Al Capone and the Zetas

When you attempt to accomplish a seemingly-righteous goal with an unrighteous means, you either do not accomplish your goal, or you create one or more new unrighteous problems to contend with.

This is one way to state Henry Hazlitt's "One Lesson" of economics.

It helps us understand the intersection of two big issues in our day: drugs and immigration. Neither of these two issues have been entrusted to the federal government by the Constitution. Whenever the government has attempted to solve problems in these areas, greater problems arise.

At least politicians in the early part of the 20th century understood this principle better than today's politicians. When teetotalers came to Washington D.C. seeking to impose their abstinence views on America, politicians said, rightly, that that Constitution had given them no authority to ban the sale of alcohol; the forces of temperance would have to amend the United States Constitution before Congress could take action.

What a bizarre theory of Constitutional interpretation! A strictly limited government of enumerated powers??

Well, that's what they thought back in the dark ages.

From an economic point of view, was it a good idea to amend the constitution and give the government the power to ban alcohol? No. Making alcohol illegal made it more profitable, and kept its distribution out of the hands of law-abiding people.

Johnny Torrio was Chicago's leading underworld figure in 1920 when alcohol became illegal. Torrio hired Al Capone to "persuade" vendors of illegal alcohol to buy only from Torrio. In 1925, a rival gang nearly rubbed out Torrio, who decided to get out of the criminal world while he was still alive. The Torrio "business" was handed over to Capone, who soon became extraordinarily rich and (therefore) extraordinarily powerful.

Capone could pay the police and politicians of Chicago more than the taxpayers could. It became difficult for the people to vote corrupt politicians out of office, because Capone's armed thugs were "poll-workers," "helping" Chicago's voters send the "right" candidates back to office.

By the 1930's, Americans were sick of all this, and took away from the federal government the power to make alcohol illegal (the 21st Amendment, repealing the 18th).

There were undoubtedly some people who were still saying, "But if we legalize alcohol, everyone will just be getting drunk all the time."

Fast-forward to Monday's Dallas Morning News: "Cartel's enforcers outpower their boss -- Zetas grow into paramilitary group now hitting Mexico's casinos." Drug Prohibition -- completely without Constitutional authority -- has created an army of Al Capones. Already controlling Mexico the way Capone controlled Chicago, paramilitary forces of this underworld empire are entering America as well. Their power will expand as long as drugs are illegal (and as long as the Christian worldview is banned from schools).

I have yet to see an article describing the intersection of drug profits and ballot box hackers, and the obvious lure of millions of potential Hispanic Democrats, but it requires no heightened powers of imagination to see the possibilities.

The solution to the terrifying prospects detailed in the DMN article above is as obvious as the end of Al Capone's reign: the government must end its unconstitutional "War on Drugs."

"But if we legalize drugs, everyone will just be getting stoned all the time."

Instead of following the Constitution, new additional unconstitutional powers are being proposed. Brian Farmer, who alerted me to the DMN article, continues to advocate a federal government-built Berlin Wall along the border. His article contains terrifying news of powerful drug-cartel forces, and this motivates him to join many others who advocate a more powerful federal Border Patrol, one which would ignore the rights described in the 4th Amendment not just for immigrants, but for all Americans. The problems he and other anti-immigration lobbyists cite as reasons for expanded government power would vanish if unconstitutional government would also vanish.

The Constitution gives the federal government power to decide who can become an American citizen ("naturalization"). It does not give that government power to regulate travel across borders, tell employers who they can hire, and search everyone's car without probable cause. The immigration-drug nexus is the excuse needed to create a totalitarian police state. The solution to all these problems is to return to the government that was created by the Constitution.

How Big is America?

Here is an interesting map of the U.S. with the 50 states renamed as foreign countries with a similar GDP. California produces as much as France, Missouri as much as Poland, Illinois as much as Mexico, etc. [ht: acton.org]

America truly is the bread-basket of the world. Not just in terms of agriculture, but in terms of a myriad of goods and services which raise the standard of living for billions of human beings.

