Nestle joins the “plant based burger” movement

In the end, this is all being cooked up (literally) by the people trying to drive the beef industry out of business. You know what we have to do, people. Suck it up and start eating more steaks.
A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewOu rah! What a great way to fight a war. lol — jtl, 419
by Jazz Shaw at Hot Air

 

First, it was Burger King. Next came Chick-fil-A. Then it was Little Ceaser’s. Companies have inexplicably been signing on to use laboratory-grown, plant-based “meat” substitutes in everything from burgers to sausage. And now, joining the parade is Nestle. Wait a minute… Nestle makes burgers? I thought they did hot chocolate. (CNBC)

 

Nestle is looking to take a bite of the growing U.S. plant-based burger market.

Through its Sweet Earth brand, which it acquired in 2017, the global food giant will launch its Awesome Burger in the fall. The vegan meat substitute will be available at grocery stores, restaurants and universities.

Sweet Earth founders Brian and Kelly Swette said they began developing their own plant-based burger several years ago — before nearly every restaurant chain announced a plant-based option and Beyond Meat went public.

Okay, so Sweet Earth Foods is a brand that Nestle bought to expand their portfolio. You can take a look at this particular horror show at their site. They’re prominently advertising the “Awesome Burger” as coming soon. I’ll give them credit. The actual burger part of the sandwich does kinda sorta look like a real hamburger if you don’t stare at it too closely. But still… not quite. Take a look for yourself. (Click on image for full-size picture.)

See what I mean? As I said, it sort of looks like meat, but there are weird gaps in the patty. It looks fairly juicy, but keep in mind that this is an advertising photo and those things rarely look like what actually comes out of the package and winds up on your plate. If you’re not familiar with the process, take a gander at this report on how photographers make the food look so delicious. The list of secret tricks includes, but is not limited to, glue, sponges, tampons, shoe polish, and motor oil.

Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits Of course, now that I think about it, would you rather eat something made of tampons, shoe polish and glue or “soy DNA injected into genetically engineered yeast that’s then fermented?” (That’s literally a company description of the impossible beef and how they design it in the lab.) Might come down to a coin toss if you ask me.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)  So this particular nightmare is spreading faster than I’d ever imagined it would. Whether you’re going into a restaurant and placing an order with your nifty new AI-controlled robot waiter or picking up something at the grocery store to cook at home, you’ll need to be on your guard. I think they’re still required to tell you that you’re purchasing some sort of Frankenplant composite, but labels can be tricky. Be sure to ask first.

In the end, this is all being cooked up (literally) by the people trying to drive the beef industry out of business. You know what we have to do, people. Suck it up and start eating more steaks.

Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

edited by

Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

Is now available in both PAPERBACK and Kindle

BookCoverImageMurray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”

This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.

The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.

As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.

However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.

The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.

The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.

FOLLOW LAND & LIVESTOCK INTERNATIONAL ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Democrats’ Red Flag Gun Laws to Disarm Rural Gun Owners, Not Gang Members

How on God’s Green Earth can anybody give even the smallest thread of credibility to the libtards, dembulbs, Marxists, collectivists, communists, socialists, democrats (or what ever you want to call them–they are all the same)? — jtl, 419

Flyover-Press.com

How on God’s Green Earth can anybody give even the smallest thread of credibility to the libtards, dembulbs, Marxists, collectivists, communists, socialists, democrats (or what ever you want to call them–they are all the same)? — jtl, 419

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualEnvironmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewReconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsCombat Shooter's Handbook

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)

Check out our WebSite

Combat Shooter's HandbookCombat Shooter’s Handbook.Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first. So, who does that leave to protect you, your life, property and family? The one and only answer is: YOU This Handbook is intended to help you exercise that right and meet that responsibility. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

View original post

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

‘My AR Is Ready’

3) It’s also “ready,” if necessary, to defend himself and others from the violent state goons, sent by gangsters like The Fake Mexican, to disarm honest, peaceful people by any means necessary, including killing these honest, peaceful people!
Vetting the “boys in blue” is going to be difficult. I suspect that a few of them (rural locals) will immediately come to our side and bring their weapons. But…from what we know about the basic nature of man, the majority (city and FedGov employees) will likely do what they are told until the stolen money (government paychecks) start bouncing. — jtl, 419
By Roger Young via LewRockwell.com
Last week, a political party of violence peddling Bolsheviks held a debate involving candidates who wish to be anointed the next American Emperor. One candidate by the name of Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (known to Real Texans and Real Mexicans as The Fake Mexican) adamantly announced his intentions to confiscate the firearms of peaceful American subjects.

 

“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” the former El Paso congressman said. “We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”

Not surprisingly, this assertion brought a rousing response from those who would object to such a criminal action. One of those objecting was Texas State Rep. Briscoe Cain. His response was equally inflammatory:

“My AR is ready for you, Robert Francis.”

Being the typical, loud mouthed, bullying coward, O’Rourke took Mr. Cain’s blunt eloquence as a “death threat.” He was so offended, he even reported Mr. Cain to the DC Regime’s version of the Gestapo.

But just who is issuing “threats” in this exchange?

This fact must be made perfectly clear: “Beto” is the one doing the threatening here; threatening to confiscate a peaceful individual’s property, threatening to take away a peaceful individual’s tool of self-defense and threatening lethal violence against peaceful individuals, if necessary, to accomplish just that.

Remember O’Rourke’s use of the well-worn, collectivist “we” in his confiscation announcement? It does not mean “he” personally, as Emperor, will be politely knocking on your door. It will be a cadre of heavily armed, loyalist goons doing his dirty work.

