stupak

i don't understand why federal money, which is only taken and not voluntarily given, should pay for abortions. of course this argument upholds the issue as a problem of taxation and the role of government, not abortions specifically - thereby making the issue one of compulsion, not choice. that means people should be prepared with an understanding that anything the federal government claims to do for people is ultimately under the jurisdiction of the federal government, not the people. it seems to me that so long as the gov't is not banning abortion, against the consent of the governed, the issue has nothing to do with law per se, but abortion remains a creature of individual choice within society, culture, whatever. so why would you want the federal government to regulate anything but itself? (which can only be done by the people, allegedly by the fabric of the constitution). why should such a choice be under the jurisdiction of such a body? the only perogative of gov't should be to protect your rights not to fund certain groups of society.

Sound money in America: A solution

"The #1 goal of monetary reform ought to be to get the government out of the money and banking business."

~ Gary North

What is Money? Part 9: Monetary Reform

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north774.html

Gov't news shills for gov't housing crisis

Read this story from ABC Nightly News - check out the opening statement:

Racing to complete their purchases before a tax credit for first-time owners expires, homebuyers pushed sales up last month by the largest amount in more than 26 years.

Propaganda. Disney is telling everyone that "homebuyers pushed sales up last month by the largest amount in more than 26 years" because the gov't subsidized these first-time homebuyers with a tax-credit off $8,000. Not only this, but in addition they conflate another glaring issue. Do you really believe that all the homebuyers pushing-up sales were first-time buyers too?! I'm going to dig up some more numbers.... Maybe the point of extending this tax credit, which people readily apply for, is not only to boost the image of the state as savior of the economy but also a call to buy now at this price because some people are confident that prices of housing will continue to fall - and that can't be good for the state banking cartel.

The Media-Buro (No, not the FCC's Media Bureau)

Somebody should investigate this matter further:
I wanted to comment on mainstream media coverage of "The Industry". I've searched everywhere for what appears to be an elusive "business". Oh you haven't heard? According to Katie Couric and the Nightly News, YOUR healthcare reform is being obstructed by "The Industry". Do they have a number I can reach them at? I've heard the gov't is a service provider, though I don't want them coming to sell me anything. Though I wouldn't mind some lasik eye surgery or sporting equipment (truly, there's a healthy list). I suggest somebody investigate this matter further.

socialism is libertarian & economists have no place in society: a response

yeah, i see it and am aware of this attitude towards economics. but this is simply a denial of everything we know about economics. there can be no numbers to construct models and representations unless there is human actitivity to observe. starting from the axiom that humans act, it is easy to see how every decision is an economic one in the sense that time and resources must be utilized in this, or that, fashion. and should i act on this now or later, etc. if it were already known how and what to do there wouldn't be a problem. and overcoming scarcity would simply become a matter of patience and hard work since the correct means of utilization of time and resources would already be known. but this is not the case at all. the natural state of scarcity combined with the problem of human knowledge, error, and preference necessarily establishes a plethora of economic questions and obstacles.

everyone, "economist" or not, is faced with these choices. so then, how to coordinate human action? i think it's worthwhile to point out that economists, jim, as we are usually acquainted with them, (keep in mind that economists, as a profession, have been around only a few centuries) are giving advice, devising empirical charts and graphs, instructing people to do this, that, and the other thing. whereas, there is a much more effective way of being an economist in my opinion. the job of the economist, as mises said, firstly, should be to show what cannot be done, what is not feasible. the goal being to explain the goings-ons in the market. [see: the late scholastics, turgot, bastiat, jean baptiste say] but by no means should the economist necessarily be in a position of making decisions for people.[think: Council of Economic Advisors] that is exactly the opposite of the very conception of a non-coercive market.

so far as libertarian socialists are concerned, given my definition of socialism as a theory of the state, i understand that there are those who still cling to attributes of marxian class analysis, proudhon, and the like. but this group still does not endorse the state regardless, due to the inherrent coercion. i think jon was identifying, correctly, libertarian socialists and their assertion of private property as necessitating exploitation - thats what they see the state as protecting - hence, one maine reason to abolish the institution. [i would recommend Marxian and Austrian Class Analysis by Hans-Herman Hoppe]

*kropotkin helped to make this distinction between two socialisms - state socialism and socialist anarchism. i can't really say there is much difference between socialist anarchism and libertarian socialism.personally, i understand libertarian socialism as a contradiction in terms and see is it merely as a means to provide common ground between the anti-statist libertarians and anti-statist socialists. otherwise it is confusing and useless.

though it can be hard to put libertarians all in one neat box, there isn't necessarily an irreconcilable divide.

-as brad spangler notes:"If democracy is government by the consent of the governed, then the society of unanimous consent free market libertarians described as a stateless free market is also the libertarian socialist ideal of participatory democracy. It’s not thesis vs antithesis, but yin and yang or skeleton and muscle"

-skye stewart notes spanglers thought and adds:"both direct/unhindered democracy as sought by far left progressives, and the genuine free market uncorrupted by state privilege and intervention sought by austro-libertarian anarchists are posited as systems of decentralized equilibrating processes. ...
The framework of the latter, however, it can be argued, does not contain the seeds of it's own destruction.
The implicit objective of an equality of authority to those persons it comprises, is violated at the outset in the former system, due to the status of the political entity with which life is managed and it's inherent incompatibility with property rights, ie, the 'consensuality' of it's participants."

generally libertarians are distinct in the fact that they are concerned with property rights, how they are applied, and their relation to the nonaggression principle

as rothbard said: "all rights are property rights" -

i, prima facie, own myself.

reason in E minor

Obama's obviously doing great so why would i risk being seen as counterproductive and attempt to dissent? i suppose i have to, because the heart of the matters lives on regardless of who holds office. 

if human rights is the reason any of this is worth anything at all then that essentially means economy (the human network) and war (human destruction) would top the list of priorities. unfortunately it seems politics is too often more about weighing the pros and cons instead of the rights and wrongs. 

good luck with that recovering economy and winning those wars. the only thing ya still need is a whole lot more of something you don't have enough of. what's funny is that i know exactly how it is dude.

Albert Jay Nock - Class Analysis

lewrockwell.com link
Our Enemy, The State

"If we look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact, namely: a great redistribution of power between society and the State. This is the fact that interests the student of civilization. He has only a secondary or derived interest in matters like price-fixing, wage-fixing, inflation, political banking, 'agricultural adjustment,' and similar items of State policy that fill the pages of newspapers and the mouths of publicists and politicians. All these can be run up under one head. They have an immediate and temporary importance, and for this reason they monopolize public attention, but they all come to the same thing; which is, an increase of State power and a corresponding decrease of social power."