What accounts for America's productivity? Historically it was the "protestant work ethic." But today, millions of Americans work only to accumulate "adult toys." And one has to wonder what percent of America's GDP consists of purely recreational items. Not that recreation is bad, but that the emphasis may have shifted from being of service to those in need, to a more selfish and short-term perspective.

In fact, the "work ethic" may have resulted in too much work, detracting from family and faith.

Finally, calculations of GDP may include government production and sales of weapons. Today America is the largest exporter of both pornography and tools of mass murder.

When the Puritans spoke of America as a "City upon a hill" they were quoting the Bible. When that same phrase is used today, it tends to shore up the idolatries of nationalism and materialism.

America is only as great as her God, and if America worships the creature rather than the Creator, then we endanger the prospects of passing on the blessings of liberty to our posterity. A high GDP cannot save us, nor the government that takes credit for it.

I am a Bigot

I've been getting some more "friendly fire" from libertarians who don't like what I think, even if my policies are bona fide libertarian.

I'd like to think that the criticisms leveled at me by Jason Kuznicki ("Kevin Craig’s Strange Libertarianism") and Steven Horwitz ("A 'Libertarian' Candidate for Congress") would not have been written had they read my "Response to Jason" first (Obviously that was not possible.)

Nevertheless, I'd like to respond to some specifics.

Tibor Machan leaves a comment on Jason's blog in which he calls me a "bigot." Technically this is correct. "Bigot" is defined as:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

The greatest figures in all of history are "bigots" by this definition, and they are the people who are most admired for getting something done to diminish the power of religious and political movements which are agreed to be false or oppressive. If your own group is true, "bigotry" is the only rational position.

Bigotry against race is never rational. Tolerance (the opposite of bigotry) of evil is also insane.

The key word in the definition above is, of course, "intolerant."

Perhaps you know a parent who will not "tolerate" a child's messy room. The child will not get dessert, outside play, or time on the PlayStation until the room is brought to order. The child is not locked in a cell with a felon for 5-10 years, or executed.

Some people do not tolerate smoking. "Not inside my home, please." They do not levy fines which will be collected by armed marshals.

Libertarians are bigoted against Hitler and Keynes (though not necessarily for the latter's sexual preferences).

In all these examples, our bigoted intolerance is one of attitude, thought, or opinion, and does not extend to the initiation of force or violence. Nor does it permit misrepresentation of our opponent's beliefs or practices.

"Bigot," as used by most people, and regrettably even the esteemed Tibor Machen, is simply a slur, designed to engender an irrational emotional response. Its effect is to deter people from learning the facts and coming to a well-reasoned verdict. It is "preaching to the choir."

Prof. Horwitz says,

For someone like me, who thinks libertarians ought to be part of a broader, more cosmopolitan, progressive political movement, having LP candidates like Mr. Craig is enough to make me stop calling myself a libertarian.

I have commented on this attitude elsewhere. It changes "libertarianism" from a political postion on government policies to a social ideology or morality. Its enemy is no longer the government's initiation of force, it is various "thought crimes" which are offensive to a generally non- or anti-Christian demographic. It's not enough that I advocate the complete repeal of all government restrictions or sanctions against homosexuality, I have to like it; I have to have a positive mental attitude toward it.

The "cosmopolitan, progressive" perspective is really just an anti-Christian bigotry.

Statistically speaking, I think it safe to say that for every "cosmopolitan, progressive" voter there are 8 voters who are more conservative, and are repulsed by a "progressive" "homosexual chic" worldview. These voters might be persuaded to eliminate homosexuality from the penal code, but only by someone who admits that it is immoral. They might eventually be willing to say homosexuality should not be a crime, as long as they are free to believe it is a sin.

My policies are more libertarian than Thomas Jefferson's, because I am calling for the complete de-criminalization of sodomy. But still, I am a "bigot" because I believe (along with the first 250 years of Americans) that homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia are all "sinful" actions, and violations of God's commandments, and I don't tolerate any of these "lifestyles" in any sphere of personal authority (family members in my home, employees in my business, comments on my blog, the classroom in which I teach, the pulpit from which I preach, the property I rent, and customers with whom I do business), and I try to persuade others to be non-violently intolerant of these "lifestyles" as well, on the grounds both of the Bible and the historical fact that they undermine civilization.

