Skip to content →

Reformed Libertarian Blog Posts

Alex Epstein Obliterates George Clooney

Alex Epstein, who wrote this book (which I need to read– as this post reminded me), issued a response to the following George Clooney statement on climate change:

Well it’s just a stupid argument. If you have 99 percent of doctors who tell you ‘you are sick’ and 1 percent that says ‘you’re fine,’ you probably want to hang out with, check it up with the 99. You know what I mean? The idea that we ignore that we are in some way involved in climate change is ridiculous. What’s the worst thing that happens? We clean up the earth a little bit?

The-Moral-Case-for-Fossil-Fuels
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Written by Alex Epstein

Epstein writes:

I am something close to terrified about Clooney’s comment: “What’s the worst thing that happens? We clean up the earth a little bit?”

Clooney is talking about the idea that we should “do something about climate change.” For Clooney’s environmentalist allies, that typically translates into: globally outlaw 80-95 percent of future fossil fuel use and force us to try to subsist on expensive, unreliable solar and wind energy.

And again:

For someone who understands that affordable energy is a life and death issue, this does not translate into “clean up the earth a little bit,” it translates into “making life on earth hellish for billions.” It would mean that the 1.4 billion people around the world who lack electricity—and thus have a life expectancy of 48—would not be lifted out of poverty, but would be joined by billions more.

It would mean a far dirtier environment—only high-energy, highly-developed countries have clean environments. And it would mean a far more dangerous climate. While Clooney makes time to publicly declare his solidarity with the victims, he should take some time to think about what would have actually protected them: industrial development powered by affordable, reliable energy.

Leave a Comment

Demystify the State

The libertarian therefore considers one of his prime educational tasks is to spread the demystification and desanctification of the State among its hapless subjects. His task is to demonstrate repeatedly and in depth that not only the emperor but even the “democratic” State has no clothes; that Property and Exchange 29 all governments subsist by exploitive rule over the public; and that such rule is the reverse of objective necessity. He strives to show that the very existence of taxation and the State necessarily sets up a class division between the exploiting rulers and the exploited ruled. He seeks to show that the task of the court intellectuals who have always supported the State has ever been to weave mystification in order to induce the public to accept State rule, and that these intellectuals obtain, in return, a share in the power and pelf extracted by the rulers from their deluded subjects.

Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty, pg. 29-30.

Leave a Comment

Against the “There oughta be a law” Crowd

In The Law, Frederic Bastiat talked about the tendency for socialists (which, by his definition, would include a large majority of Americans) to conflate government and society. Bastiat reminded his readers that just because someone says that he doesn’t want the state to do something doesn’t mean that he doesn’t want anyone to do it. 

Bastiat was right, of course, but he stopped short of an observation that Albert Jay Nock would later make: that society can not only do the things that the state does, but that relinquishing society’s roles to the state actually disempowers society. 

Nock wrote,

“It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power. There is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.”

Every time someone says “There ought to be a law” what they’re really saying is “Society, and all its individuals and institutions, should give up its power to the state.”

Leave a Comment

Benjamin Keach Against Redemptive Egalitarianism

God is not an egalitarian.  He does not treat all sinners in the same way. But he does treat all sinners justly.  The modern battle cry of egalitarianism extends itself throughout the whole of Western society.  From religious concerns to political matters, there is a running, and false, assumption that inequality is a great and terrible thing.  In fact, this inequality is actually considered unjust. But this is not accurate.  God did not create all of man to be the same and in fact, created each to be different.  The free economy therefore will reflect both inequality and differences of outcome; but it certainly will not produce an egalitarian utopia.  Which is why the State, considering itself Almighty, deems itself chief provider of equality of outcome.

The modern push for egalitarianism has corrupted society and destroyed the true meaning of justice.

Indeed, even in salvation God is no egalitarian.  And contrary to modern definitions of justice, God cannot not be considered unjust for only electing a few sinners for salvation.  For all deserve His eternal wrath. In passing over many, he does not withhold from them something they deserved.  And in saving the few, he gives to them what Christ has won on their behalf.

Here is Benjamin Keach on the matter of God’s election.

