Another U.S.-Inflicted “Ground Zero” in Pakistan

Anti-Statism, Imperialism, Racism, The Right, War
By / / 1 Comment / 2 minutes of reading
Share

If opinion polls are reliable at all, most Americans are too enthralled by the manufactured outrage over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque to notice that the government claiming to represent them just massacred, via remote-controlled drone, at least twenty innocent people in Pakistan.

Several of those killed in the attack were children whose lives were violently ended by a missile fired at the hideout of “suspected militants.” It was their fatal misfortune to be living next to an address chosen for a “targeted execution” — that is, an assassination conducted pursuant to presidential order.

This is just one of literally hundreds of “ground zeros” the U.S. government has inflicted on Pakistan since Barack the Blessed escalated the drone war early in his presidency. That fact is lost on the  spittle-flecked militarists who profess to be inconsolably offended by the presence of Muslims within a few blocks Ground Zero’s incomparably sacred soil in Lower Manhattan.

People intoxicated with a sense of vicarious victimhood aren’t likely to understand, or care about, the anger and frustration of Muslims whose homes and families have been destroyed, on a whim, by the rulers of a distant and unassailably powerful regime.

The more deranged among the neo-Know Nothings (the “No Mosques in America!” crowd) insist it is a species of sedition even to suggest that there is a connection between the criminal violence committed by Washington abroad, and the retaliatory terrorism we occasionally experience here at home.

This dogmatic indifference to the value of non-American lives was displayed by Hillary Clinton during an October 2009 foreign excursion in which she inflicted herself on the inhabitants of Pakistan.  During a meeting with Clinton, several well-spoken but forceful Pakistanis condemned the strikes as “executions without trial” and acts of state terrorism. Clinton breezily dismissed the complaints: “There is a war going on.”

That statement is a distant echo of Madeleine Albright’s notorious comments in a 1996 60 Minutes interview, in which she blithely said that it was “worth it” for the U.S. to suffocate Iraq with sanctions that were killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians each year.

Albright’s words, which were re-played incessantly in the Muslim world, resulted in a huge windfall for terrorist recruiters (who really should have given her a commission for each suicide bomber who enlisted in their ranks).

Clinton’s arrogant, dismissive comments weren’t as widely reported, but the policy she defended is cultivating the seeds from which future terrorist attacks will spring. And the bovine residue being spread about the “Ground Zero Mosque” by the War Party’s cynical hate peddlers is helping fertilize that threat.

Another U.S.-Inflicted “Ground Zero” in Pakistan Read Post »

Who are the worst Americans?

Anti-Statism, The Left, The Right
By / / 5 Comments / 3 minutes of reading
Share

From Stephen Bainbridge via Tyler Cowen comes a list of the worst Americans:

John Hawkins asked a bunch of right of center bloggers to list the “20 Worst Americans of all time,” from which he compiled the following list. The comments are mine. Personally, I find the collated list pretty much of a joke. It reflects the partisan passions of the moment, not anything resembling a serious verdict of history.

It goes on to list the usual suspects from the modern political right’s perspective: the Clintons, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, various spies and assassins, FDR, Ted Kennedy and so on.  I agree with Bainbridge that several selections are historically dubious; leftist loudmouths such as Moore and Al Sharpton seem inconsequential next to true monsters like FDR and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

I doubt Bainbridge would agree with a libertarian’s list, however, although some overlap would exist.  But we libertarians enjoy the benefit of an anti-state, pro-liberty perspective, which neither the right nor left will entertain.  Thus while Bainbridge puts John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of “our greatest President”, at # 3 of his own list, Booth’s target would top mine.  Yes, Abraham Lincoln: the worst American ever.

And certainly no other assassin or spy or anyone else who has undermined the state would go on my list of worst Americans.  The worst Americans are the ones who have used the state to murder, rob and terrorize innocent people.  Lincoln prosecuted a war to prevent secession and caused the deaths of 600,000 Americans and virtually unmeasurable economic destruction.  Timothy McVeigh isn’t our worst domestic terrorist: the United States government is.

FDR, who ushered in the modern welfare state and deliberately goaded the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, thus providing an excuse to push the U. S. into WWII, surely is in the top five.  As is his successor, Harry Truman, for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with atomic weapons.

Then there’s Alexander Hamilton, a strong centralist whose ideas of protectionism and fiat currency plague American economic policy to this day.

