match the respect for Individual Rights, based on Natural Law, and non-aggression against Persons and Property, that Libertarianism champions.

What the EU Socialist Commissioners have done is to put every thinking Capitalist in the Western World on notice that if they live in a Socialist Economy (and who doesn’t now? Even Switzerland has vowed to inflate the CHF Franc if it gets too “strong”.), — if they live in such an economy, their savings in any bank are no longer safe, no matter what verbal “guarantees” the government officials gave the public yesterday. From Eastern Poland to Portland Oregon, all Capitalists in between now know that if their country’s banking system collapses, as all these Socialist banking systems eventually will, then their savings are subject to confiscation by the Communists, calling themselves “Social Technocrats” or EU Commissioners, or “The Democrats”.

In America, it is unfortunately comparatively common for a bank robber to be shot to death in the course of robbing a bank. But when the EU Commissioners rob thousands of people of billions of dollars of their savings, they can walk away scott free. Why aren’t they shot as bank robbers, or at least arrested, tried, and jailed for extremely long periods of time, as being a clear menace to Civil Society?

The EU Commissioners are nothing but a bunch of Socialist Looters engaged in full-scale cozenage, and the EU is nothing but a giant Socialist forced-labour, zwang-arbeit, camp, where any individual initiative and excellence is punished to curry to the self-indulgent masses and the government-allied corporations. How outrageous that vegetarians and vegans are forced to pay the medical bills for millions upon millions of meat-eating, booze-guzzling, tobacco-addicts. An outrage!

Let the Cyprus Crime be a warning to all Libertarian Free-Marketeers in the Western World: Either brake the Socialists at the polls by electing radically Free-Market Austrian-School-of-Economics Capitalist Libertarians, who will put the Individual above the State and the Corporations, or face further lifetimes of drudgery under the State Socialists in their alliance with the Corporations, not only for yourself, but also for your families and the generations to come.

So let Cyprus be a warning to all Free-Market Capitalists. And to all Socialists too, for you have forever destroyed the myth of a safe banking-system, under any Socialist Central Bank economy, like the EU, the USA, Canada and Australia.

Just try restoring “investor confidence” now by flapping your lips some more.

Hooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Enviro-Libertarianism: A New Necessary Political Outlook

December 7, 2012

It seems to Silverwolf that what the world and the West and especially America really needs is a new political movement which he would call “Enviro-Libertarianism”, a combination of the Libertarian maxim that 1) no person or group of persons may aggress against the Property Rights of any other person (including their own body which Libertarianism also regards as a Property Right) and 2) the principle that, as Ron Paul has said, no one has the right to pollute the air you breathe or the water you drink.

Silverwolf thinks that without bringing together the twin outlooks of a Jeffersonian-minarchist, radically free-market, Capitalism, and the environmental safeguards that would protect Individuals and their property, and indeed the whole planet and its animals, against the gross environmental pollution of the earth that has gone on for decades and is now accelerating beyond the Fail-Safe point, — yea, without this critical synthesis, there will be an envionmental chaos that will wipe out the human species. Only a merging of the Libertarian Philosophy of respect for the Individual and the sacredness of his Rights, magnificently codified by Wisechief Jefferson in the Bill of Rights, and the sane responsibility of the Environmental movement, that loves the earth and its animals trees and wants to preserve this miraculous paradise for future humans instead of raping it to benefit those corporations and their stockholders in bed with big government all over the world — only this merger will save both the planet, Capitalism, and Jeffersonian Republicanism.

Murray Rothbard pointed out that when private interests own resources like copper or timber in a truly free-market, they have to ration their annual harvest if they want their business enterprise to be self-sustaining, say for a hundred years, but when government controls huge swathes of resource-rich land and is in bed with major corporations, like the timber industry, and sells those resources to the corporations at below market prices, it encourages those industries they do business with to take as much as they can in as short a time as they can without regard to further sustainability. And so we have gross clearcuts all over the West with so-called Liberal Democrats like Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) calling for even bigger forest rapes or “thinnings”, with the “lumber” going to totalitarian Communist China. The Northwest Forests of America are being decimated by so-called Liberal Democrats like Peter DeFazio, Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, and Governor John Kitzhaber, who have increased the cutting of the Forests in the past years under Democrat Obama, and who stand by and permit the dumping of thousands of pounds of toxic herbicides and pesticides on the forests in populated areas full of children. And think of all the innocent critters, birds and lil rascal varmints whose playgrounds and bliss have been wiped out by the collusion of DeFazio, Merkley, Wyden, Obama and Kitzhaber with the timber industry against the sacred Earth. They are destroying your Earth instead of defending it.

And this decimation of the forests is going on at exactly the same time that they and their fellow Democrats bleat their call for a carbon-tax that will come out of the pockets of the little guy, not the big logging interests.

Now tell me, Congressman DeFazio, if it is so important to institute a carbon-tax because the world is so close to the brink of destruction from global warming, then why is is alright to cut even one single tree if, as we have been told countless times, trees are carbon banks that store excess carbon-dioxide as they grow, only releasing it when they die and decay. The glaring contradiction and hypocrisy of these Forest Rapists is very clear.