200px-Benjamin_KeachGod’s special Love and Election is not from any Man’s willing, or running; it riseth not from Natural Powers improved, not from his Desires, Good Deeds, or Good Inclinations, or from the fore-sight of his Faith and Obedience; but from and of God’s mere Mercy, Sovereign Grace and Favor: The Truth is, to deny God to have the power of his own Free Act in dispensing his own Sovereign Bounty, is to Eclipse his Glory, and to render him to have less Sovereign Power than that which he hath given, and allowed to Mankind: May not a Man show his Favor and Goodness in redeeming a few Captives, out of a Multitude, who willfully brought themselves into Bondage, but he must redeem them all, or be unjust? Or cannot a Man give a bountiful Gift to One or Two poor Men in a Parish, but he must bestow like Bounty to all the Poor in the said Parish? Or, can’t a King contrive and enter into a Covenant of Peace for a few Rebels that have (with a Multitude of others) taken up Arms against him, but he must be charged with Injustice, because he did not extend like Favor in the said Covenant to them all; sure, no Man, in his right Senses, will deny him this Liberty: And now, Shall not GOD have like power to dispense his Sovereign Grace to whom he pleases, who is said to do all things according to the pleasure of his own Will, and eternal purpose in Jesus Christ?

-Taken from “The Display of Glorious Grace.” [Bold added]

Leave a Comment

H.L. Mencken on the Government’s Money and Services

HL Mencken from his article More of the Same, original published in the American Mercury in 1925:

When a private citizen is robbed a worthy man is deprived of the fruits of his industry and thrift; when the government is robbed the worst that happens is that certain rogues and loafers have less money to play with than they had before. The notion that they have earned that money is never entertained; to most sensible men it would seem ludicrous. They are simply rascals who, by accidents of law, have a somewhat dubious right to a share in the earnings of their fellow men. When that share is diminished by private enterprise the business is, on the whole, far more laudable than not.

The intelligent man, when he pays taxes, certainly does not believe that he is making a prudent and productive investment of his money; on the contrary, he feels that he is being mulcted in an excessive amount for services that, in the main, are useless to him, and that, in substantial part, are downright inimical to him. He may be convinced that a police force, say, is necessary for the protection of his life and property, and that an army and navy safeguard him from being reduced to slavery by some vague foreign kaiser, but even so he views these things as extravagantly expensive – he sees in even the most essential of them an agency for making it easier for the exploiters constituting the government to rob him. In those exploiters themselves he has no confidence whatever. He sees them as purely predatory and useless; he believes that he gets no more net benefit from their vast and costly operations than he gets from the money he lends to his wife’s brother. They constitute a power that stands over him constantly, ever alert for new chances to squeeze him. If they could do so safely they would strip him to his hide. If they leave him anything at all, it is simply prudetially, as a farmer leaves a hen some of her eggs.

Leave a Comment

The Rulers in a Propertarian Society

Some time ago, C.Jay wrote:

If a ruler is one who has the legal claim to setting the “rules” of a given jurisdiction, then logically the property owner is a ruler over all that he owns.  And further, if the ideal libertarian society can be described as a “Propertarian” society, that is, a society made up only of privately-owned property as opposed to “public” property, then it is essentially ruled by proper owners creating their rules and voluntary interacting with each other.  The number of rulers in this society is not zero, in fact, it is hundreds or thousands or however big the society is! Ironically then, it is democracy and every other State structure which limits the number of rulers.

He wrote this while describing why he is not fond of the word “anarchy,” which etymologically refers to a social order without rulers.  The point was that there most certainly are rulers in a capitalistic and strict property-rights order.  Recently, I read a similar statement by Mises Canada’s Editor in Chief James E. Miller, who wrote:

The issue is not necessarily the functionality of a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society, but of definition. The etymology of anarchy is simple: the ancient Greek meaning is simply “without rulers.” Are so-called “rulers” necessary for capitalism? Yes and no, depending on one’s general understanding.

Private property itself needs rulers – that is the owners of the property themselves. The same goes for hierarchy. If a rentier owns land that people agree to live on, there is a clear distinction between who’s in charge.

Glad to see this agreement.