People who are bigoted against each other's moral views can still join arms and be bigoted against a common political enemy.

If the Libertarian Party refuses to appeal to Christians who are not "cosmopolitan" and "progressive," then government regulation will increase as the LP loses political strength. Libertarianism will be confused with libertinism or "cultural libertarianism." Conversely, if the "cosmopolitan, progressive" element of the LP will become less bigoted toward conservative Christian bigots like me, the ranks of the LP will grow immensely.

Response to Jason

Thanks for your comment on my previous post, Jason; I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position. My response to you in the comments section became long enough that I decided to make a new post.

I am running for U.S. Congress. Under the U.S. Constitution, which all Congressmen must take an oath to support, the federal government has no authority to repeal state anti-sodomy laws. Repeal of state laws must come from the bottom up, not the top down.

If you read my platform on homosexuality, which is linked on the blog post you commented on, you'll see that I oppose all government penal sanctions against homosexuality. As a libertarian, I consider such laws to be an unwarranted "initiation of force." I advocate the abolition of the federal government, and all federal laws concerning homosexuality, as well as abolition of the state governments, and their anti-sodomy laws.

I am, as you can see, a radical libertarian.

I believe America's Founding Fathers were radical libertarians as well. They said it is our duty to abolish any government which "becomes destructive" of the rights God has given us. Our government today is ten times more oppressive than the one they fought to abolish. I'm confident the Founders would agree with my agenda if they were here today.

They were also radical Christians (at least in the eyes of the ACLU) because they believed the State was "under God."

I believe no civil government belongs in the bedroom. Of course, Jason, you may agree with 99% of most Americans, who believe the civil government belongs in the bedroom if an adult is sexually molesting a child. Most people believe there should be SOME government in bedrooms.

[I edited a sentence out of this paragraph. Details here.] Whatever you do in your bedroom is no business of jackbooted thugs from Washington D.C. But I'm also a Christian, and as a Christian libertarian, I believe I have the right to evict a child molester if he's renting the bedroom from me. That could well be illegal under current "anti-discrimination" statutes, which prohibit landlords from "discrimination" against tenants based on "sexual preference."

As a Christian, I agree with every single person who signed the Constitution: homosexuality is a violation of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Americans should be free to "impose" their morality on themselves, their families, their businesses, and all other voluntary associations and organizations which they form or to which they belong. They should be able to form contracts which "discriminate" against homosexuals, and have those contracts enforced by Arbitration Associations agreed upon by both the Christian and the homosexual in advance.

You say "no government of any type belongs in the bedroom." I believe no government of the political/legal/civil type belongs anywhere. But I believe in self-government. America is a land of "Liberty Under God," which means freedom from State oppression, but America is also a land of self-government in terms of Christian morality. America's Founding Fathers believed limited civil government was possible only with self-government by people who had been raised with Christian morality.

Thus, I believe in "anarchy" as far as "the State" is concerned, and I believe in Christian "Theocracy" everywhere else. I oppose "the State" because it is the institutionalization of systematic violence. I believe in "Liberty UNDER GOD," as my campaign slogan recites.

Let me ask you a question, Jason: How libertarian are you really? Do you believe Christians should be free to discriminate against homosexuals in their own businesses or contractual relationships? Do you believe Christians should be free to publish negative information about homosexuality which is calculated to persuade people not to tolerate homosexuals in their business or contractual relationships? Would you be willing to repeal all government laws against "discrimination" (including "discrimination" based on "sexual preference") and grant these freedoms to Christians in exchange for the abolition of all government anti-sodomy laws? I believe government is on the side of homosexuals, and if government were cut back to libertarian standards, Christians would benefit more than homosexuals.