Mr. Cain is obviously aware of this fact, making his measured response completely rational.

Yes, his “AR is ready.”

1) It’s “ready” to be used to defend himself, his family and his community from criminal, murderous rampages.

It is the innate response of any living creature to defend itself. And to any sentient human organism, that immediate defensive response is initiated solely by that individual human organism, not by calling “911” or “sheltering in place.”

2) It’s “ready” to be used to defend himself and others from violent, authoritarian, communist goblins who want to disarm honest people so they will easily be slaughtered in the next mass shooting.

3) It’s also “ready,” if necessary, to defend himself and others from the violent state goons, sent by gangsters like The Fake Mexican, to disarm honest, peaceful people by any means necessary, including killing these honest, peaceful people!

“My AR is ready” is the modern-day version of the slogan from the early days of the Texas Revolution directed at other violent, state authoritarians: “Come and take it!”

Mr. Cain’s comments represent those individuals who adamantly refuse to be butchered by pharmaceutical-addled barbarians, while at the same time being bullied into disarmament and rendered defenseless by power mad, hoplophobic tyrants.

The last thing these folks want is violence but being blessed with the virtues of preparedness and common sense, they are “ready” to do whatever necessary to protect their property and families- And that includes securing the tools necessary to procure that protection!

If the words, “The rights of the people to keep and bear arms  shall not be infringed” is not concise enough or too complicated for “Beto” to understand, perhaps “My AR is ready” will be more easily grasped by this severely challenged individual and other despots like him.

The Best of Roger Young

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc. (Protecting Liberty through Private Firearms Ownership)  

“Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.” – Jeff Cooper

Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first.

In Warren v. District of Columbia the court ruled, and the Supreme Court upheld, that “(T)he desire for condemnation cannot satisfy the need for a special relationship out of which a duty to specify persons arises.” Because the complaint did not allege a relationship “beyond that found in general police responses to crimes,” the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.

The bottom line is that your local police are not legally obligated to protect you, the average citizen. In addition to the Warren case, there are hundreds of court rulings which state that cops are not legally responsible for protecting individual citizens. For example, see Zelig v. County of Los Angeles.

The government can’t protect you as you saw on September 11, 2001 as well as during the Washington, DC area “sniper” rampage and the plethora of active shooter events that we have had since.

In fact, the government could very well be our greatest fear, due to its propensity to murder people because of their ideas (See Ruby Ridge, ID and Waco, TX).

A simple internet or youtube.com search of “the police state” or “police brutality” will reveal literally thousands of violent crimes (from assault to cold blooded murder) committed by the State’s costumed emissaries of officially sanctioned violence (aka The Police State) against harmless and innocent people.

So, who does that leave to protect you, your life, property and family? The one and only answer is: YOU It is your duty and personal responsibility to protect yourself and your loved ones.

This responsibility is a natural right given to us by God as human beings and guaranteed to us as individuals by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc. offers professional weapons and tactics training that will make the difference. Instructed by experienced combat veterans—guys that have “been there and done that.” It offers private instruction at its privately owned range and mobile training teams are available. All interactions are confidential and discrete.

Contact: You can contact us via email at editor@flyover-press.com or through any of the contact or email links on our Web Site at www.flyover-press.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

Song for Today: Eddy Arnold – The Tips Of My Fingers

One of the true “pioneers.” 

Buyer Assistance:

Land and Livestock International, Inc. is in a position to assist the buyer in purchasing ranches anywhere in the Western United States and Northern Mexico. Pre – purchase services include help with due diligence, estimates of carrying capacity and potential for improvement, cash flow projections, etc. Post purchase services include everything from part time consulting to complete turn-key management.

We are not licensed real estate brokers nor are we licensed appraisers. We work only for the buyer for a negotiated fee.

Contact us at info@landandlivestockinternational.com or through our web site at www.landandlivestockinternational.com 

Posted in Song for the Day, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Farrier Wanted in Alpine, Texas

The old horse needs a trim job. Call Sally at 432-294-2494.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Freedoms we’ve lost while our military is ‘fighting for our freedoms’

My Marine Corps career span some 30 years (reserve time ran parallel with an academic career) and included two of the Yankee Occupation Government’s Imperialistic wars–Vietnam and Desert Storm.

I’m a slow learner. It took me 40 some years to figure out that NOTHING I ever did for the Marine Corps ever had anything to do with “freedom in America” or “defending the constitution” or any other of that flag waiving horse shit.

EVERYTHING that I ever did for the Marine Corps had everything to do with the aggrandizement of the state and the enrichment of the politicos and their cronies in the military-industrial-congressional-educational-law enforcement cartel.

And please do NOT “thank” me for my service. In the first place, I didn’t do anything that anybody should be thankful for and, in fact, I did a lot of things that we should ALL be ashamed of. — jtl, 419

Flyover-Press.com

Money printing and wars go hand in hand. They steal your wealth and freedom and, more importantly, your sons and daughters.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)  My Marine Corps career span some 30 years (reserve time ran parallel with an academic career) and included two of the Yankee Occupation Government’s Imperialistic wars–Vietnam and Desert Storm.

I’m a slow learner. It took me 40 some years to figure out that NOTHING I ever did for the Marine Corps ever had anything to do with “freedom in America” or “defending the constitution” or any other of that flag waiving horse shit.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) EVERYTHING that I ever did for the Marine Corps had everything to do with the aggrandizement of the state and the enrichment of the politicos and their cronies in the military-industrial-congressional-educational-law enforcement cartel.

