index -- The Price of Liberty

Simple facts most soldiers do not understand: The government (state) is not our country; when you fight and die in undeclared wars, you do so for the State and not for our country or our freedoms; when you forsake the Constitution you swore to uphold and defend to follow unconstitutional orders, even from your commander-in-chief, you cross the line from defender of your country to the very real possibility of becoming a war criminal.

The inboxes at my email sites are constantly bombarded with pictures and articles designed to pull at my heartstrings and make me believe there are troops in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting for our freedoms. Many of these have wonderful stirring music intended to make one stand and salute. They picture our soldiers holding young Iraqi children and playing with stray animals – a fit sermon indeed for those who hold membership in the Church of Nationalism and worship its god: the State. (Read the rest here)

“Liberty for All:
Reclaiming Individual Privacy in a New Era of Public Morality”
by Elizabeth Price Foley

There is a growing tension in American law between individual liberty and public morality. Exit polling from the 2004 presidential election revealed that “moral values” is the most important issue among voters, surpassing the economy, war in Iraq, and terrorism. Little wonder, then, that Americans increasingly feel the need to codify majoritarian morality into law in a desperate attempt to stem the perceived moral decline. We must restrain the liberty of morally deficient individuals, the argument goes, to prevent their pestilence from spreading throughout society. But are such morality-based laws legitimate exercises of governmental power? In my new book published by Yale University Press titled, Liberty for All: Reclaiming Individual Privacy in a New Era of Public Morality, I answer this question “no.” (Read the rest here)

Beware Of High Hopes
and the illusion of "vox populus"
By Dorothy Anne Seese

The illusionists are masters of deception, and deception rules the age in which this world spins. Post-election euphoria has not yet pulled one American soldier out of the Middle East, nor can it remove from power those who really control the opinions of the public, American, European, Middle and Far Eastern, the people we call the "shadow government" comprised of the industrial billionaires and world bankers.

If the elections held in the United States in November, 2006, had been presidential, there is little doubt that the country would now be looking at an incoming administration run by a Democratic Party president. Instead, the public voted in enough Democrats to speak its mind and hand control of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate to the Democrats, thus forcing an arrogant, stubborn president to replace his Secretary of Defense with someone who appears to be more moderate. It is possible that such an outcome was the only route left if America is to retain the appearance of having two modes of thought expressed by a two party political system. The Republican National Committee knew this, the president knew it and so did the Pentagon officials. There is no exit strategy from another quagmire "war" on either side, but the expression of discontent by the popular vote gives the appearance that change is in the wind. (Read the rest here)

Lies are powerful things. Hitler knew that if you just tell lies often enough -- no matter how outrageous they might be -- people will believe them. Just keep lying and lying and lying.

For the 14,425^th time, George W. Bush is not Adolph Hitler. However, he and his spin doctors also know the power of lies. Ever since September 11, 2001, they have told the American people countless times that We Are At War With Terrorists Who Seek to Take Away Our Freedom And Undermine Our Very Way Of Life.

Millions of Americans believe that Osama bin Laden wants to take over the world, when he hasn't even taken over Afghanistan. Millions of Americans still support a war in Iraq, a nation which even GWB admits had nothing to do with 9/11 . Millions of Americans still believe that Osama and Saddam posed a clear and present threat to what was left of America's freedom. Millions of Americans support a domestic police state to thwart these threats.

Just scare people enough and -- if they lack any moral convictions -- they will believe anything. (Read the rest here)

We can get so tangled up in semantics and belief systems that we lose sight of the core issues. There are thousands of people writing articles, leading organizations, writing books and making movies, all trying to express their ideas about life and how best to order it. Most of them don't want to hurt anyone and all of them believe that their ideas for our lives are "for our own good" in some way. But I don't see or hear many of them asking the most crucial questions.

Strictly speaking, ownership means control, so if you owned your entire life you would be the only one who controls it. The same would be true for everyone else, so you would have no right to attempt control of other's lives. Doing that is called aggression. So, if you really owned your own life, you would control everything your body did, what your mind thought, and you would be responsible for the consequences of those actions and thoughts yourself. You would also recognize the same ownership and responsibility in every other person. (Read the rest here)

A recent discussion on a message board to which I subscribe resulted in a very interesting question: Can a person be both genuinely religious and truly pro-freedom? In context, the question not only makes good sense but deserves to receive some thoughtful answers.

Consider that gay marriage is illegal in most of the country and that many are adamantly opposed to it on religious grounds. What some would suggest is a freedom to which they're equally entitled would, if opponents have their way, be kept from them because their beliefs are different. Worse, given the number of same sex marriage referendums on the ballots at election time, there are some who think a religious issue ought to be subject to a majority decision (never mind that government has no business determining how and to whom churches administer their sacraments). (Read the rest here)

If you should happen to telephone Ambassador John Bolton's office at the United Nations, chances are good the person who answers your call will be one Peggy Kerry. Does that name ring a bell? Perhaps it should.

According to a July 27, 2004 article in the Washington Times, Miss Kerry was the featured speaker at an event sponsored by the NOW in conjunction with the Democratic National Convention. "And he has a secret weapon," Kerry boasted. "It seems to me that it's up to the women, because when women vote, Democrats win."

And which "he" was Miss Peggy talking about? Why, brother John, of course. Senator John Kerry, Democratic candidate for president of the United States. (Read the rest here)

Most of official Washington has long believed that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld needed to be sacked. Unfortunately it took a major Republican loss at the polls to finally prompt George W. Bush to cut loose a key player from his inner circle.