Leave a Comment

Dan Sanchez on the Apple Tax Debacle

1*dmZlVLiyxE8q8_EFcwZEWwDan Sanchez has some great thoughts, as always, on Apple and Ireland here. Snippet:

[The] European Commission slapped Apple with a $14.5 billion bill for back taxes, ruling that Ireland had violated European Union rules by taxing the technology company at such a low rate. But the Irish government doesn’t want the money! It had promised the low rates back decades ago to entice Apple to set up and keep shop in Ireland, bringing the struggling country desperately needed jobs and economic growth. The government is worried that if it reneges on that deal, it will risk driving off the geese that lay the golden eggs: Apple, and other businesses as well.

But no, insists the European super-state: sustainably prudential parasitism is not an option. The Irish government must join the rest of the Union in recklessly bleeding its private sector hosts dry until the whole system collapses under its own dead weight.

Leave a Comment

Charles Finney and the Welfare State

Murray Rothbard, in his essay on “Origins of the Welfare State in America,” writes:

“Perhaps the most fateful of the events giving rise to and shaping the welfare state was the transformation of American Protestantism that took place in a remarkably brief period during the late 1820s. Riding in on a wave from Europe, fueled by an intense emotionalism often generated by revival meetings, this Second Great Awakening conquered and remolded the Protestant churches, leaving such older forms as Calvinism far behind. The new finneyProtestantism was spearheaded by the emotionalism of revival meetings held throughout the country by the Rev. Charles Grandison Finney. This new Protestantism was pietist, scorning liturgy as papist or formalistic, and equally scornful of the formalisms of Calvinist creed or church organization. Hence, denominationalism, God’s Law, and church organization were no longer important. What counted was each person’s achieving salvation by his own free will, by being “born again,” or being “baptized in the Holy Spirit.” An emotional, vaguely defined pietist, non-creedal, and ecumenical Protestantism was to replace strict creedal or liturgical categories.

[…]

“While a nominal Presbyterian, in 1821 at the age of 29, Finney converted to the new pietism, experiencing his second baptism, his “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” his conversion being greatly aided by the fact that he was self-educated in religion, and lacked any religious training. Tossing aside the Calvinist tradition of scholarship in the Bible, Finney was able to carve out his new religion, and to ordain himself in his new version of the faith. Launching his remarkably successful revival movement in 1826 when he was an attorney in northeastern Ohio, his new pietism swept the Yankee areas in the East and midwest. Finney wound up at Oberlin College, in the Western Reserve area of Ohio, where he became president, and transformed Oberlin into the preeminent national center for the education and dissemination of postmillennial pietism.”

Leave a Comment

Governance Is Not Arbitrary

One misconception among Christians today, is that the government would have the authority to criminalize certain actions by fiat. The problem however, is that there is no Biblical justification granting governing authorities an arbitrary basis for punishing or restraining evil. If anything, the basis is definitive (as opposed to arbitrary), but many Christians by and large have failed to come to this realization and only decry government actions if they’re unmistakably egregious.

Moreover, the distinction between vices and crimes[1] should not vary from person to person, nor from governing authority to governing authority because governing authorities are people no different than you and I. This means they are held to the same ethical standard.

Perhaps the most important distinction to make is that the sin of a man does not always necessarily entail physical restitution nor punishment; particularly when there is no physical offense committed against another person or another person’s property. Sure, there is a metaphysical aspect regarding all sin, but God is the only one who has the right to decide the means of expiation, especially when transgressions are committed solely against Him.

It is when a sin becomes criminal — viz. when a sin is an encroachment upon the property of another, including acts of aggression against the victim’s person — that man has legal grounds on which to take punitive action or to exact restitution. This is confirmed by the fact that the Proprietor of all creation has delegated subsidiary ownership of property to each individual human, as indicated by certain provisions of His Law pertaining to actions and choices of man vis-à-vis other men. These prohibitions include the act of murder, stealing, and certain types of false witness (e.g. aggression, theft, extortion, perjury, and breaking of contracts).

Unless otherwise stated by God in His Word (e.g. specific commands to Old Testament Israel), man has a default code of conduct to which he is to adhere. When Christians make allowances for others — especially governing authorities — to negate any portion of this standard, then we make allowances for all men to negate all portions of this standard which is a position entirely hostile toward God.

 

[1] In Lysander Spooner’s work, Vices Are Not Crimes, Spooner defines vices as, “those acts by which a man harms himself or his property” and crimes as “those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.”

Leave a Comment

Consumption Tax?

Part of Gary Johnson’s tax reform plan is implementation of a national sales tax, what he calls a consumption tax, while he repeals all income tax.