And please do NOT “thank” me for my service. In the first place, I didn’t do anything that anybody should be thankful…

View original post 1,595 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

24 Constitutional Questions Every American Should be Able to Answer

Go through this and see how many examples you can find of blatant disregard for what
is supposed to be the supreme law of the land:
For example with respect to: education;  legislation from the bench (supreme court); executive orders; foreign aid; counterfeiting-central banking (funny money); treaty law (under which The Republic of Texas was annexed by the uSSA); declaration of war; the ONLY “crimes” for which the FedGov is allowed to engage in law enforcement;  illegal immigration; a standing army; and democracy.
And then come back and try to tell me that we still have a “constitution.” The noble experiment with constitutionally limited government has been a catastrophic failure. It is time we gave liberty a chance. — jtl, 419
Written by  John F. McManus at The New American

September 17 is designated Constitution Day in recognition of the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution in 1787. How many of these quiz questions can you answer?

1. Q: Has the Constitution always guided the country?

A: No. Originally the nation functioned under the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation. But after 11 years under the Articles, the U.S. Constitution was written, agreed to, and ratified by nine states (all eventually ratified but only nine were needed to have it take effect). On September 13, 1788, the Continental Congress proclaimed that the Constitution had been properly ratified and it ordered the new government to convene on March 4, 1789.

2. Q: Does the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to make law?

A: No. The beginning of Article I states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Any Supreme Court decision is the law of the case and it binds only the plaintiff and the defendant. The meaning of the word “all” has not been changed.

3. Q: Does the Constitution allow the president to make law?

A: No. Executive Orders issued by the president that bind the entire nation are illicit because, as noted above, “All legislative powers” reside in Congress. An Executive Order that binds only the employees of the federal government is proper because the president should be considered to hold power much like the CEO of a corporation who can issue rules to his employees. But the entire nation is not in the employ of the president. The president does have a role in lawmaking with his possession of a veto. He can veto a measure produced by Congress (which can still be overturned), sign a law produced by Congress, or simply allow a measure to become law by doing nothing within 10 days, “Sundays excepted.”

4. Q: Does the Constitution give the federal government any power in the field of education?

A: No, none.

5. Q: Where in the Constitution is there authorization for foreign aid?

A: Nowhere is there such authorization.

6. Q: What are the three branches of government named in the Constitution?

A: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

7. Q: Does the Constitution have a minimum age requirement for a senator?

A:  Yes. One must be 30 years old.

8. Q: What are the constitutional requirements for a person to be president?

A: A president must be a natural born citizen (not an immigrant who became a citizen), must be at least 35 years of age, and must have lived in the United States at least 14 years.

9. Q: Did the Constitution give the federal government power to create a bank?

A: No. It was given power to “coin money,” meaning the power to establish a mint where precious metal could be shaped into coinage of a fixed size, weight, and purity.

10. Q: May treaty law supersede the Constitution?

A: No.

11. Q: Does the Constitution allow a president alone to take the nation to war?

A: Absolutely not. The Constitution states very clearly that only Congress has power to take the nation into war

12. Q: Are there any specific crimes mentioned in the Constitution?

A: Yes: treason, bribery, counterfeiting, and piracy.

13. Q: Are the Bill of Rights considered part of the original Constitution?

A: Many do hold that view because if the promise to add the Bill of Rights had not been made, some of the states would not have ratified the Constitution and it might not have become the “Supreme Law of the Land.”

14. Q: According to the Constitution, how can a president and other national officials be removed from office?

A: They can be impeached by a majority in the House and tried by the Senate. Impeachment is not removal; it should be considered only as an indictment to be followed by a trial. Two-thirds of the senators “present” must approve removal at a subsequent trial or the person who has been impeached by the House shall not be removed.

15. Q: What authority does the Constitution give the vice president?

A: The vice president stands ready to take office if a president dies or becomes incapacitated. He is also president of the Senate and has the power to break a tie if one comes before it.

16. Q: How many amendments to the Constitution are there?

A: There are 27. The first 10 can be considered part of the original Constitution. And Amendment 18 was repealed by Amendment 21, which means that in a span of more than two centuries, there have been only 15 amendments. Amending the Constitution is a difficult process, made so by the Founders to keep anything silly or dangerous from being added in the heat of passion.

17. Q: Does the Constitution say anything about illegal immigration?

A: Not directly. But Article IV, Section 4 assigns to the federal government the duty to “protect each of them [the states] against invasion.” Note that it does not stipulate that an invasion be done militarily.

18. Q: Does the Constitution tell us how new states are added to the union?

A: Yes, Congress has the power to do so with a majority vote in each of its houses. It used its power, most recently, to welcome Alaska and Hawaii as the 49th and 50th states.

19. Q: How is an amendment to the Constitution added?

A: Congress can propose an amendment when two-thirds of both Houses vote to do so. It must then be ratified by either the legislature or convention in three-quarters of the states. Amendments can also be proposed by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the states. Any amendment arising from a constitutional convention must also be ratified by either the legislatures or conventions in three-quarters of the states.

20. Q: Is the term of a president limited by the Constitution?

A: Yes. In 1951, the Constitution was amended (Amendment 22) to limit anyone to two terms as president. The only president who served longer was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who served into a fourth term, but died in April 1945 shortly after the beginning his 13th year in office.

21. Q: Which part of Congress is designated by the Constitution as having the “power of the purse?”

A: Article I, Section 7 states: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” If a majority in the House (218 is a majority of its 435 members) refuses to originate a bill to raise revenue for any purpose, no funds can be raised, until it passes.