The removal of Rumsfeld signals that Bush is listening to the voters and elected officials. However, the nomination of Robert Gates—a Bush family crony and former Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) under his father’s administration—to replace Rumsfeld will only create new problems for the president.

President Ronald Reagan had to withdraw Gates’ nomination for DCI in 1987 because of Gates’ involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. By 1991, after the heat had died down on the whole affair, President George H.W. Bush re-nominated Gates for the post, and he was confirmed. (Read the rest here)

It's reasonable to conclude from the election results that most voters felt the Republicans had been in power too long. The hopeless war in Iraq, the culture of corruption and incompetence, the spending binge (which includes the war), the grating social conservatism, and the autocratic arrogance approaching the dictatorial -- all culminated in a thunderous repudiation of President Bush and the Republican Party. It couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch.

In the voters' view, they had only one group to turn to: the Democrats. But even if this was largely a negative vote, it doesn't mean people won't warm to Democrats' activist agenda. Americans, sad to say, are not opposed in principle to activist government. They just don't like the appearance of incompetence, which the Bush team gave them in spades. Most people welcomed Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, an activist piece of legislation if there ever was one, and the Medicare drug program, a massive expansion of the soon-to-be-bankrupt government medical retirement plan. Why shouldn't they applaud the Democrats when the new majority begins promising expanded middle-class entitlements? (Read the rest here)

Britain's Stern Review on Global Warming: It Could Be Environmentalism's Swan Song
By George Reisman

The report is a rehash of now standard environmentalist claims concerning alleged disasters that await the world if it continues with its wicked ways of fossil fuel consumption: the disappearance of islands beneath the sea, the flooding of coastal cities, more severe droughts and hurricanes, famines, disease, the displacement of tens of millions of people from their traditional homelands — it's all regurgitated in the report.

A couple of times, however, the report provides a hint of something even much worse:

The Mailbag
No feedback received this week. We're still looking for a spam proof program. Sorry! MamaLiberty

Libertarian Commentary on The News 5 - 11 November, 2006
By Nathan A. Barton © 2006

The end of this week, we again commemorate Veterans’ Day, on a date which is the 88th anniversary of the Armistice that ended the Great War, later called the “First World War” or the first phase of the Twentieth Century Global War. I find that few people understand the difference between “Memorial Day” and “Veterans Day” – but it is key: Veterans Day is intended more to honor those veterans who survived the wars than those who died in the wars (for which Memorial Day was originally intended). And even though we might decry the naïve way in which too many soldiers over the years have followed the wrong leaders and fought for the wrong causes, it is still appropriate to honor their courage, dedication, and sacrifice. It certainly does the cause of liberty no good to distain and speak evil of veterans, living or dead.

Since the election is (gratefully) finally over this week, I’ll start with that. It was, to me, overall, a very disappointing one because so little has really changed, and more serious concerns about the integrity of the American voting system have arisen. But I’ll start out with the best news from the election.

Election 2006: TN: Property tax ballot measure wins
Tennessean
"Future property tax rate increases would have to go to the voters under a Metro Nashville referendum on Tuesday's ballot. Supporters of the ballot measure outnumbered opponents by a strong margin. 'It was very jubilant,' ballot measure organizer Ben Cunningham said of the party of supporters gathered at Brown's Diner on Nashville's Blair Boulevard. 'What (voters) are saying is that we want to take some of this authority back from the Metro Council and reserve it for ourselves, for the voters,' he said. Cunningham also led the effort by the Tennessee Tax Revolt group to kill a statewide tax on wages in 2001. Cunningham said supporters' only promotions of the current measure in the days leading up to Tuesday's election were use of informal e-mail reminders and about $2,000 in automated phone calls. No formal committee was organized to oppose the measure." (11/08/06)

A bright star in the election, and hopefully to be imitated quickly in both Tennessee and outside that state. A “formal committee” wasn’t needed to oppose the ballot issue – it had lots of organized opposition: the entire Nashville-Davison County government.

One more bright point – in a Wyoming election cycle otherwise disappointing, Dennis Brossman of Lander, a Libertarian, and a good guy indeed, took 18% of the vote for Secretary of State! Way to go, WLP!

Mama's Note: The sad note is that, even with state bank accounts obscenely swollen with stolen goods, the people of Wyoming voted to increase their taxes anyway! They also, very foolishly, altered the state constitution to give more pork and power to government "schools." Heartbreaking... (Read the rest here ) 2 full pages!!

Features From The Last Issue

The Who's Who of Gratuitous Torture
By L. Reichard White

The Mother of All Lies
By Michael Gaddy

From The Archives:
Targets and Tools
By ZooT_aLLures
Technical Editor

It's Your Choice
By Lady Liberty

The NAFTA Superhighway
by Congressman Ron Paul - R - TX

Cleavage Candidates and the Politics of Gender
By Carey Roberts

How Would Latin Americans Vote on Nov. 7?
By Alvaro Vargas Llosa

Eminent-Domain Chutzpah
by Sheldon Richman

Individual Liberty - 101
From The Ludwig von Mises Institute
Is Debt Alone a Threat?
By Frank Shostak

External Articles You Should See
Features: Liberty and Privacy: Connections
By Joseph S. Fulda

Do you know a good liberty centered blogs?
Tell us about it!

Liberty Bloggers We Know

Click Here for the Archives
PLEASE let me know if you find a broken link!
Each week's front page is linked to the date.
Just click on one for more great articles!

MamaLiberty is the owner, publisher, writer, chief cook and bottle washer for The Price of Liberty.
I'd love to hear from you!