For a Biblical defense of anarchism and the abolition of all "government laws" against homosexuality and child molestation, see:

http://anarcho-theocracy.com

For an explanation of how libertarianism actually increases the amount of government we have (that is, "self-government"), and how libertarianism would increase opportunities for Christians to "impose" God's Law on our society, see:

http://NAGocracy.com

In a Christian libertarian Theocracy, child molestation will be unacceptable. But violence will also be an unacceptable response to child molestation, which is why it will be "legal" -- that is, no government violence will be meted out against perpetrators. But segregation of child molesters and children will be acceptable, so there will be ways to accomplish this. Child molesters will be boycotted. Landlords will not rent to tenants who are child molesters, in order to make their apartments "family friendly." Grocers will not sell food to child molesters. Employers will not hire child molesters. Knowledge about who is and who is not a child molester is already publicly available. There will arise various Christian ministries which will contact these people, saying, "We understand you're a child molester. You're probably having trouble getting a job, a place to stay, and someone to sell things to you. Our ministry can help you overcome your sin, and once you graduate from our program and we accredit you, members of our network will hire you, rent to you, and sell to you."

In a Libertarian Theocracy, no "government" of a political type is involved, but there is obviously more "government" in terms of self-government, neighborhood government, workplace government, commercial government, etc. All voluntary. All non-violent This process would work to reduce crimes by theives, embezzlers, shoplifters (all of whom would be required to make resititution to their victims), murderers, abortionists, child molesters and homosexuals.

I believe crimes would be more infrequent when they are "legalized" by Christian Theocrats than they are when they are "criminalized" by government politicians.

And of course, all these ideas will not appear quite so bizarre when government no longer forces all schools to be secular, and parents can make sure their children are taught the ideas of America's Christian Founding Fathers.

I hope this helps explain how I harmonize radical libertarianism and radical Christianity.

Conservative Christians for Hillary

Gary North has a great essay on LewRockwell.com, "The Lesser of Two Evils Rarely Is."

In the 1970's, North was a staffer for Congressman Ron Paul, and North has a lot of inside info, including an admission by Larry McDonald, darling of the John Birch Society, that voting for the "lesser of two evils" can be a terrible mistake.

This reminds me of a website I put together before the 2000 elections, encouraging conservatives not to vote Republican by addressing the "I'll waste my vote if I don't vote for the 'winner'" syndrome:


http://vote-wasters.arecool.net


I updated the page slightly before the 2004 elections, and I'm going to have to give it a make-over for 2008. I have secured a new domain for it:


http://ConservativeChristiansforHillary.com


Suggestions appreciated, as always.

Global Warming and the G8

As tens of thousands of protesters prepare for the G8 Summit in Germany, Bush is preparing to face tension over the issue of the environment from the other seven industrialized nations. Patrick J. Michaels, Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute, sums up the differences:

President Bush recently announced plans for a new international agreement limiting future carbon dioxide emissions. But Europeans insist that any post-Kyoto climate pact be formulated and administered by the United Nations -- this is not an insignificant difference.

The UN's track record on climate change is abysmal. The Kyoto Protocol is its only legacy. If every nation of the world abided by its emissions targets, there would be no detectable reduction in warming, even fifty years from now. But even the EU isn't going to hit its Kyoto targets. Given this history, it's fair to ask why the UN should even be asked to produce another climate treaty.

The U.S. wants emissions caps from China and India, as well as from the G8. It is unclear that the UN can accomplish this, even though China is likely to become the world's largest emitter by 2009. Any agreement that does not include them will most certainly have little effect on climate change.

It is important to remember these facts: Even if the demands of global warming propagandists were implemented, we will not stop global warming. There is agreement on this fact from virtually all sides. It is especially true that the vaunted Kyoto Protocol will not stop global warming, since the developing countries that are rapidly becoming the largest emitters of greenhouse gases are not covered.

Environmentalists want such restrictions on "Greenhouse gases" imposed even though it will not stop global warming because they want to force human beings to live a "sustainable lifestyle" (whatever that means). For a toxicly-high percentage of environmentalists, "sustainable lifestyle" means something like the Indians "enjoyed" before Columbus.

Forcing human beings to live a "natural" lifestyle is more important to environmentalists than global warming. If the only people on earth were environmentalists living a "sustainable lifestyle," and global warming were discovered, environmentalists would do absolutely nothing about it, because the climate change would be "natural." The goal of the global warming movement is to impose the morality of their "Gaia" religion on human behavior, not stop global warming.