22. Q: How does the Constitution explain expelling an elected member of the House or Senate?

A: Two-thirds of either the House or the Senate can expel one of its members for cause even though he or she has been elected by voters.

23. Q: What does the Constitution say about financing a military arm?

A: Article I, Section 8 says that the Congress can raise an army but “no appropriation of money” to fund it shall be for longer than two years. The same Article says Congress can provide for a navy without that same restriction regarding funding. Why? The men who wrote the Constitution feared the possibility that a standing army housed within the territory of the nation might arise and seek to take power. But they did not fear that a navy would try to do that because a navy and its weaponry did not reside within the nation, but only at sea or coastal seaports.

24. Q: How many times is the word democracy mentioned in the Constitution?

A: None. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. A Democracy ruled by the majority can be persuaded to take away freedoms and property. Under a Constitutional Republic, such power does not exist.
John F. McManus is president emeritus of The John Birch Society. This article was originally published on Constiitution Day, September 17, 2014.

Related article:

Constitution Day

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits 

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)  The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)  The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)  Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View   

FOLLOW LAND & LIVESTOCK INTERNATIONAL, INC ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

A Handbook for Ranch ManagersA Handbook for Ranch Managers.  In keeping with the “holistic” idea that the land, the livestock, the people and the money should be viewed as a single integrated whole: Part I deals with the management of the natural resources. Part II covers livestock production and Part III deals with the people and the money. Not only would this book make an excellent basic text for a university program in Ranch Management, no professional ranch manager’s reference bookshelf should be without it. It is a comprehensive reference manual for managing the working ranch. The information in the appendices and extensive bibliography alone is worth the price of the book.

You might also be interested in the supplement to this Handbook: Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual.

Posted in Uncategorized, Constitution | Tagged | 1 Comment

Song for Today: Jim Reeves – We Could

The philosophy of the author (as well as the publisher) is that ranch management should be approached from the view that the land, the livestock, the people and the money are one—a single integrated whole. But once that is understood and constantly kept in mind, a close examination of each of these elements is permissible. Furthermore, due to the linear limitations of the written word, each of these management areas has to be treated separately. In keeping with that, Part I deals with the management of the natural resources. Part II covers livestock production and Part III deals with the people and the money. The book is a comprehensive source of information on all aspects of managing the working ranch. Not only would it make an excellent basic text for a university program in Ranch Management, no professional ranch manager’s reference bookshelf should be without it because it is a comprehensive reference manual for managing the working ranch. The information in the appendices alone is worth the price of the book. Read More. 

Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualFrom the Editor: I first attended Alan Savory and Stan Parson’s “Rancher School” in Albuquerque, NM in the early 1980s. Since that time, and throughout my academic career, I have advocated, taught and practiced the principles of the “Savory Grazing Method (or SGM)” as it was called in those days. Only a short time after I completed the school, Alan and Stan decided to dissolve their partnership and go their separate ways. Alan founded Holistic Management International and Stan the Ranching for Profit School. SGM (now Holistic Management) is a “method” and “methods” cannot be patented. As a result, the names the principles are presented under have proliferated. Although the fundamental ecological principles have not changed since those early days, we now have managed grazing, planned grazing, mob grazing, management intensive grazing, and perhaps a half-dozen others. (In fact, for some small degree of distinction, we choose to call what we do “Managing the Ranch…Read More

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewMurray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.” This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues. The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental…Read More

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsSometimes people do the wrong things for the right reasons. The author admits that to be the “story of his life” and openly shares much of it in this book. Although the book is largely an historically based auto-biography, it is part fact and part fiction. In cases where identities needed to be protected, the “facts” necessary to that end are changed but without altering the accuracy of the description of the event or its historical significance. It is a personal story. It is a cowboy-warrior’s story told in a cowboy-warrior’s language. It is the story of one man’s journey from bondage to freedom and from slavery to liberty. It is the gritty story of this man’s life-long education in the school of hard knocks as his journey took him from a sharecropper’s shack, through the rodeo arena and the boxing ring, across the football field and the drilling rig floor, into the Marines and two wars and ultimately culminating in the university… Read More 

Combat Shooter's Handbook“Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.” – Jeff Cooper Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first. In Warren v. District of Columbia the court ruled, and the Supreme Court upheld, that “(T)he desire for condemnation cannot satisfy the need for a special relationship out of which a duty to specify persons arises.” Because the complaint did not allege a relationship “beyond that found in general police responses to crimes,” the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim. The bottom line is that your local police are not legally obligated to protect you, the average citizen. In addition to the Warren case, there are hundreds of court rulings which state that cops are not legally responsible for protecting individual citizens. For example, see Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, The government can’t protect you as you saw on September 11, 2001 as well as during the Washington, DC… Read More

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteAll unclassified Army and Marine Cops manuals and correspondence courses are products of the US Federal Government. They are NOT subject to copyright and can be freely copied and redistributed. The Marine Corps Institute (MCI) develops correspondence courses for Marines with all kinds of Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) on all manner of subjects. This is one of those courses. The print is relatively small because that is the way it was in the original and this is an exact reproduction. Also, as a tribute to the individual (and a touch of reality), you will notice that the editorial pencil marks and underlined passages that were put there by the Marine that took this course. They were intentionally left in the reproduction. This version of the course was authorized in September of 1984. With the exception the development of Infrared technology, it contains information and techniques that have changed very little since the Vietnam war. These battle proven tactics are as valid today as they were… Read More

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government. Jimmy T LaBaume, editor.  Read More 

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) Read More

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) by Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume (2014-04-01)The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) Read More

 

Posted in Song for the Day, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Song for Today: Deana Carter – Strawberry Wine

Buyer Assistance:

Land and Livestock International, Inc. is in a position to assist the buyer in purchasing ranches anywhere in the Western United States and Northern Mexico. Pre – purchase services include help with due diligence, estimates of carrying capacity and potential for improvement, cash flow projections, etc. Post purchase services include everything from part time consulting to complete turn-key management.

