Episode 34 – Watchmen (1:30:36)

The Afro Libertarian joins us once again to discuss Watchmen. This is our third time having Ryan on the show and he keeps showing us new perspectives on movies, comics, libertarianism and society. This is a lot of fun and both Robert and Ryan can totally nerd-out.  I try to keep up.

www.ActualAnarchy.com/34 by ActualAnarchy

Google Description

In an alternate 1985 America, costumed superheroes are part of everyday life. When one of his former comrades is murdered, masked vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) uncovers a plot to kill and discredit all past and present superheroes. As he reconnects with his retired associates, only one of which has true powers, Rorschach glimpses a far-reaching conspiracy involving their shared past and catastrophic consequences for the world’s future.

Continue reading “Episode 34 – Watchmen (1:30:36)”

Episode 11 – Logan (1:53:56)

In 2029 the mutant population has shrunk significantly and the X-Men have disbanded. Logan, whose power to self-heal is dwindling, has surrendered himself to alcohol and now earns a living as a chauffeur. He takes care of the ailing old Professor X whom he keeps hidden away.

We bring on special guest, the Afro Libertarian Ryan Jones to nerd-out with us and talk about the “Wolverine movie that fans of Wolverine have been waiting for.”

So many questions come from this movie that we go for nearly two hours.

Needless to say – SPOILERS!

Look for articles from the Afro Libertarian here at www.ActualAnarchy.com  and check out his site:

http://theafrolibertarian.com/

EDIT 4/3/2017 – as if we were Nostradamus himself, here is an article with a VP at Marvel bemoaning the spike in SJW-virtue signaling as one of the factors in a decline in sales:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/marvel-comic-book-sales-falling-vp-diversity-women-a7662771.html

Like, Share, Rate, Subscribe, Review, ALL THE THINGS!

SUBSCRIBE, RATE AND REVIEW

Lonely Libertarian in the Trump Era

By Ryan Jones

Almost a month into Donald Trump’s presidency, it has been interesting to say the least. Many have given reasons for someone like Trump to win one of, if not the, single most powerful position an individual can have on planet Earth. Some say it was a snap back reaction to the 8 years of a progressive president, or the current economic climate of a shrinking middle class and growing inequality. Others say it was RACISM, white people were fed up after 8 years of a black president and the growing political correctness culture that has emerged over the past few decades. Many blame the woeful Hillary Clinton, Wikileaks, or Russia! Everyone has their theories, and it’s probably a gumbo of all of those.

In the libertarian community, Trump’s campaign had an interesting effect. You can say he exposed some divisions in the community. Some long time libertarians who preached anti-statism, anti-authoritarianism, and individualism began supporting Trump, if not outright, at least tepidly. They said he is much more preferable to Hillary Clinton (obviously) and will be good enough on some things that libertarians promote, such as taxes, regulations, and he has some of the anti-interventionist sentiments we should get behind. They were willing to forgive or disregard things like his comments on women, his anti-free trade, and his promotion of big infrastructure spending. Some others who preached the same anti-statism took a much more confrontational role, attacking Trump as a racist, misogynist future Hitler.  They joined the same mind-numbing chorus as the leftists, who were disgusted and deranged at even the notion of a Trump presidency. Libertarians were equally divided on immigration, the great “Closed vs Open borders debate.” Some libertarians were pro-open borders, feeling free movement of peaceful people should not be forcefully dealt with by the state, but through property rights. While others pointed to the fact we do not live in an Anarcho-capitalist world, governments control borders, and the belief that it would not be in America’s or liberty lovers’ best interest to import thousands of people from places where the cultures are diametrically opposed to Western Values. You could call this a battle between Left and Right libertarians. Trump was brash in his position, he would build a wall on the US/Mexico border, kick out the illegal immigrants, and ban entry from Muslim countries.

