You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Gun violence is the lefties’ fault”.
Gun violence is the lefties’ fault
Posted in damn liberals, guns, liberty, take action NOW!, The road to serfdom.
– January 26, 2010
14 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
“The only legitimate, Constitutional, moral role of government is to protect the borders and protect the Constitutional rights of the citizens. This is right-wing/libertarian ideology in a nutshell.”
I wouldn’t say that entails the libertarian mindset. The Libertarian (as in, the official Libertarian Party) mindset, maybe, but not necessarily the libertarian mindset. Libertarians are pretty deeply divided on immigration, and even if you ignore libertarian anarchists, not all libertarians consider Constitutional, in the sense of being in line with our current constitution, to be synonymous with legitmate. The NAP is a better description, for libertarians at least.
I should have specified large-L, i.e. Libertarian Party. I was actually thinking libertarian-leaning Republicans, but it fits for either.
MWD
It’s also your right to put stickers of cute kitties or whatever you want on your FN.
LOL!
MWD
It’s an angry kitty. And it’s a DSA FAL, not an FN FAL.
The angry kitty in the sticker kinda has teeth like a bulldog…an undercut.
MWD
“It is not the role of government to “create jobs.” At best, the role of government is to create an environment (low taxes, no nanny laws) where jobs are created by a free market.”
Agreed, but this belief in the trickle down effect doesn’t work, and bailouts should be for rich and poor equal and alike or not at all…
Sink or swim on the basis of your own efforts…nuff said
When I was in high school, in rural Montana in the late 80′s and early 90′s, I STILL used to bring my gun to school. On the bus it would’ve created quite a stir, but hanging in the back window of my pickup truck in the school parking lot it was barely noticed. If it was noticed, it was either by another student asking if I wanted to hunt with him after school, or by a gun enthusiast teacher saying “Is that a Model 722? I haven’t seen one of those in YEARS! Can I take a look at it?” LOL.
During hunting season especially, probably 50% or more of the vehicles in the parking lot of my school had big game rifles either hanging in the back window or laying across the back seat, and a lot of us carried a .22 pistol or rifle year round. No one got shot, no one got threatened, no one was scared, no one had a reason to be scared, and you would’ve been hard pressed to find a boy that didn’t have a knife in his pocket. Now my kids go to schools with metal detectors and hallways patrolled by on duty police officers. What happened?
Justin
What happened? Progressives.
MWD
1.
Libertarianism is the true radical left.
I recommend reading Murray N. Rothbard’s 1965 essay “Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty,” or the much shorter “Libertarianism: Left or Right?” by Sheldon Richman.
Basically, libertarianism evolved out of classical liberalism which had always been on the left. The right supported a return to the privilege of the ancien régime.
I don’t think we should surrender the left. It is ours, not the modern so-called “liberals’.” Further, the conservative and the modern “liberals” should be understood to occupy virtually the same place on the spectrum.
2.
What in the world do you mean when you say that the government has the constitutional and moral authority to “protect the borders”? It has neither.
First, it lacks even constitutional authority. Article I, Section 8 mentions naturalisation as being one of the areas over which the Congress is to have control, and as we all know, naturalisation and immigration are two entirely separate things. It’s very telling that those at the Philadelphia Convention mentioned naturalisation and not immigration, for if they had wanted the government to have even a lick of control over immigration, they would have mentioned it then and there. The fact that they only mention naturalisation just goes to show how opposed they would have been to seeing central planners regulating human migration across the border.
In Article I, Section 9, it reads, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
This allowed the government to tax the importation of humans up to $10 per person prior to 1808. Since it makes no mention of the government having any explicit power to prohibit entry after 1808, and makes no mention of the government having an explicit power to tax importation of humans after 1808, we can only assume that all such government power expired on 1 January 1808.
If you want the government’s evil power to centrally plan the migration of humans to be constitutional, therefore, you will need to amend the Constitution.
3.
Government control over immigration is nothing less than an usurpation from every single American of the right to freedom of association, the right to private property, and the right to contract.
If I own an apartment, and I want to rent said apartment to a man who consents to rent it from me at the price I require, it is completely unethical for any third party to step in and forcibly prevent this, even if said third party calls itself “the state.” According to natural law, it is my right to do with my property as I please, and when the government prevents me from renting out my property to whom I want, the government is doing nothing less than stealing.
4.
Central planning of human migration is also horrible economically, and for precisely the same reason it’s economically horrible for central planners to regulate and/or tax the interstate or international trade of capital. The invisible hand of the free market can allocate human labour far, far more efficiently than bureaucrats.
5.
The Philadelphia Convention betrayed the revolution. Read Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s Hamilton’s Curse or Gary North’s article “John Hancock’s Big Toe and the Constitution.”
6.
I prefer the term “natural rights” over “constitutional rights” because the latter seems to imply that our rights come from the Constitution, instead of merely being recognised in the Constitution.
Michael Badnarik, the LP candidate in 2004, has a class he teaches on the Constitution. This 8-hour class can be watched for free online. In this class, Badnarik explains that rights are natural, that we do not have them before the Constitution says so, but because they are innate. He also explains the difference between a right and a privilege.
Capitalism.org has a good explanation about the inalienability of rights.
And, of course, I must also recommend reading Murray N. Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty, which uses natural law theory to discuss his take on human rights.
7.
Great video. I see Russ Roberts was involved in the writing of that. I read his The Choice a couple years ago.
8.
You write, “Right-wing states like Utah and Wyoming have a very low incidence of gun violence.”
Can we avoid using the term “right-wing” in reference to an opposition to gun control? See #1 above.