Second Cold War

Pat Buchanan has compiled a list of a dozen ways the Clinton-Bush regime has worked to start a second cold war after Ronald Reagan ended the first.

Our foreign affairs should be based on the "essential principle of our government" (Jefferson), "the great rule of conduct for us" (Geo.Washington): "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

NATO is an "entangling alliance," and Buchanan notes that Bush's policies are "moving a U.S.-led military alliance into the front yard and onto the side porch of a country with thousands of nuclear weapons."

For each U.S. incursion into Eurasia, we should ask the question Buchanan asks: "Would we accept any commensurate Chinese or Russian move in the Caribbean?"

America should follow the example of Switzerland, and stop trying to be the policeman of the world.

Peace and Security Through Defense and Neutrality

An Interview With Stephen P. Halbrook

The Islamo-Fascist Rationale for Abandoning Liberty

Terrorism Comes With Empire

An Evening With Dr. Ron Paul

America should also follow the original vision of her Founders: to be a "City upon a Hill." This meant working on being a nation of virtue, not an international pit bull. When the nation's capitol was moved from Philadelphia to Washington D.C., President John Adams told Congress,

It would be unbecoming the representatives of this nation to assemble for the first time in this solemn temple without looking up to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe and imploring His blessing.

May this territory be the residence of virtue and happiness! In this city may that piety and virtue, that wisdom and magnanimity, that constancy and self-government, which adorned the great character whose name it bears be forever held in veneration! Here and throughout our country may simple manners, pure morals, and true religion flourish forever!

Adams' pro-Christian remarks, and the official government endorsement of Christianity which was found in the Declaration of Independence and throughout Americas founding charters, are now "unconstitutional," and the U.S. now exports more pornography and weapons around the world than missionaries and Bibles. Jerry Falwell was correct to suggest that God had raised up terrorists to remind America that we have a log in our eye. Perhaps now Falwell sees the wisdom of not sending our military around the globe to deal with specks in the eyes of others.

"Simple Manners" is good domestic policy, and good foreign policy.

Sibel Edmonds and Valerie Plame

I must confess that I have a deep Republican background, and still tend to believe Republicans when they're attacked by Democrats. As a result of this bias, I haven't been too interested in the whole Valerie Plame case.

I have, however, been more interested in the Sibel Edmonds case.

This recent video makes the connection between Edmonds and Plame of which I was previously unaware.

Online Videos by Veoh.com

Do Communists Make Better Spouses?

Terry Schiavo's American husband starved her to death.

Jan Grzebski's Polish wife cared for him for 19 years while he was in a coma.

"For 19 years Mrs. Grzebska did the job of an experienced intensive care team, changing her comatose husband's position every hour to prevent bed-sore infections," Super Express reported Dr. Boguslaw Poniatowski as saying.

As a result, her husband awoke to see a new Poland, free of communism.

"When I went into a coma there was only tea and vinegar in the shops, meat was rationed and huge petrol lines were everywhere," Grzebski told TVN24, describing his recollections of the communist system's economic collapse.
"Now I see people on the streets with cell phones and there are so many goods in the shops it makes my head spin."

"The world is prettier now" than it was under communism, his wife Gertruda said Sunday.

But the real beauty here is not the cell phones and goods produced by a market economy, but the love of a spouse, day after day, for 19 years.

Phillies, Falwell, and Goldwater

George Phillies, candidate for the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination, has posted a call to Goldwater conservatives to repudiate the Republican Party and join the LP. He says the LP is the party that "laughs" at "kooks" like Jerry Falwell. I have dissected Phillies' post here.

Josef Mengele Released from Prison

Did I say "Josef Mengele?"

Silly me.

Josef Mengele was the Nazi "doctor" who allegedly performed "scientific" experiments on inmates at Auschwitz-Birkenau. He died in Brazil in 1979.

I meant "Jack Kevorkian," the Nazi "doctor" who wants to perform "scientific" experiments on inmates, the elderly, and the depressed.

How could I have gotten the two confused?