This battle had its share of wounded. Jeffery Tucker, a long time anarcho-capitalist and scholar in the libertarian movement veered more left into political correctness. Stephan Molyneux, the popular, long time anarcho-capitalist writer and podcaster completely abandoned libertarianism, become a Trump Supporter. Walter Block, arguably the most radical libertarian scholar on the planet, beloved by everyone, promoted Libertarians for Trump. There were many like me who just didn’t know how to feel. We loved the anti-PC nature of Trump. We enjoyed to see him piss of the establishment Republicans and to see voters reject them. It seemed like great libertarians like Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods wanted to believe Trump would be good for liberty. But his talk of “wiping out ISIS”, banning Muslims, building walls, cracking down on cities with high crime, trade wars, had an authoritarian strong man feel that made some libertarians uncomfortable. Count me among them. Continue reading “Lonely Libertarian in the Trump Era”

Lonely Libertarian in the Trump Era

crowd3

 

Almost a month into Donald Trump’s presidency, it has been interesting to say the least. Many have given reasons for someone like Trump to win one of, if not the, single most powerful position an individual can have on planet Earth. Some say it was a snap back reaction to the 8 years of a progressive president, or the current economic climate of a shrinking middle class and growing inequality. Others say it was RACISM, white people were fed up after 8 years of a black president and the growing political correctness culture that has emerged over the past few decades. Many blame the woeful Hillary Clinton, Wikileaks, or Russia! Everyone has their theories, and it’s probably a gumbo of all of those.

In the libertarian community, Trump’s campaign had an interesting effect. You can say he exposed some divisions in the community. Some long time libertarians who preached anti-statism, anti-authoritarianism, and individualism began supporting Trump, if not outright, at least tepidly. They said he is much more preferable to Hillary Clinton (obviously) and will be good enough on some things that libertarians promote, such as taxes, regulations, and he has some of the anti-interventionist sentiments we should get behind. They were willing to forgive or disregard things like his comments on women, his anti-free trade, and his promotion of big infrastructure spending. Some others who preached the same anti-statism took a much more confrontational role, attacking Trump as a racist, misogynist future Hitler.  They joined the same mind-numbing chorus as the leftists, who were disgusted and deranged at even the notion of a Trump presidency. Libertarians were equally divided on immigration, the great “Closed vs Open borders debate.” Some libertarians were pro-open borders, feeling free movement of peaceful people should not be forcefully dealt with by the state, but through property rights. While others pointed to the fact we do not live in an Anarcho-capitalist world, governments control borders, and the belief that it would not be in America’s or liberty lovers’ best interest to import thousands of people from places where the cultures are diametrically opposed to Western Values. You could call this a battle between Left and Right libertarians. Trump was brash in his position, he would build a wall on the US/Mexico border, kick out the illegal immigrants, and ban entry from Muslim countries.

This battle had its share of wounded. Jeffery Tucker, a long time anarcho-capitalist and scholar in the libertarian movement veered more left into political correctness. Stephan Molyneux, the popular, long time anarcho-capitalist writer and podcaster completely abandoned libertarianism, become a Trump Supporter. Walter Block, arguably the most radical libertarian scholar on the planet, beloved by everyone, promoted Libertarians for Trump. There were many like me who just didn’t know how to feel. We loved the anti-PC nature of Trump. We enjoyed to see him piss of the establishment Republicans and to see voters reject them. It seemed like great libertarians like Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods wanted to believe Trump would be good for liberty. But his talk of “wiping out ISIS”, banning Muslims, building walls, cracking down on cities with high crime, trade wars, had an authoritarian strong man feel that made some libertarians uncomfortable. Count me among them.

Now here we are, 30 days into Trump’s presidency. So far, he’s followed through on what he promoted on his campaign. He’s signed executive order after executive order on a wide range of issues. He’s temporarily banned visas from being approved for Muslims entering the U.S from a list of nations, including people with dual citizenship and green cards. A clumsy act that caused thousands of people to be detained in Airports and pissed off American allies. He signed an order to repeal or not enforce key provisions in Obamacare. He is working to repeal parts of Dodd-Frank financial regulations. He’s threatened American companies who want to move jobs outside of the country. The EPA is being gutted. Trump signed the order to build a Wall on the US/Mexico border that will cost billions, and pay for it with a 20% tax on goods imported. He’s appointed a new Supreme Court Justice nominee to replace the late Justice Scalia, who, from most accounts, is a constitutional “originalist.” He has made friendly overtures to Russia, although clumsily.  Yet, he’s also killed an 8 year old girl in a failed top secret raid in Yemen ordered by him that cost the life a Navy Seal. He has also re-inflamed the war rhetoric between the United States and Iran after it was finally looking like peace between the nations was on the horizon, one of the very few good accomplishments by the Obama administration. Now Trump’s National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, is calling for new sanctions and has “put on Iran on notice.