However, a national sales tax is an income tax which not only reduces consumption but also savings and investment. As Rothbard states on pages 1161-1162 in Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market:

“It should be carefully noted that the general sales tax is a conspicuous example of failure to tax consumption.  It is commonly supposed that a sales tax penalizes consumption rather than income or capital.  But we find that the sales tax reduces, not just consumption, but the incomes of original factors.  The general sales tax is an income tax, albeit a rather haphazard one, since there is no way that its impact on income classes can be made uniform. Many “right-wing” economists have advocated general sales taxation, as opposed to income taxation, on the ground that the former taxes consumption but not savings-investment; many “left-wing” economists have opposed sales taxation for the same reason.  Both are mistaken; the sales tax is an income tax, though of more haphazard and uncertain incidence.  The major effect of the general sales tax will be that of the income tax: to reduce the consumption and the savings-investment of the taxpayers.  In fact, since, as we shall see, the income tax by its nature falls more heavily on savings-investment than on consumption, we reach the paradoxical and important conclusion that a tax on consumption will also fall more heavily on savings-investment, in its ultimate incidence.”

Leave a Comment

John Hersey and the Human Cost of Hiroshima

In August of 1946, as Americans celebrated the one-year anniversary of the end of World War II, The New Yorker magazine devoted an entire weekly edition to the remembrance of one of that war’s final events, the atomic bombing of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The magazine, which would typically have featured several articles by different writers, instead devoted its August 31, 1946 edition to one extended article by journalist John Hersey, who had been one of the first Western journalists into Hiroshima after the bombing. Hersey’s article focused on six survivors – among them a Methodist minister and German Catholic priest – of the Hiroshima blast.

Without editorial comment, Hersey detailed the experiences of these six survivors and painted a horrifying portrait of the human cost of the atomic bombs. One passage, detailing Reverend Kiyoshi Tanimoto’s efforts to save the dying and aid the wounded, was particularly heart-wrenching:

“Just before dark, Mr. Tanimoto (a Methodist minister) came across a twenty-year-old girl, Mrs. Kamai, the Tanimotos’ next-door neighbor. She was crouching on the ground with the body of her infant daughter in her arms. The baby had evidently been dead all day. Mrs. Kamai jumped up when she saw Mr. Tanimoto and said, “Would you please try to locate my husband?”

“Mr. Tanimoto knew that her husband had been inducted into the Army just the day before… Judging by the many maimed soldiers Mr. Tanimoto had seen during the day, he surmised that the barracks had been badly damaged by whatever it was that had hit Hiroshima. He knew he hadn’t a chance of finding Mrs. Kamai’s husband, even if he searched, but he wanted to humor her. “I’ll try,” he said.

“’You’ve got to find him,” she said. “He loved our baby so much. I want him to see her once more.’”

So moving was Hersey’s account that Time magazine editorialized,

“Every American who has permitted himself to make jokes about atom bombs, or who has come to regard them as just one sensational phenomenon that can now be accepted as part of civilization, like the airplane and the gasoline engine, or who has allowed himself to speculate as to what we might do with them if we were forced into another war, ought to read Mr. Hersey.”

Having just passed the 71st anniversary of the bombing (and a contested half apology from the United States’ current Bomber in Chief), it seems that John Hersey’s mostly-forgotten work is due for a resurrection. His story may not change anyone’s position on whether or not the bombs should have been dropped, but it would at least remind Americans of what the bombings actually represent.

Leave a Comment

On the Alt-Right Scare: Who Cares

Here’s the deal. Hillary dismissed Trump and his base as a bunch of Alt-Righters. This was smart. She’s a good politician. She was playing a classic strategy of taking a teeny tiny group that pretty much nobody likes or actually belongs to and dismissing all her opponents as belonging to that group. This is, as I said, classic. Once the booboisie hears that non-Hillary supporters are alt-right folks, Hillary’s achieved victory.

It’s the whole dismissing someone as racist or sexist thing simply for dissenting. It works. And politics is about pragmatism. Mencken observes:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

But seriously who cares. Either Trump is good on liberty or he is not. He isn’t. There’s no need for libertarians to get caught up in the virtue signaling of fashionably ensuring that everyone knows how non-racist, non-sexist, anti-alt-right we are.