See "Dr. Death Returns," by Wesley J. Smith in today's National Review online. Additional links are provided by Marc Vander Maas in "Death With Dignity, Redux," on the Acton Institute PowerBlog. Smith writes:

In actuality, most of Kevorkian’s “patients” were not terminally ill, but disabled and depressed. Several weren’t even sick, according to their autopsies. Moreover, Kevorkian never attempted to treat any of the 130 or so persons who traveled to Michigan to be hooked up to his suicide machines to die either by drug overdose or carbon monoxide poisoning.

And as for compassion — forget about it. Kevorkian was never in the killing business to alleviate unbearable suffering. Indeed, over the course of decades he repeatedly explained his ultimate goals in professional journals and in his 1991 book, Prescription Medicide. As Jack Kevorkian articulately expresses it himself, compassion had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Smith quotes the creepy Kevorkian:

I feel it is only decent and fair to explain my ultimate aim….It is not simply to help suffering and doomed persons kill themselves—that is merely the first step, an early distasteful professional obligation (now called medicide) that nobody in his or her right mind could savor. [W]hat I find most satisfying is the prospect of making possible the performance of invaluable experiments or other beneficial medical acts under conditions that this first unpleasant step can help establish—in a word obitiatry.

Kevorkian's desires to engage in human experimentation that would lead to death ("obitiatry") were banned by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

The so-called Nuremberg Code and all its derivatives completely ignore the extraordinary opportunities for terminal experimentation on humans facing imminent and inevitable death...[including] the extraction of medical benefit from the process of judicial execution from those dying of irremediable illness or trauma and from suicide mandated by inflexible religious or philosophical principles or by irrevocable personal choice. Other potential subjects include comatose, brain dead, or totally incapacitated individuals as well as live fetuses in or out of the womb.
(Kevorkian, writing in a 1986 edition of Medicine and Law.)

"Dang that Nuremburg Tribunal!"

Kevorkian then concluded that euthanasia provided the biggest pool of subjects for human experimentation, so he went to the Netherlands to learn more about legalized euthanasia. Upon his return, “inspired by my visit to the Netherlands, I decided to take the risky step of assisting terminal patients in committing suicide.”

Don't expect CBS News' Mike Wallace to make the Nuremberg connections during his upcoming 60 Minutes interview with "Dr. Death," any more than the media exposes the killing of hundreds of thousands in Iraq as a part of the federal government's geo-political experimentation (democide).

America's Psikhushka for 9/11 Truthers

Part of the systematic crushing of dissent that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote about in The Gulag Archipelago was the Psikhushka: "psychiatric hospitals" where Russian dissendents like Zhores Medvedev , Vladimir Bukovsky, and Andrei Sakharov (who was was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975, although he was not allowed to leave the Soviet Union to collect it) were sent.

Anne Applebaum has reminded us that the gulag was everywhere in the Soviet Union, not just off in a distant Siberia. ("The Gulag: What We Now Know and Why It Matters", by by Anne Applebaum, Cato´s Letter, vol. 2 no. 1, Winter 2004.)

It was in your neighborhood.

It was right next to Wal-Mart.

No, it was Wal-Mart. It was an essential part of the Soviet economy, and everyone knew someone who was a slave in the Gulag.

The Psikhushka mentality is alive in America, as Sgt. Donald Buswell can tell you. The Purple Heart recipient sent an email in which he questioned the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory.

“Who really benefited from what happened that day?” he asked rhetorically. Not “Arabs,” but “the Military Industrial Complex,” Buswell concluded. “We must demand a new, independent investigation.”

For voicing those opinions in an e-mail to 38 people on the San Antonio Army base, Buswell was stripped of his security clearance, fired from his job, demoted, and ordered to undergo a mental health exam.

http://www.fwweekly.com/content.asp?article=6022

This is not the first time that "psychiatric authorities" have prescribed examination or treatment for politically incorrect thought.

And it will not be the last -- as long as we worship the idol of "the State."

Ann Coulter on Immigration

I love Ann Coulter -- except when she's wrong. Her latest column, "A Green Card in Every Pot" has some wonderful insights, even though she's anti-immigration.