We are not licensed real estate brokers nor are we licensed appraisers. We work only for the buyer for a negotiated fee.

Contact us at info@landandlivestockinternational.com or through our web site at www.landandlivestockinternational.com 

Posted in Song for the Day, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Why Is Julian Assange Being Tortured to Death?

Flyover-Press.com

Because this must not stand, Assange and those who may have worked with him will be interrogated with the full capability of the state (physical, mental and chemical torture).  They will not be tried, represented or defended in a public court, and as noted here for Assange, they will never be released regardless of what is discovered through various interrogations…
Modern day government power is fundamentally related to its “believability.”  This believability, this trustworthiness, is teetering everywhere – in part to the valiant work of honest people everywhere – and make no mistake, we are indeed everywhere.  The hopeless and evil persecution of Julian Assange signals just such a believability crisis.  When a building, or an institution, begins to crumble, there are many urgent jobs to do to save lives and ensure a happier future.  Find one of them and start doing it.
Worth repeating: Find one of them and…

View original post 1,627 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Myth and Truth About Libertarianism

The state is the only social institution which is able to extract its income and wealth by coercion; all others must obtain revenue either by selling a product or service to customers or by receiving voluntary gifts. And the state is the only institution which can use the revenue from this organized theft to presume to control and regulate people’s lives and property. Hence, the institution of the state establishes a socially legitimatized and sanctified channel for bad people to do bad things, to commit regularized theft and to wield dictatorial power.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) Judging from some of the feedback we have been getting in our “comments” section, it is obvious that there is a great deal of (almost total) ignorance about Libertarianism. Hopefully this will help clear up some of the egregious myths and misconceptions.

Introduction: Murray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)   Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.” — jtl, 419

by Murray N. Rothbard via Mises Daily Articles

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)[This essay is based on a paper presented at the April 1979 national meeting of the Philadelphia Society in Chicago. The theme of the meeting was “Conservatism and Libertarianism.”]

 

Libertarianism is the fastest growing political creed in America today. Before judging and evaluating libertarianism, it is vitally important to find out precisely what that doctrine is, and, more particularly, what it is not. It is especially important to clear up a number of misconceptions about libertarianism that are held by most people, and particularly by conservatives. In this essay I shall enumerate and critically analyze the most common myths that are held about libertarianism. When these are cleared away, people will then be able to discuss libertarianism free of egregious myths and misconceptions, and to deal with it as it should be on its very own merits or demerits.

  The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsMyth #1: Libertarians believe that each individual is an isolated, hermetically sealed atom, acting in a vacuum without influencing each other.

This is a common charge, but a highly puzzling one. In a lifetime of reading libertarian and classical-liberal literature, I have not come across a single theorist or writer who holds anything like this position.

Combat Shooter's Handbook The only possible exception is the fanatical Max Stirner, a mid-19th-century German individualist who, however, has had minimal influence upon libertarianism in his time and since. Moreover, Stirner’s explicit “might makes right” philosophy and his repudiation of all moral principles including individual rights as “spooks in the head,” scarcely qualifies him as a libertarian in any sense. Apart from Stirner, however, there is no body of opinion even remotely resembling this common indictment.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewLibertarians are methodological and political individualists, to be sure. They believe that only individuals think, value, act, and choose. They believe that each individual has the right to own his own body, free of coercive interference. But no individualist denies that people are influencing each other all the time in their goals, values, pursuits, and occupations.

As F.A. Hayek pointed out in his notable article, “The Non Sequitur of the ‘Dependence Effect,'” John Kenneth Galbraith’s assault upon free-market economics in his best-selling The Affluent Society rested on this proposition: economics assumes that every individual arrives at his scale of values totally on his own, without being subject to influence by anyone else. On the contrary, as Hayek replied, everyone knows that most people do not originate their own values, but are influenced to adopt them by other people.1

No individualist or libertarian denies that people influence each other all the time, and surely there is nothing wrong with this inevitable process. What libertarians are opposed to is not voluntary persuasion, but the coercive imposition of values by the use of force and police power. Libertarians are in no way opposed to the voluntary cooperation and collaboration between individuals: only to the compulsory pseudo-“cooperation” imposed by the state.

Myth #2: Libertarians are libertines: they are hedonists who hanker after “alternative lifestyles.”

This myth has recently been propounded by Irving Kristol, who identifies the libertarian ethic with the “hedonistic” and asserts that libertarians “worship the Sears Roebuck catalogue and all the ‘alternative life styles’ that capitalist affluence permits the individual to choose from.”2

The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.

Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit, except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that there are libertarians who are indeed hedonists and devotees of alternative lifestyles, and that there are also libertarians who are firm adherents of “bourgeois” conventional or religious morality. There are libertarian libertines and there are libertarians who cleave firmly to the disciplines of natural or religious law. There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory.

Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles. Libertarians agree with Lord Acton that “liberty is the highest political end” — not necessarily the highest end on everyone’s personal scale of values.