Congratulations, its 2016 and you’re against racism. I’m proud of you. So is everyone else. I love what Tom Woods wrote on the “taking a stand” on opinions with which 95% of people agree:

In light of recent libertarian showboating I have composed this couplet:

Hey, reporter, look at me
I’m against slavery!

It took a lot of courage to oppose slavery in, say, 1855. It takes zero courage to oppose it today. This is one reason I am convinced that those who are most ostentatious in their aversion to slavery in 2013 are the least likely to have opposed it at the time. Their excessive eagerness to disassociate themselves from perceived “extremism” would not have served them well in the 1850s, when abolitionism, which had zero electoral success, was the most notorious extremism of the day.

[…]

Unlike Kuznicki, I say things that go against the grain even though I know they will yield me nothing but grief. I hope this means I would have opposed injustice when it counted and when it might have done some good, and not just 150 years later, when I safely say what everyone thinks, to the applause of the world.

Leave a Comment

Joe Sobran Breaks Down the Labels

If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal.bio-reduced.jpg

If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative.

If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate.

If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.

“Need” now means wanting someone else’s money.

“Greed” now means wanting to keep your own.

“Compassion” is when a politician arranges the transfer.

—Joe Sobran

Leave a Comment

Welcome to the New Site!

Hurrah! The new site is up! Click here.

What do you think? Please know: it’s still a work in progress and I’m still adding features and making tweaks. So I know some of you are going to really have some major critiques. Please be nice. But I welcome feedback and suggestions.

Please click on at least one of the newest 4 articles when you get to the site to get a feel for how it looks.

A couple notes on the new structure of things:

The very biggest change is the main site where all the major articles and pages are hosted is now distinct from the blog. As you will find on the main site in the menu area (far right), “The Blog” takes you to the subdomain where the blog exists. Here’s the cool thing: each and every blog post feeds into the various pages on the main site in the sidebar section so if you visit the main site, you can still see all the blogposts; clicking it will just take you to the blog site. The blog site is blog.reformedlibertarian.com .

What is the difference between an article and a blog? An article is original content, developed arguments, and longer/more thought out material. The blog, on the other hand, will be shorter and mostly unelaborated. You will find links, memes, jokes, quotes, quick thoughts, and references to outside pieces.

The transition between the main site and the blog site is pretty seamless. You will hardly notice.

I’m still working on the photo sizes on the front page. So some of them may seem a little off. Just bear with me. I have lots of tweaks to do. The mobile site is very cool. The side menu option (the three lines on the upper right hand side) is available on both desktop and mobile. The primary menu is only seen on desktop, and it is just the major categories, plus a link to the blog site.

I am going to be putting all the major pages (i.e. The Reading List) in the side menu (three line thing) and leave the primary menu for the site’s categories (topics).

The biggest annoyance for me right now is the block quotes on the main site’s articles. The default formate is all capital letters. I am working to get this changed to cursive. So again, bear with me.

Any other suggestions or feedback is appreciated. Some of you may think the blog/site distinction is a little odd. But four things: 1) You’ll get used to it. 2) How cool is it that you can scroll straight down the blog page and it reads like a legit blog! 3). I had to do it this way with the way the main theme is in order to make a single tiny blogpost not look really weird on the site.

And #4: I have a couple really cool plans in store for the blog site that I am still working on. Stay tuned for that announcement!

I will be adding new features and cool designs all week. So keep checking back in. It’s not complete yet. But for the most part it’s ready to launch. So check it out.

And finally, thank you to all who contributed to this next step with a small donation. It is always helpful and shows me the kind of interest that exists for these types of resources. I’m always appreciative. Here is what I said yesterday on Facebook on this topic:

Hey everybody, time to do this again. Once a year, I do one round of extremely low pressure fundraising for some site expenses. Let me say the same thing I say every single time: there is nothing on the site that will be prevented if no one donates. I have the same hosting/domain/theme expenses I always do and I personally have the funds to pay everything. So it’s not like you would be keeping the site up. It’ll be up regardless.

However, the reason I do this is because I know many of you have benefitted from the site and may want to express yourself in this way. A few people per year do ask me if I need any help financially and I always tell them I don’t need help per se, but there are expenses and I am indeed honored to receive contributions.

