| No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle |
| |
|
|
Looking for Freedom?
|
May
14, 2007 Libertarian
Commentary on The News, 6
- 12 May, 2007 Our
right to defend ourselves: Tennessee is far from the only state looking at all this “Feel-good” prohibition on carrying. But as with this one, they are not moving very fast: Niceley needs to strike while the iron is hot! Mama's Note: Indeed. My only problem with all this is the "permit" crap. But I guess one must view that as a step in the right direction. (Read the rest here) Two full pages again!!
The
great oil robbery Of course, we "all" love to
hate Big Oil, so it is very human to figure out a way to blame them for
this. And somehow, even FMNN's columnists don't seem to really believe
in free markets down deep in their hearts.
Freedom
Under Control
As we gain a little more distance and perspective connected with the massacre at Virginia Tech, the horror and grief has been tempered with "reasonable" pleas for "common sense" gun laws. One of the most prevalent has involved proposals to keep firearms away from the mentally unstable. I'm on record myself as agreeing that it's probably a really bad idea for someone who is a clear and present danger to himself or others to have a loaded gun readily at hand. I suspect that few of you would argue with me on that single point. The problem enters in, however, when we try to codify in some way just who is and who isn't such a danger. (Read the rest here)
From The Archives "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -H.L. Mencken Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the [Joint Chiefs] Chairman [Lemnitzer] and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war [against Castro's Cuba]. OPERATION NORTHWOODS: US PLANNED FAKE TERROR ATTACKS ON CITIZENS TO CREATE SUPPORT FOR CUBAN WAR, From BODY OF SECRETS, James Bamford, Doubleday, 2001, p.82 (Read the rest here)
Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.” (Read the rest here)
Men Aren't Couch Potatoes After All Back in 1989 Arlie Hochschild wrote a book called The Second Shift. This was Hochschild's conclusion: Compared to men, "women work an extra month of 24-hour days a year." Basically she was making the claim that while wives cook, clean, and sew after a long day at the office, His Royal Highness was chillin' in front of the TV set. Women began to howl and the mainstream media jumped on the bandwagon, as Warren Farrell documents in his book Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say. (Read the rest here)
The
Independent Institute The Bush administration and Congress have put too much faith in governments—the U.S. as well as the Iraqi—to remedy the chaos in Iraq. To keep the pressure on the administration for eventual U.S. troop withdrawals, the Democrats have already begun to blame the Iraqi government for not meeting benchmarks for progress and are threatening to include them in legislation. Some congressional Republicans, sensing another electoral disaster in 2008, are beginning to mimic such Democratic arguments. Although the time is not yet ripe for a congressionally required schedule for troop withdrawal to override a presidential veto, the time for blaming the Iraqis and attempting to impose benchmarks will soon arrive. (Read the rest here)
The
Future of Freedom Foundation During the recent MSNBC Republican presidential debate, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul made three profound points on U.S. foreign policy that the American people would be wise to heed. Needless to say, Paul's three points, being libertarian in nature, aren't likely to be favorably received by either his presidential opponents or people within the Washington, D.C., establishment, especially among lobbyists for the military-industrial complex. The first point was that the Iraq War violated the traditional American policy of foreign nonintervention that characterized our nation through most of the first 125 years of its existence. What Paul was referring to was summed up in the speech that John Quincy Adams delivered to Congress on the 50th anniversary of the Fourth of July: that America does not "go abroad in search of monsters to destroy," and that, if America were ever to embrace such a policy, the "fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force" and she would become "the dictatress of the world." (Read the rest here)
Individual
Liberty - 101 Nature magazines are delightful to read. The photos that grace conservation publications are often magnificent. Yet it is hard to ignore the economic illiteracy or the socialist propaganda that is espoused in many of their thoughtless articles, and it is even harder to ignore the strength with which statists call for government expropriation of resources in order to achieve their goals. I will examine why this is ethically incorrect and economically inefficient. First things first: I am not against nature or the preservation thereof. What I am against is the use of the state — the agent of institutionalized aggression — to advance the agenda of the conservation movement. It is imperative that the distinction be made between freedom and statism. While freedom involves property, prosperity, and free exchange, statism involves theft, plunder, and poverty. (Read the rest here) (Read the entire article at the source website. Use the back button to return.)
External Articles
It is dangerous and potentially lethal to take at face value anything we're told by the Regime regarding its supposed success in interdicting terrorist threats. The abortive plot by a half-dozen imported radicals to attack Ft. Dix is a splendid illustration of that principle. FBI Special Agent J.P. Weis claims that the little knot of accused terrorists was “forming a platoon to take on an army.” It's worth pointing out that, horrible as the prospect of an attack on a secure and fortified Army base may be, the alleged conspirators apparently weren't planning an assault on a “soft target” – such as a shopping mall or other large civilian gathering place. (Read the rest here) (Read the entire article at the source website. Use the back button to return.) An
Every Day Deception For Everyman Those who believe in scientific socialism (i.e., the scientific management of human affairs) have demonstrated that their methods work, and those who control the state apparatus in Eastern Europe today are the same personalities that controlled it under Communism. In this context, what would it mean to say that Communists are pretenders who don't really believe in Marx and Lenin? Should it give us any comfort that they now pretend to be democrats? What could be more nominal than this sort of nominal democracy? Every totalitarian state relies on the cooperation of people who don't believe in it. One might call it "the hypocrisy of getting things done." It is the same hypocrisy that enabled Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the other dictators to make mischief. Those who compromise and collaborate think themselves practical and adaptive. Hannah Arendt once wrote that such people are the raw stuff out of which totalitarian regimes are fashioned. The criminals and thugs that run every government from the Czech Republic to Uzbekistan (regardless of "velvet" or "orange" revolutions) can call elections whenever they like. The candidates are all creatures of the red maw, fully digested over many years. (Read the rest here) (Read the entire article at the source website. Use the back button to return.)
The
Mailbag
From The Libertarian Enterprise
Exclusive from
American Handgunner!
Do
you know a good liberty centered blogs? Hello! I run a gun-law and second amendment blog: Of Arms and The Law I also have produced a 2 hour DVD, "In Search of the Second Amendment," online.
Mama has her own blog now!!!
Click
Here for the Archives
Friends
of Liberty Links
Special
Feature! Add your signature to the
Contact
The Price of Liberty Editor MamaLiberty
is the owner, publisher, writer, chief cook and bottle washer for The
Price of Liberty. |
Our
Writers No longer active contributors:
Editors And Staff
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