Here are some of my choices, not in a meaningful order after the top five or so:

  1. Abraham Lincoln
  2. Woodrow Wilson (World War I tyrant, established the Fed and the first progressive income tax, allowed segregationist government policies)
  3. FDR
  4. Harry Truman
  5. Alexander Hamilton
  6. LBJ (expanded involvement in Vietnam, biggest spender on social programs since FDR)
  7. George W. Bush (two wars, unprecedented expansion of Federal government)
  8. Ted Kennedy (worst recent example of our ruling political class)
  9. Alan Greenspan (architect of the Fed’s disastrous monetary expansion)
  10. Paul Krugman (apologist for neo-Keynesian economic policy)
  11. John Marshall (4th Chief Justice of SCOTUS who greatly expanded Federal power)
  12. Janet Reno (murderess of 76 Branch Davidians in Waco)
  13. J. Edgar Hoover (the FBI’s first and still most evil dictator director)

I’m sure readers can think of many others, but this is a good start.

Who are the worst Americans? Read Post »

“I think, therefore I own” – Objectivists as NeoMarxists of sorts

(Austrian) Economics, Corporatism, IP Law, Libertarian Theory, The Right
By / / 8 Comments / 2 minutes of reading
Share

The usual apology for IP (“intellectual property”) privilege is that effort has to be rewarded in an advanced society if justice is to be made to creators and producers.

Interesting: Marxists say the very same thing. They claim that previous effort (“frozen labor”) is that which gives value to economic goods. Well, Objectivists are doing the same in a more fashionable — yet equally flawed — way. They claim economic value is derived from frozen…thoughts. Yes, frozen thoughts. See, Objectivists consider labor performed inside our heads1 the source of economic value, and thus being the very core of value creation it has to be rightfully protected at all costs, right?

Wrong. The source of value is the customer’s valuation of said good during the time of sale.

Yes, ladies and gentlement, it is sales (that mundane and sordid act) that which generates an income in a free society (i.e. the division of labor). Sales are the only way in which demonstrated preference tells us that which is valuable to others. And if it is, they surrender certain amount of another good by giving it to us in exchange for what they need and want. That good is generally one of general acceptance (the most marketeable one), in other words, money. So in order to make money one has to sell. It does not suffice to sit, philosopher style (see pic), and wait for money to come to oneself. One has to know how to turn the idea into an attractive and/or useful product, which requires a whole different set of skills. Or find able partners for the risk-taking endeavor. Even choosing an adequate partner/team for production, distribution, and sales require entrepreneurial skills far beyond the usual thinker’s.

But in any case, it is not “who thought of this first?” that makes people buy more of brand X. The customer couldn’t care less either way. It is the positioning of brand X in the customer’s mind that creates what we call a true market niche for a product. Thus, it follows that it is opportunity, quality and ultimately demonstrated preference (sales) that determines commercial success. Alas, Capitalism is not the social system of thinkers (nor was Socialism, as it was predictably taken over by power-mongers): it is the social system of merchants. Yes, lowly, mundane, and anti-intellectual merchants.

This, to the despair of (Objectivist) NeoMarxism and Marxism, two philosophies founded  by intellectuals who wanted to highlight the role of people like themselves.

  1. A substantially less sweaty form of labor, of course ↩

“I think, therefore I own” – Objectivists as NeoMarxists of sorts Read Post »

Why Barton apologized (the second time)

The Right, Vulgar Politics
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

As is almost always the case when politicians speak the truth, it’s purely by accident. Barton was correct to note the injustice against BP in the Obama administration’s shakedown for 20 billion. But it is exceedingly unlikely that Barton actually cared about the issue beyond the potential for scoring some political points and whipping up some good political theatre for himself. As soon as he saw that his plan backfired, he backed down immediately.

This is the behavior of a person without principles, which Barton clearly is. Barton claimed to be “ashamed” of the way BP was treated. Was Barton “ashamed” when the Bush administration shook down the taxpayers for untold billions for the GOP’s prescription drug benefit? Was Barton “ashamed” when the GOP doubled federal spending and ran the deficit up to $10 trillion? I seriously doubt it. Has Barton ever opposed massive government intrusion into the lives of private citizens when it served the political purposes of the GOP? Did he oppose the PATRIOT ACT?

In fact, Barton’s web site gushes over how great the prescription drug benefit is. Barton has voted to expand government spying rights on numerous occasions, and has otherwise supported the gutting of the Bill of Rights. He has a staunch record of expanding White House powers at the expense of Congress and the taxpayers. Indeed, Barton helped provide the Obama White House with the sort of power it used to shake BP down, by giving unchecked power to the Bush White House. In other words, Barton is the typical Republican: He’s against big government except when he’s not.

Note: Barton did vote against the 2008 bailout, which was hardly courageous since about 80 percent of his constituents no doubt opposed the bailout.

Why Barton apologized (the second time) Read Post »

Scroll to Top