My one big change that I am doing this month is –finally– getting a modern and beautiful theme all installed. A much better one than just the tinkering with the current one I’ve been doing off and on. You guys deserve it. It’s going to be legit. So anyways, besides the regular expenses, that’s what I’ll be spending money on this time around.

If you want to contribute, I’d be thrilled. Here is the link:

https://paypal.me/reformedlibertarian

Leave a Comment

Trumped! New Stockman Book

David Stockman has announced a new book that is coming soon:

I am in the throes of finishing a book on the upheaval represented by the Trump candidacy and movement. It is an exploration of how 30 years of Bubble Finance policies at the Fed, feckless interventions abroad and mushrooming Big government and debt at home have brought America to its current ruinous condition.

It also delves into the good and bad of the Trump campaign and platform and outlines a more consistent way forward based on free markets, fiscal rectitude, sound money, constitutional liberty, non-intervention abroad, minimalist government at home and decentralized political rule.

Leave a Comment

The Cycle of Decivilization

The state artificially creates a variety of laws from fiat.

People inevitably break these laws.

The state uses its coercive power to enforce the law.

People get annoyed, some react with physical violence (unwise).

The state clamps down and gets more fierce.

This causes more blowback.

[fast forward decades]

Behold, the cycle continues. Hoppe’s theory of the decivilization effects of Democracy and public law is being proven correct.

More laws, more crime. More crime, more tension between state and people.

Some blame institutionalized racism. This is wrong. Racial disparity in the enforcement of artificial law does not itself logically imply racism (the theory that certain races are morally or biologically superior to others).

Others see zero guilt in the law enforcement and only consider them categorically as heroic. This is wrong. See above for the state’s role.

The state grows more powerful and more tyrannical as it becomes more desperate to maintain its beloved grasp on society. But this is a continuation of the spiral and feeds the careless and unthinking mob-like reaction. Back and forth it all goes.

Society collapses upon itself.

Leave a Comment

Jim Hale’s Change of Heart

Yesterday I was so impressed by Jim Hale’s exclusive article over at the Ron Paul Institute wonderfully titled “Confessions of a War Propagandist,” that I also posted here on TRL. A major reason for my being impressed, of course, was because of who Jim Hale is. As the article states, Hale was the media relations director at the Committee of the Liberation of Iraq, a key influencer on behalf of the War Party’s efforts for regime change in Iraq. Hale worked closely with neocon head honcho Bill Kristol and their favorite advocate in the Federal Government: John McCain.

At any rate, today Tom Woods published Hale’s first interview since “confessing” his role in the deceitful and destructive efforts toward a completely unnecessary, unjustifiable, and unconstitutional war in Iraq. It was pretty fascinating. Apparently, Hale was one who knew Ron Paul was right in his understanding of the facts and the theory of the entire war effort, both in terms of the actual cause of the events and also in terms of the propaganda that was being promoted to drive the country toward war. But both in 2008 and 2012, Hale admits rejecting Paul’s arguments by rationalizing the very false narrative to himself until just this year when first Rubio and then Cruz quit the GOP race. At that point, Hale knew it was over and he “woke up one morning” and decided he was done.

He even cites his faith as a key motivator to his change of heart.

He literally stumbled onto Tom Woods’ site by accident, starting listening to the podcasts, bought a whole stack of the site’s recommended books to educate himself on the liberty philosophy (and no doubt on all the war-related podcasts Tom Woods has done). He even decided to give Ron Paul’s book The Revolution a chance. This was all a couple months ago, apparently. He messaged Tom Woods and recorded his first public reflection on the matter.

Completely remarkable. I mean this guy was at the very top of the propaganda efforts and here he is today, the weight of his lies finally off his chest, ready and willing to dig into the liberty movement’s resources and  open up about his change of heart. We always like the dream of the day when an “insider” will finally come clean about the corruption and lies that go on, to expose himself and his colleagues and to tell the truth about what they are doing. It’s been done before, but this truly is a great moment.

Here is the interview, give it a listen!

2 Comments

FedGov and Statist Christian

The role of the Federal Government is to make up laws out of thin air and then convict people and businesses who happen to fall short of the arbitrary, often socially and economically harmful, standard.

The role of the statist evangelical Christian who lacks a coherent political theory is to praise the Federal Government for upholding “law and order” and stigmatize the person/business for acting “illegally.”

Leave a Comment