So it is a mixed bag to say the least. For me, a libertarian, the “Trump experience” has been kind of lonely. For years, it felt like libertarians were united AGAINST the state, regardless of who is wearing the “smiley face on the lapel of the oligarchy,” as Lew Rockwell likes to say. Sure, we might debate of borders, abortion, minarchism vs anarchism, child rearing, or how to promote our ideas, but it felt like there was a sense of common goals.

Lately, it’s been hard to tell the difference between libertarians and run of the mill conservatives. Both take delight the ridiculous, cartoon-ish reaction of the left wing. Listen, the tears spilled by the left ever since Trump’s election should be satisfying to all libertarians and conservatives. Pointing out the hypocrisy of the progressives is daily routine under Trump. That said, it all seems pointless. The hypocrisy of the left is well known. And the constant pointing out of the left’s hypocrisy on free speech is becoming redundant. At this point, anti-free speech is their guiding principle, as they’ve proven over the years.

I guess my biggest fear is that libertarians let our guard down. Make no mistake, Donald Trump, a man who was just a regular rich guy a few weeks ago, now has the power to assassinate Americans without any due process, influence almost every level of the economy, has the mightiest military at his disposal, acquire almost anyone’s personal communications without warrant, and can rule unchecked by Congress. A man who has enjoyed power his entire life is now more powerful than any one individual. Does “absolute power corrupts absolutely” apply to Trump? We have historical record to show us how this should play out. Also we have to consider the people he has surrounded himself with for advice. War mongers and hardliners. The neocons live! Will he do some pro-market things? Absolutely, but my guess it will be more geared to benefit the crony capitalist class than people on main street.

We as libertarians need to be compass constantly pointing to freedom and liberty. I cant recall ever seeing so many libertarians defend the actions of a sitting president. It’s easy to get roped into it (even myself), since the mainstream media has made it their official duty to de-legitimize Trump, and spread blatant lies. It’s easy to feel like you need to point out their bullshit. Yet, while we enjoy calling out the leftists on their hypocrisy and derangement, we cannot let our guard down against the state mechanisms that give them power. In 4 years, there will be another election and we need to make sure the Office of the Presidenct is less powerful than it is today. We must de-legitimize the presidency and the government, not with lies and propaganda like the left, but with the truth. While it’s nice to get a few concessions that we like today, as Malcolm X once said, “If they give it to you, it can be taken away!”  It’s like a slave asking his Master to allow him to play the fiddle after work is done. Sure, it’s nice if the master allows that, but by conceding that freedom to his master, he is legitimizing his control over his natural rights as an individual. Libertarians have always understood this. Murray Rothbard described the state perfectly in Anatomy of the State:

“.. the King alone cannot rule; he must have a sizable group of followers who enjoy the prerequisites of rule, for example, the members of the State apparatus, such as the full-time bureaucracy or the established nobility. But this still secures only a minority of eager supporters, and even the essential purchasing of support by subsidies and other grants of privilege still does not obtain the consent of the majority. For this essential acceptance, the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives.”

Here’s to remembering who our enemy is, the state. Yes, the left is our enemy, but the only power they have is through the state. We must work to de-legitimize and reject its power, every step of the way. The libertarian path can be a lonely one. Hopefully we can get back to working towards that common goal.

Ryan Jones

Source: The Afro Libertarian

MLK Special – Selma and the Civil Rights Movement

itunes pic
We have another special guest on to discuss the movie Selma for the Martin Luther King Jr. Day Special. Ryan Jones joines us from www.theafrolibertarian.com to discuss the film, MLK’s legacy and many other issues related to race and government.

This is a long one…and fitting for what is our final episode as the Read Rothbard Podcast. The name will live on, but as Murray Rothbard audiobook versions of his books and articles.

The show that we do will also live on as the Actual Anarchy Podcast, where we take a look at movies and events of actual anarchy that surround us every day. It is basically the same show, but we are aligning the title to match up with what we discuss; and we also have the added bonus of no longer appearing to speak for Mr. Rothbard.

We hope you enjoy this show and look for us again as we launch www.ActualAnarchy.com and the Actual Anarchy Podcast. Cheers!

For show notes and more, please visist: www.ReadRothbard.com/MLK_Special

Presented by:

Read Rothbard is comprised of a small group of voluntaryists who are fans of Murray N. Rothbard. We curate content on the www.ReadRothbard.com site including books, lectures, articles, speeches, and we make a weekly podcast based on his free-market approach to economics. Our focus is on education and how advancement in technology improves the living standards of the average person.

The Read Rothbard Podcast is all about Maximum Freedom. We look at movies and current events from a Rothbardian Anarchist perspective. If it’s voluntary, we’re cool with it. If it’s not, then it violated the Non-Aggression Principle and Property Rights – the core tenants of Libertarian Theory – and hence – human freedom.

Website: http://www.ReadRothbard.com
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-read-rothbard-podcast/id1166745868
Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/m/Ii45fhytlsiwkw6cbgzbxi6ahmi?t=The_Read_Rothbard_Podcast
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/readrothbardclub
Twitter: https://twitter.com/read_rothbard
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/gp/145447582@N05/xB4583
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ReadRothbard

Murray Rothbard, Murray N Rothbard, Read Rothbard, Anarchy, Anarchism, Free-Market, Anarcho-Capitalism, News and Events, Podcast, Laissez-Faire, Voluntaryist, Voluntaryism, Non-Aggression Principle, NAP, Libertarian, Libertarianism, Economics, Austrian Economics,
Source: The Read Rothbard Podcast

Washington Post to libertarians: You’re racist!

thatsracist

There was time when names like Murray Rothbard or Ron Paul would never get a mention in a large publication such as The Washington Post, but times have changed. Libertarianism and the works of past great libertarian academics have been made more available than ever thanks to the internet, with sites like mises.org, fee.org,  and Ron Paul for capturing the hearts  and minds of millions of people with his 2008 and 2012 feisty presidential campaigns. The “liberty movement” or “paulites” (as some of the thought controllers like to use) cannot be ignored. We show up in comment sections, social media, radio, podcasts, new outlets, magazines, the blogosphere, etc. We are everywhere. This annoys “thought police.”

With the Trump presidential campaign in full swing, the thought controllers from the left and the right are trying to figure out “How could this happen?” Trump’s penchant for anti-PC rhetoric and his populist approach to attracting angry middle class voters has made the thought controller’s uncomfortable. Of course, this will get you the “racist” label, their favorite word. It’s an age-old tactic that is used to squash any debate, and force someone with a dissenting opinion into obscurity or a tail tucking apologist.

Today, the Washington Post dropped a post from blogger Matthew Sheffield titled “Where did Donald Trump get his racialized rhetoric? From libertarians.”

It’s hard to say how many libertarians support Donald Trump, but its safe to say most libertarians are not lined up, excited about the thought of him as president. But this article doesn’t even take the time out to investigate that, the entire premise of this article is basically to find someway to link libertarians of the past, with paleoconservatives of the 80’s and early 90’s , to the modern day “alt-right.” The writer of this article is unable to provide one solid piece of evidence of this connection of course, this is purely his opinion. Yet, he used this to spend 90% of the article to tell us how libertarians are racist. It only took one quick read to see all of the mischaracterizations, misrepresentations, and blatant lies by the writer. Make no mistake, this is a hit piece. It has less to do with Trump, and everything to do with trying to extinguish the small progress libertarianism has made over the past 10 years. Lets take a look at some of Mr. Sheffield’s claims.

At the Democratic convention, several speakers said Trump represented a complete break from the conservative traditions of the GOP. Last month, Clinton delivered a similar message in a speech linking Trump to the white-nationalist political movement known as the “alt-right.” “This is not conservatism as we have known it,” she asserted.

According to Clinton — and many conservative intellectuals who oppose Trump — the conspiratorial, winking-at-racists campaign he has been running represents a novel departure from Republican politics.

Take a look at the links for his references to “many conservative intellectuals who oppose Trump”, you see the “intellectuals” are people like George Will and Bill Kristol, some of the worst of the worst Neo-conservatives. Considering these are the people who helped put George W. Bush in office, and bring about the pointless and destructive Iraq War (among others), I would hardly say that them not liking Trump is a negative. Clearly this guy doesn’t understand Trump’s base. Note: The link to the Bill Kristol reference was actually written by Matthew Sheffield’s sister, Carrie Sheffield, who seems a little more libertarian friendly.