There is no question about the fact, however, that the subset of libertarians who are free-market economists tends to be delighted when the free market leads to a wider range of choices for consumers, and thereby raises their standard of living. Unquestionably, the idea that prosperity is better than grinding poverty is a moral proposition, and it ventures into the realm of general moral theory, but it is still not a proposition for which I should wish to apologize.

Myth #3: Libertarians do not believe in moral principles; they limit themselves to cost-benefit analysis on the assumption that man is always rational.

This myth is of course related to the preceding charge of hedonism, and some of it can be answered in the same way. There are indeed libertarians, particularly Chicago School economists, who refuse to believe that liberty and individual rights are moral principles, and instead attempt to arrive at public policy by weighing alleged social costs and benefits.

In the first place, most libertarians are “subjectivists” in economics, that is, they believe that the utilities and costs of different individuals cannot be added or measured. Hence, the very concept of social costs and benefits is illegitimate. But, more importantly, most libertarians rest their case on moral principles, on a belief in the natural rights of every individual to his person or property. They therefore believe in the absolute immorality of aggressive violence, of invasion of those rights to person or property, regardless of which person or group commits such violence.

Far from being immoral, libertarians simply apply a universal human ethic to government in the same way as almost everyone would apply such an ethic to every other person or institution in society. In particular, as I have noted earlier, libertarianism as a political philosophy dealing with the proper role of violence takes the universal ethic that most of us hold toward violence and applies it fearlessly to government.

Libertarians make no exceptions to the golden rule and provide no moral loophole, no double standard, for government. That is, libertarians believe that murder is murder and does not become sanctified by reasons of state if committed by the government. We believe that theft is theft and does not become legitimated because organized robbers call their theft “taxation.” We believe that enslavement is enslavement even if the institution committing that act calls it “conscription.” In short, the key to libertarian theory is that it makes no exceptions in its universal ethic for government.

Hence, far from being indifferent or hostile to moral principles, libertarians fulfill them by being the only group willing to extend those principles across the board to government itself.3

It is true that libertarians would allow each individual to choose his values and to act upon them, and would in short accord every person the right to be either moral or immoral as he saw fit. Libertarianism is strongly opposed to enforcing any moral creed on any person or group by the use of violence — except, of course, the moral prohibition against aggressive violence itself. But we must realize that no action can be considered virtuous unless it is undertaken freely, by a person’s voluntary consent.

As Frank Meyer pointed out,

Men cannot be forced to be free, nor can they even be forced to be virtuous. To a certain extent, it is true, they can be forced to act as though they were virtuous. But virtue is the fruit of well-used freedom. And no act to the degree that it is coerced can partake of virtue — or of vice.4

If a person is forced by violence or the threat thereof to perform a certain action, then it can no longer be a moral choice on his part. The morality of an action can stem only from its being freely adopted; an action can scarcely be called moral if someone is compelled to perform it at gunpoint.

Compelling moral actions or outlawing immoral actions, therefore, cannot be said to foster the spread of morality or virtue. On the contrary, coercion atrophies morality, for it takes away from the individual the freedom to be either moral or immoral, and therefore forcibly deprives people of the chance to be moral. Paradoxically, then, a compulsory morality robs us of the very opportunity to be moral.

It is furthermore particularly grotesque to place the guardianship of morality in the hands of the state apparatus — that is, none other than the organization of policemen, guards, and soldiers. Placing the state in charge of moral principles is equivalent to putting the proverbial fox in charge of the chicken coop.

Whatever else we may say about them, the wielders of organized violence in society have never been distinguished by their high moral tone or by the precision with which they uphold moral principle.

Myth #4: Libertarianism is atheistic and materialist, and neglects the spiritual side of life.

There is no necessary connection between being for or against libertarianism and one’s position on religion. It is true that many if not most libertarians at the present time are atheists, but this correlates with the fact that most intellectuals, of most political persuasions, are atheists as well.

There are many libertarians who are theists, Jewish or Christian. Among the classical-liberal forebears of modern libertarianism in a more religious age there were a myriad of Christians: from John Lilburne, Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, and John Locke in the 17th century, down to Cobden and Bright, Frédéric Bastiat and the French laissez-faire liberals, and the great Lord Acton.

Libertarians believe that liberty is a natural right embedded in a natural law of what is proper for mankind, in accordance with man’s nature. Where this set of natural laws comes from, whether it is purely natural or originated by a creator, is an important ontological question but is irrelevant to social or political philosophy.

As Father Thomas Davitt declares,

If the word “natural” means anything at all, it refers to the nature of a man, and when used with “law,” “natural” must refer to an ordering that is manifested in the inclinations of a man’s nature and to nothing else. Hence, taken in itself, there is nothing religious or theological in the “Natural Law” of Aquinas.5

Or, as D’Entrèves writes of the 17th century Dutch Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius,

[Grotius’s] definition of natural law has nothing revolutionary. When he maintains that natural law is that body of rule which Man is able to discover by the use of his reason, he does nothing but restate the Scholastic notion of a rational foundation of ethics. Indeed, his aim is rather to restore that notion which had been shaken by the extreme Augustinianism of certain Protestant currents of thought. When he declares that these rules are valid in themselves, independently of the fact that God willed them, he repeats an assertion which had already been made by some of the schoolmen.6

Libertarianism has been accused of ignoring man’s spiritual nature. But one can easily arrive at libertarianism from a religious or Christian position: emphasizing the importance of the individual, of his freedom of will, of natural rights and private property. Yet one can also arrive at all these self-same positions by a secular, natural-law approach, through a belief that man can arrive at a rational apprehension of the natural law.