9.
You write, “Progressives also downplay the role of family. Conservatives tend to have stronger families, and teach that ‘family is all.’ Progressives teach that the family unit is an impediment, that you should ‘spread your wings and find your own way.’”
Have you read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged yet? Family is not “all.”
Let’s put it this way: if your sister is a statist who is running for office, will you (A) vote for her so as to stick to your family, or (B) vote against her so as to stick to your principles? This isn’t to say family is a “bad” thing, of course; but I do think it is rather silly to imply that family is “everything.”
Finally, conservatives are just as bad as the modern “liberals.”
10.
You write, “Progressives are revisionist with history.”
Revisionism plays an important role in history. Considering that most histories are written by statists, revisionism is the only place one can go to to find an objective viewpoint.
Jeff Riggenbach has written a book about historical revisionism. I haven’t read it yet, but it can be read for free at Mises.org, and bought there. It may be worth cheching out.
11.
I do not believe that America has a “culture.” See my piece, “What American Culture?”
12.
While it is true that the KKK were predominantly Democratic, is is also true that the Democratic Party was divided on the issue of slavery.
Consider the Jacksonian origin of the Democratic Party. The advocates of the party at the time were largely classical liberals, and it was Martin Van Buren who really organised the party. Jackson was put up front as the main guy, while Van Buren worked behind the scenes. The general objective of the party was to decrease the national debt, get rid of the central bank, and to limit the size and scope of government. Unfortunately, Jackson was not a libertarian as Van Buren, and as such the whole Trail of Tears thing happened under Jackson’s administration. But the party was well on its way to slashing government until the slavery riff prevented Van Buren from getting elected as second term. For, while Jackson supported allowing new slave states into the union, Van Buren did not. This riff allowed the big government Whigs (who were rather dissimilar to the small government Whigs of Britain) to take the White House.
I believe Rothbard discusses some of this in his introduction to Lysander Spooner’s Vices are Not Crimes, but I could be mistaken.
13.
Lincoln did not free the slaves. He made it abundantly clear that his only objective was to keep the Union together, and toward that goal, he waged an unnecessary war. During this war, he engaged in conscription, which is a form of involuntary servitude. He arrested people for speaking out against the war. He suspended Habeas Corpus (which, as far as I’m concerned, ceased being constitutional the moment the Bill of Rights had been passed). And, he did not even bring up the slavery issue until the war was half over, and it was only then brought up for appeasement.
As the real abolitionists of the time understood, Lincoln’s so-called “emancipation approclamation” was nothing more than a carrot to try to get the Southern states to rejoin. In the approclamation, Lincoln only “frees” those slaves that lived in those areas over which he had absolutely no control. The areas that the Union did still control were all exempted. Thus, his approclamation didn’t free even a single slave, and the abolitionists were understandably pissed at this fact.
Finally, while Lincoln did sign the thirteenth amendment, presidential signatures have absolutely no legal effect on constitutional amendments. As far as amendments to the Constitution go, the president’s perspective is entirely irrelevant legally speaking.
Thus, if credit for the abolition of slavery should go to anyone, it should go to the radicals in Congress, not to Lincoln.
On top of all of this, Lincoln was a racist, and he supported big government and neomercantilism. The GOP has been a big government party from its inception, with the exception of Warren G. Harding, one of the few presidents who were halfway tolerable (Jefferson and Van Buren being the other two).
Thomas J. DiLorenzo has written two books on Lincoln. I have not yet read either of them.
Best regards,
Alex Peak
Thanks Alex! Interesting comments. Please post any time.
Did you find me because of my associations with Pastor Kenn Blanchard? I see on your blog you hosted an event with him. He wrote the forward to my latest book:
http://www.lifeamp.org
MWD
AWESOME comment Alexander! I’ve often cringed myself when people call Libertarians “Right Wing”, it’s great to see someone state such an eloquent and well stated reason as to why that statement has always given me the willies. I’ve long upheld that I am most definitely NOT right wing, my beliefs have always been a hodgepodge of both sides of the political spectrum, but always favoring individual rights. The right wants to force me to go to church and dictate what I can do in my own bedroom, the left wants to take my guns and tax and nanny me to death. I prefer not to associate with either of them. I am NO wing, period, Centrist if anything, and predominately Libertarian.
Thanks also for clearing up some myths about Lincoln. Like most things in the history books, that little story has been doctored to death by everyone who’s gotten ahold of it over the years. I didn’t know half of the details that you just stated, but I did know the basic story relating to them. Like most presidents, Lincoln didn’t do half of what he’s accredited with. Most of it is great propaganda, makes for some entertaining movies and books, but most of what we’ve always been told about Lincoln is FAR from what actually happened.
Justin
Mr. Dean,
I actually found the site after searching for “libertarian punk” on YouTube.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak
I for one would like to rename the Republican Party to the Facist Party. And the Democratic Party to the Totolitatrian Party.
I do generally vote “conservative”, if you can call it that, but only because I beleive it to be the lesser of the two evils. The Constitution Party is the only one I can identify with, but they are not on very many ballots.
I love your music Michael keep it up
Glad you like the music! Feel free to make copies for friends.
I like about 95% of the Constitution Party’s platform better than any other party (except the Libertarian Party). But I hate the other 5% of the CP’s platform…..where they venture into wanting to legislate stuff that has NOTHING to do with the Constitution (or with Natural Rights, for that matter.)……like outlawing adult porn for adults…..and outlawing drugs.
I think their stance on things like that makes me want to call them “The Hypocrite Party.”
MWD