First, she points out the superiority of Christian culture, or "Western Civilization" as it's also known.

Second, she quotes Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, immigrant and first Jewish member of the Supreme Court, who said that

Americanization required that the immigrant adopt "the clothes, the manners and the customs generally prevailing here" and that he adopt "the English language as the common medium of speech."

But, Brandeis said, this is only part of it:

"(W)e properly demand of the immigrant even more than this -- he must be brought into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations and cooperate with us for their attainment. Only when this has been done will he possess the national consciousness of an American."

In other words, "diversity" is a myth. Ideas about "individual self-determination, human rights, the rule of law and a robust democratic economy" must be imposed. They can either be imposed by "the government" (call it "democracy," "aristocracy," "bureaucracy," "gerontocracy," "mediocracy," "mobocracy," "technocracy," "theocracy" -- it means "archists"; jackbooted thugs, lock-step public schools, controlled media, and prisons), or the ideas of civilization can be imposed by everyone, in what I call a decentralized "nag-ocracy." Parents nag children. Teachers nag students. Employers nag employees. Landlords nag tenants. Businessmen nag customers. Pastors nag parishioners. Radio DJ's nag listeners. Movies nag theatre audiences. Athletes nag fans. Call it "intergenerational peer-pressure." It's all done to encourage, not to abuse; to empower, not to demean. It's lifelong learning. It's the inculcation of what Gary Bauer described as "the most important things."

Immigration is a problem for America because Americans are too "tolerant." We don't want to nag. We tolerate sloppiness, bullying, cheating, and selfish disrespect. And we know it. That's why we fear strangers. We know we don't have the moral backbone to impose our way of life on them, and we fear they might impose their way on us.

Coulter is right: "it is simply a fact that no one is trying to turn immigrants into Americans." But instead of developing the great American habit of decentralized nagging, creating institutions and voluntary associations which proudly and gratefully uphold and pass-on "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to new Americans, we want centralized immigration authorities to use violent force to keep those fleeing corrupt governments from coming to America. We have forgotten the art of nagging, and we have forgotten the message inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.

Libertarians should welcome immigrants as a fresh source of potential libertarians. Often, immigrants know the values of sacrifice, hard work, and freedom from corrupt dictatorships better than "white trash" Americans, who are lazy and believe they are entitled to government handouts. Immigrants, by contrast, are easy pickings for libertarian evangelists. The two major parties do not want to turn immigrants into libertarian Americans. "To the contrary," Coulter writes, "Democrats are trying to turn new immigrants into wards of the state -- and with some success! -- so they will be permanent Democratic voters. Rich Republicans and their handmaidens in Washington are trying to turn immigrants into a permanent servant class."

By closing the borders, we screen out law-abiding immigrants and only allow law-breaking immigrants - a counter-productive policy if ever there were one.

Shut down the welfare system so the law-breaking immigrants are not attracted, and open the borders so hard-working would-be American libertarians can stream in. Liberty is more important to America than skin color. Let "tolerant" whites lose "the struggle for survival" and let the next generation of Americans be bronze-skinned libertarians.

Read Ann Coulter. (Even though she wants to close the borders.)

On Overthrowing Governments

Libertarians want smaller government. I personally would like to eliminate "the government" altogether, not just make it "smaller." Many Christians are appalled at my "anarchism" because they believe the Bible (Romans 13) says "the government" is approved by God and we should submit to it, not overthrow it.

Yet they voted for George Bush, who violently overthrew the government of Iraq, and they support the violent overthrow of the British government by the American colonies (July 4th, 1776). Indeed, Americans who support the violent overthrow of the government (which is defended by the Declaration of Independence and the Second of the Bill of Rights), tend to support (or ignore) the federal government's long historical record of overthrowing other governments around the world.

Take a couple of hours to attend a law school class on the U.S. record of overthrowing governments:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17779.htm

Buy Kinzer's book, Overthrow:



I agree that we should "submit" to "the government," and not use violence to overthrow it. Find out why Romans 13 is the most abused passage of Scripture in history, and does not legitimize the idea of "the government."

www.Romans13.com