Sheffield continues:

That’s not quite true, though. Trump’s style and positions — endorsing and consorting with 9/11 truthers, promoting online racists, using fake statistics— draw on a now-obscure political strategy called “paleolibertarianism,” which was once quite popular among some Republicans, especially former presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Some how, we go from Trump, to Bill Kristol, to Ron Paul (even though Dr. Paul has been vocal in his dislike of Trump).  He does this by linking Ron Paul with “paleo-libertarianism”, a strategy created by Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell to create a coalition between paleoconservatives and libertarians in hopes to create a political push to move to smaller government and a non-interventionist foreign policy. This political strategy had absolutely nothing to do with race, but paleoconservatives consisted of lightening bolt personalities, such as Pat Buchanan, and David Duke, whom still to this day carry the “racist” stigma assigned to them by the thought controllers. Duke, at least, has some factual reasons to be considered racist, although at the time of his political aspirations in the 90’s, he presented himself as a reformed racist.

Sheffield continues:

The figure whose ideas unify Pauline libertarians and today’s Trumpists is the late Murray Rothbard… Nowadays, many libertarians like to portray their ideology as one that somehow transcends the left-right divide, but to Rothbard, this was nonsense. Libertarianism, he argued, was nothing more than a restatement of the beliefs of the “Old Right,” which resolutely opposed the New Deal and any sort of foreign intervention in the early 20th century. Many of its adherents, such as essayist H.L. Mencken, espoused racist viewpoints, as well.

Scheffield is all over the place. In his early years, Rothbard considered himself a part of the non-interventionist, small government early 20th century Old Right, but somehow, Sheffield links this to racism. Rothbard was a fan of Mencken, who was a small government advocate of that time. H.L. Menckens is still considered one of the most influential American writers of the 20th century, who wrote for decades on a wide range of subjects, yet Scheffield digs up some diary he kept, in which some racially insensitive remarks were made. Are we supposed to be shocked a man born in the late 19th century held some views on race that would be considered “offensive” in the 21st century?  He cares not to mention Rothbard’s attempt to embed himself with the New Left movement in the 1960’s to find a way to work with them to build a coalition between the right and left to push for a non-interventionist foreign policy, or that Rothbard “valorized the “heroic” Malcolm X and denounced Martin Luther King for calling for federal troops to put down black “rioters”.  That would require research, Sheffield would much rather copying and pasting from Wikipedia entries.

There had always been some sympathy for racism and anti-Semitism among libertarians — the movement’s house magazine, Reason, dedicated an entire issue in 1976 to Holocaust revisionism and repeatedly editorialized in defense of South Africa’s then-segregationist government (though by 2016, the magazine was running articles like “Donald Trump Enables Racism”). But it was Rothbard’s founding of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in 1982 that enabled the fledgling political movement to establish affinity with the neo-Confederate Lost Cause movement.

Ahhh, the good ol’ “neoconfederate” label. First of all, no one even knows what that means. Second, The Mises Institute, the intellectual scholarly institute for Austrian economics and libertarian political theory, has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with “neo-confederate,” whatever that means. Let’s ignore Murray Rothbard was a Jewish New Yorker. The only reason Sheffield uses this “neo-confederate” label is due to many Austrian scholars taking a revisionist view of the Civil War. They don’t buy the 2nd grade reasoning given by mainstream historians. They point out the fact that the Civil War was largely about the Federal Govt of the United States maintaining the Union, which is a fact. Is that racist?

As far as the Reason article, they have already demanded a retraction from Washington Post for their false accusations in this article.

Of course, Sheffield uses the libertarian view that you should not be forced by government initiated violence to associate with individuals you choose not to associate with as an example of racism, but it is simply an extension of the non-aggression principle.  But, maybe Sheffield doesn’t mind baking Nazi cakes.

Then he uses the tired “Racist Ron Paul Newsletter” trope to paint Ron Paul as some raving racist. Please wake me up when they get a new tactic. Oh, we can’t forget the guy who runs some white nationalist online forum donated 500 bucks to Paul’s campaign. Surely he’s racist! I also donated to Dr. Paul’s campaign too, does that absolve him? So did countless military members, Ed Snowden, people sick of pointless wars and the federal reserve. But, according to Sheffield its all about RACISM.