Historically, furthermore, it is not at all clear that religion is a firmer footing than secular natural law for libertarian conclusions. As Karl Wittfogel reminded us in his Oriental Despotism, the union of throne and altar has been used for centuries to fasten a reign of despotism on society.7

Historically, the union of church and state has been in many instances a mutually reinforcing coalition for tyranny. The state used the church to sanctify and preach obedience to its supposedly divinely sanctioned rule; the church used the state to gain income and privilege.

The Anabaptists collectivized and tyrannized Münster in the name of the Christian religion.8

And, closer to our century, Christian socialism and the social gospel have played a major role in the drive toward statism, and the apologetic role of the Orthodox Church in Soviet Russia has been all too clear. Some Catholic bishops in Latin America have even proclaimed that the only route to the kingdom of heaven is through Marxism, and if I wished to be nasty, I could point out that the Reverend Jim Jones, in addition to being a Leninist, also proclaimed himself the reincarnation of Jesus.

Moreover, now that socialism has manifestly failed, politically and economically, socialists have fallen back on the “moral” and the “spiritual” as the final argument for their cause. Socialist Robert Heilbroner, in arguing that socialism will have to be coercive and will have to impose a “collective morality” upon the public, opines that: “Bourgeois culture is focused on the material achievement of the individual. Socialist culture must focus on his or her moral or spiritual achievement.”

The intriguing point is that this position of Heilbroner’s was hailed by the conservative religious writer for National Review, Dale Vree. He writes:

Heilbroner is … saying what many contributors to NR have said over the last quarter-century: you can’t have both freedom and virtue. Take note, traditionalists. Despite his dissonant terminology, Heilbroner is interested in the same thing you’re interested in: virtue.9

Vree is also fascinated with the Heilbroner view that a socialist culture must “foster the primacy of the collectivity” rather than the “primacy of the individual.” He quotes Heilbroner’s contrasting “moral or spiritual” achievement under socialism as against bourgeois “material” achievement, and adds correctly: “There is a traditional ring to that statement.”

Vree goes on to applaud Heilbroner’s attack on capitalism because it has “no sense of ‘the good'” and permits “consenting adults” to do anything they please. In contrast to this picture of freedom and permitted diversity, Vree writes that “Heilbroner says alluringly, because a socialist society must have a sense of ‘the good,’ not everything will be permitted.” To Vree, it is impossible “to have economic collectivism along with cultural individualism,” and so he is inclined to lean toward a new “socialist-traditionalist fusionism” — toward collectivism across the board.

We may note here that socialism becomes especially despotic when it replaces “economic” or “material” incentives by allegedly “moral” or “spiritual” ones, when it affects to promoting an indefinable “quality of life” rather than economic prosperity.

When payment is adjusted to productivity there is considerably more freedom as well as higher standards of living. For when reliance is placed solely on altruistic devotion to the socialist motherland, the devotion has to be regularly reinforced by the knout. An increasing stress on individual material incentive means ineluctably a greater stress on private property and keeping what one earns, and brings with it considerably more personal freedom, as witness Yugoslavia in the last three decades in contrast to Soviet Russia.

The most horrifying despotism on the face of the earth in recent years was undoubtedly Pol Pot’s Cambodia, in which “materialism” was so far obliterated that money was abolished by the regime. With money and private property abolished, each individual was totally dependent on handouts of rationed subsistence from the state, and life was a sheer hell. We should be careful before we sneer at “merely material” goals or incentives.

The charge of “materialism” directed against the free market ignores the fact that every human action whatsoever involves the transformation of material objects by the use of human energy and in accordance with ideas and purposes held by the actors. It is impermissible to separate the “mental” or “spiritual” from the “material.”

All great works of art, great emanations of the human spirit, have had to employ material objects: whether they be canvasses, brushes and paint, paper and musical instruments, or building blocks and raw materials for churches. There is no real rift between the “spiritual” and the “material” and hence any despotism over and crippling of the material will cripple the spiritual as well.

Myth #5: Libertarians are utopians who believe that all people are good, and that therefore state control is not necessary.

Conservatives tend to add that since human nature is either partially or wholly evil, strong state regulation is therefore necessary for society.

This is a very common belief about libertarians, yet it is difficult to know the source of this misconception. Rousseau, the locus classicus of the idea that man is good but is corrupted by his institutions, was scarcely a libertarian. Apart from the romantic writings of a few anarcho-communists, whom I would not consider libertarians in any case, I know of no libertarian or classical-liberal writers who have held this view.

On the contrary, most libertarian writers hold that man is a mixture of good and evil and therefore that it is important for social institutions to encourage the good and discourage the bad. The state is the only social institution which is able to extract its income and wealth by coercion; all others must obtain revenue either by selling a product or service to customers or by receiving voluntary gifts. And the state is the only institution which can use the revenue from this organized theft to presume to control and regulate people’s lives and property. Hence, the institution of the state establishes a socially legitimatized and sanctified channel for bad people to do bad things, to commit regularized theft and to wield dictatorial power.

Statism therefore encourages the bad, or at least the criminal elements of human nature. As Frank H. Knight trenchantly put it,

The probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tenderhearted person would get the job of whipping master in a slave plantation.10

A free society, by not establishing such a legitimated channel for theft and tyranny, discourages the criminal tendencies of human nature and encourages the peaceful and the voluntary. Liberty and the free market discourage aggression and compulsion, and encourage the harmony and mutual benefit of voluntary interpersonal exchanges, economic, social, and cultural.