Gee, Congressman DeFazio, if our environment is that fragile now that we need to be taxed, then why not call for an immediate logging moratorium on Federal lands, say for 30 years? Why is a tax crucial, but destroying even more carbon banks in the form of trees is not crucial? If global warming is real, that logging moratorium might make the whole difference in the planet and its inhabitants surviving. If global warming is not real, and the earth re-cools, and with 30 years of unmolested growth rebuilding some of the desecrated areas of the Forest, then perhaps commercial logging on private lands could be resumed if there were still any demand by then for wood as a construction material.

These fracking Congressional Democrats, in collusion with their blood brothers, the fracking Republicans, are destroying this miraculous planet and its miraculous life with their eternal bleat of “jobs” while they pick up their $150 grand-a-year for moving their lips and showering, these People’s Representatives who make 3.75 times approximately what the Average Adjusted Gross Income is for all Americans. Some “Evermans”, huh, these Senators and Congressmen and Presidents and Governors. Only Congressman Ron Paul had the integrity to pledge that he would only accept the Average AGI as his Presidential salary, in a wonderful gesture that illustrated the point that the President is not above the People but serves at the Will of the People. No more Emperor Nixons, thank you.

Sadly, the Green parties throughout the world seem to always side with the Left, or Liberal Democrat regimes and administrations, not realizing that Socialism and Central Planning is disastrous for a society and will always lead to poverty, as one sees in so many of Obama’s and Cardinal Geithner’s various financial and medical insurance schemes. In Australia the Greens side with that sadist and racist, Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of a country that stole its land from the Aborigines, and now won’t let in a few Tamils fleeing the horrendous human rights record of Sri Lanka, Muslim asylum seekers from Burma, and others fleeing Iran and Iraq, into a vast land the size of America which could easily absorb a few thousand more refugees. In America, the border cities are stuffed with so-called “illegal immigrants” by the hundreds of thousands and millions, but things don’t fall apart and go along pretty smoothly. Haven’t heard of any armed uprisings in L.A. by a “Mexican Liberation Front Army”, have you?. But fragile Australia can’t house a few thousand extremely brave immigrants, or let them go about on conditional release within the community, and instead keeps them in virtual prison camps offshore, living in horrendous conditions (tents in the rain that leak) as was recently reported on Radio Australia. Prime Minister Julia Gillard is a disgrace to Australia, a disgrace to the Libertarian tradition of British Liberalism which was one of the bright spots of the British Commonwealth, at least in theory, and, finally, a disgrace to the Human Race. Western Liberal Governments should step up and criticise this Harridan most harshly. Shame on Australia for its disgraceful and cruel treatment of these brave Human Beings

But I run before my horse to market.

The Green Parties, unfortunately, in Europe, in Australia, and in America invariably side with the Left. And, unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has failed to distinguish between what we would call “Corporate Libertarianism” which attempts to equate the Rights of Corporations with those of Individuals, and “Individual Libertarianism” which was the original concept of Jefferson and was most recently championed by Professor Murray Rothbard when he founded the modern Libertarian Party. Rothbard’s later severe break with the Koch Brothers perfectly illustrates the clear dichotomy between these two views, Individual Libertarianism vs Corporate Libertarianism. Whereas our Constitution speaks of “Individual Rights”, it makes no mention of Corporations whatsoever. Corporations were a cunning, but necessary, later invention, but in today’s political climate it is absolutely essential to distinguish between the Rights of Corporations and the Rights of Individuals, and it is the Rights of Individuals which must be put on top.

The Democrats and Republicans have reversed this natural order, putting the Corporation above the Individual, and this perversion of Jefferson’s intent in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights must be re-reversed.

Indeed, we’d put it to you that “Corporate Libertarianism” is not Libertarianism at all, but actually its opposite if you look at how it works in America and abroad. It’s a form of the old Mercantilism of the British Kings who would give the plum monopolies to their friends, relatives, and fawning minions.

So, the point is that Environmentalism must be linked with the Individual Libertarianism that seemed to animate Rothbard, and not with the Corporate Libertarianism which is the main braying call of the mainstream Republicans. Ron Paul represented such an Individual Rothbardian Libertarianism in our view.

Today’s news of a huge fall of one-third in the sperm count and quality in French males  in the past 30 years is a confirmation of the continuing domination of the corporations as they pollute the Earth and its People, and that sperm count fall in France, of course, mainly took place under the enlightened “progressive Left-wing’ French government in Europe, that stronghold of the Greens. We can see how well the Greens are protecting the Environment and the Earth and its People.

The only thing that will save the World now is a radical Environmentalism, that treats environmental polluters the way you’d treat rapists, married to a radically free-market Libertarianism, that takes the defense of the Individual’s Property Rights, including his body, as the only legitimate function of government.

Without this marriage the world is doomed.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf