The "Progressive" NATO Knowingly Slaughters Innocent People

The mainstream left is always fomenting about how we must have the "international community's" support before waging war. This Orwellian term should not be taken to mean the regular folks in allied nations -- who are overwhelmingly against both the "bad" and "good" war -- but their self-interested political leaders. 

But apart from misleading, this attitude reeks of state-worship and naivete. If someone decides to bomb a residential area, are the innocent people maimed -- that is, the victims -- really going to care whether the "international community" sanctioned this aggression?  NATO seems to think such a distinction is justified, as demonstrated by its recent decision to directly slaughter about a dozen Afghanis to get an alleged terrorist. 

But of course, neither tough-talking NATO generals nor the chickenhawk politicians who employ them would accept blowing their children's legs off as a means to an end. The job of libertarians is to preach the Golden Rule and remind our fellow citizens that no government institution is above the natural law binding private society.

The Problem with Constitutionalism

A Feb. 3 article from the Center for a Stateless Society calls into question the utility of Constitutionalism as a political philosophy.  I would have to say that I am completely of accord with the author, Thomas L. Knapp, on this point.  When two parties enter into a written contract (like a Constitution), and one party is backed by massive coercive force and one is not, no one should be surprised when the stronger party does not uphold its end of the bargain.

Knapp writes:

The conservative niche marketing device commonly known as “constitutionalism” — a device which massages the libertarian impulse in a way that makes it an ideal fetish for “smaller government” types to wave at anarchists — boils down to the notion that government could be made to “work” if only we herded it back into the corral of constitutional limitations.

While that’s a very debatable notion, it’s one we don’t really have to reach, because the question it raises is answered in the negative at the word “if.” Government can’t be herded back into the Constitutionally OK Corral. It trampled down that corral’s fences long ago; the corral no longer exists. Any time you see some random piece of government standing in the area that the fences used to surround, what you’re seeing is a mere temporary coincidence of the running battle between that piece of government and some other. Government is an animal run wild. That it happens to occasionally run across the area its old pen used to cover is to be expected.

I have to agree with Knapp.  As Ludwig von Mises wisely noted, government is not an institution bound by paper -- it is an institution rooted in physical force.

Goverment Zombies

Horror film director Andrew Klavan compares goverment to Zombies.  What do you think?

School Sucks Podcast

I recently found a great podcast discussing the immoral and inefficient nature of the public school system in the United States. Brett Veinoitte gives the best description of government and its true negation of liberty I have ever heard. I have only gotten to Episode 5 so far, but it already has me once again indulging in the vast ideology of liberty.  I recommend starting at Episode 1 because the host goes through the philosophy of government and its forceful intrustion in our lives. There aren't too many episodes yet so you're not too far behind if you start now. Please visit the School Sucks Project website and download his podcast from Itunes. You won't be dissapointed.