Since a system of liberty would encourage the voluntary and discourage the criminal, and would remove the only legitimated channel for crime and aggression, we could expect that a free society would indeed suffer less from violent crime and aggression than we do now, though there is no warrant for assuming that they would disappear completely. That is not utopianism, but a common-sense implication of the change in what is considered socially legitimate, and in the reward-and-penalty structure in society.

We can approach our thesis from another angle. If all men were good and none had criminal tendencies, then there would indeed be no need for a state, as conservatives concede. But if on the other hand all men were evil, then the case for the state is just as shaky, since why should anyone assume that those men who form the government and obtain all the guns and the power to coerce others, should be magically exempt from the badness of all the other persons outside the government?

Tom Paine, a classical libertarian often considered to be naively optimistic about human nature, rebutted the conservative evil-human-nature argument for a strong state as follows: “If all human nature be corrupt, it is needless to strengthen the corruption by establishing a succession of kings, who be they ever so base, are still to be obeyed…” Paine added that “NO man since the fall hath ever been equal to the trust of being given power over all.”11

And as the libertarian F.A. Harper once wrote:

Still using the same principle that political rulership should be employed to the extent of the evil in man, we would then have a society in which complete political rulership of all the affairs of everybody would be called for.… One man would rule all. But who would serve as the dictator? However he were to be selected and affixed to the political throne, he would surely be a totally evil person, since all men are evil. And this society would then be ruled by a totally evil dictator possessed of total political power. And how, in the name of logic, could anything short of total evil be its consequence? How could it be better than having no political rulership at all in that society?12

Finally, since, as we have seen, men are actually a mixture of good and evil, a regime of liberty serves to encourage the good and discourage the bad, at least in the sense that the voluntary and mutually beneficial are good and the criminal is bad. In no theory of human nature, then, whether it be goodness, badness, or a mixture of the two, can statism be justified.

In the course of denying the notion that he is a conservative, the classical liberal F.A. Hayek pointed out,

The main merit of individualism [which Adam Smith and his contemporaries advocated] is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity.13

It is important to note what differentiates libertarians from utopians in the pejorative sense. Libertarianism does not set out to remold human nature. One of socialism’s major goals is to create, which in practice means by totalitarian methods, a New Socialist Man, an individual whose major goal will be to work diligently and altruistically for the collective.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy which says, Given any existent human nature, liberty is the only moral and the most effective political system.

Obviously, libertarianism — as well as any other social system — will work better the more individuals are peaceful and the less they are criminal or aggressive. And libertarians, along with most other people, would like to attain a world where more individuals are “good” and fewer are criminals. But this is not the doctrine of libertarianism per se, which says that whatever the mix of man’s nature may be at any given time, liberty is best.

Myth #6: Libertarians believe that every person knows his own interests best.

Just as the preceding charge holds that libertarians believe all men to be perfectly good, so this myth charges them with believing that everyone is perfectly wise. Yet, it is then maintained, this is not true of many people, and therefore the state must intervene.

But the libertarian no more assumes perfect wisdom than he postulates perfect goodness. There is a certain common sense in holding that most men are better apprised of their own needs and goals than is anyone else. But there is no assumption that everyone always knows his own interest best. Libertarianism rather asserts that everyone should have the right to pursue his own interest as he deems best. What is being asserted is the right to act with one’s own person and property, and not the necessary wisdom of such action.

It is also true, however, that the free market — in contrast to government — has built-in mechanisms to enable people to turn freely to experts who can give sound advice on how to pursue one’s interests best. As we have seen earlier, free individuals are not hermetically sealed from one another. For on the free market, any individual, if in doubt about what his own true interests may be, is free to hire or consult experts to give him advice based on their possibly superior knowledge. The individual may hire such experts and, on the free market, can continuously test their soundness and helpfulness.

Individuals on the market, therefore, tend to patronize those experts whose advice will prove most successful. Good doctors, lawyers, or architects will reap rewards on the free market, while poor ones will tend to fare badly. But when government intervenes, the government expert acquires his revenue by compulsory levy upon the taxpayers. There is no market test of his success in advising people of their own true interests. He only need have ability in acquiring the political support of the state’s machinery of coercion.

Thus, the privately hired expert will tend to flourish in proportion to his ability, whereas the government expert will flourish in proportion to his success in currying political favor. Moreover, the government expert will be no more virtuous than the private one; his only superiority will be in gaining the favor of those who wield political force. But a crucial difference between the two is that the privately hired expert has every pecuniary incentive to care about his clients or patients, and to do his best by them. But the government expert has no such incentive; he obtains his revenue in any case. Hence, the individual consumer will tend to fare better on the free market.

Conclusion

I hope that this essay has contributed to clearing away the rubble of myth and misconception about libertarianism. Conservatives and everyone else should politely be put on notice that libertarians do not believe that everyone is good, nor that everyone is an all-wise expert on his own interest, nor that every individual is an isolated and hermetically sealed atom. Libertarians are not necessarily libertines or hedonists, nor are they necessarily atheists; and libertarians emphatically do believe in moral principles.

Let each of us now proceed to an examination of libertarianism as it really is, unencumbered by myth or legend. Let us look at liberty plain, without fear or favor. I am confident that, were this to be done, libertarianism would enjoy an impressive rise in the number of its followers.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits. Although woven around the experiences and adventures of one man, this is also the story of the people who lived during the period of time in American history that an entire generation was betrayed It is the story of the dramatically changing times in which this personal odyssey took place. It is the story of the betrayal of an entire generation of Americans and particularly the 40% (of the military aged males) of that generation that fought the Vietnam war.

Posted in libertarianism, Uncategorized | 2 Comments