Ron Paul, a man who has said he’d rather see the Constitution not ratified than have it created with slavery as a compromise, a man who has spoken in front of the NAACP about the justice system to raving applause,  who you wouldn’t be able find one remotely racist thing in all of the books, articles, and speeches he’s given over the past 3 decades, is supposed to be racist? PLEASE!

This was a hateful smear piece by Matthew Sheffield, and he should be ashamed of himself. He makes no attempt to challenge libertarianism on its merits or debate issues. He has no desire to do so because that would require  giving legitimacy to a movement that challenges everything little Mr. Sheffield has learned in his life.  He would rather take the typical thought policemen tactic, call everyone a racist.

 

Ryan

 

 

Source: The Afro Libertarian

Critiquing Black Lives Matter’s policy proposals…

Give us free!
Give us free!

 

After years of protests, vigils, riots, meetings, seminars, many people would ask the Black Lives Matter group “What do you want?! What are your demands?”

I often found myself asking this also. I sympathized with Black Lives Matter in its initial stages. They were calling attention to something I felt strongly about, which is the abuse of power by law enforcement, particularly in minority communities. Growing up in an urban city I’ve seen all too often how police conduct themselves. Violence is a go-to tool, and they are viewed by the citizens more as an occupying force, rather than a public service. Police are most people’s first and most frequent interaction with the State, and for most, especially minorities, it’s mostly a negative one as noted in a recent study:

“They (African-Americans)  are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.”

Yet, that same study also comes to the conclusion that blacks are NOT more likely to be shot by police than whites, even adjusting for population. While this dilutes BLM’s narrative a bit, there is still an issue of law enforcement and how they interact with communities, particularly ones consisting of minorities and the poor.

Tired of hearing “What are your demands?”, over 100 Black Live Matter chapters and activist groups from around the country came together to submit their proposal. This week they’ve released a comprehensive policy proposal called “A Vision for Black Lives,” described as “an articulation of our collective aspirations” (that word collective should give you a hint about the proposal writers’ leanings).

It’s well known that BLM, from an organizational mission standpoint, is a left wing activist group at its core, as has been many black activist groups over the last 75 years. I wanted to take the time to view their proposals and apply my libertarian principles to point out the problems with these proposals.

While they have broken their proposals down in segments of “Demands”, such as “End the War of Black People” or “Reparations”, I will take a look at their demand for “Economic Justice” and the specific proposals within.

Economic Justice?

BLM’s Proposal:

“A progressive restructuring of tax codes at the local, state, and federal levels to ensure a radical and sustainable redistribution of wealth.”

Looking through this proposal, it’s your typical “Tax the greedy rich more and redistribute it to the poor”, but this begs the question, what makes them think this will help blacks? The wealthy (people earning over $250,000) already pay 55% of income taxes in the U.S. , how has that improved blacks lives?

“Increase taxes on capital to the point where they are higher than taxes on labor, as wealth inequality is greater than income inequality.”

How does taxing capital help black lives? Urban areas are already suffering from economic despair, black unemployment is already over double the national average, yet BLM believes raising taxes on gains from investment would somehow make blacks better off?  Those gains are the reward for taking the risk of investing in something that very well might not pay off. Investment eventually leads to growth of business capital, allowing research and development, production, growth of employment opportunities, higher wages and a prospering economy. Raising taxes discourage that or forces money to flee to safer assets. As far as wealth inequality, typically those in the top 10%  gain their wealth through decades of savings and attaining assets. Your typical retiree who has saved or maintained a IRA and owns their home will be in the top 10%. Tax them too? What BLM should want is to attract investment into minority communities, and take part in investment themselves, not punish it.

“Increase taxes on private wealth and corporate income and wealth.”

See above response.

“Tax policy is so regressive that these solutions will particularly benefit the lowest income families, which are disproportionately single Black women with children. “

Well, what also doesn’t help is that 71% of black children are being born to single parents. Yet, maybe BLM doesn’t care about that since, according to one of their “guiding principles” on their official website “We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure…”

“The right for workers to organize in public and private sectors especially in “On Demand Economy” jobs.”

“On Demand Economy” jobs also refers to “Access economy” or “Peer to Peer economy” services such as Uber, Lyft, AirBnB, etc. These companies are at the forefront of the free market adapting to an ever changing market place, using digital tools, the world-wide network, and mobile connectivity to connect consumers with providers.  I guess BLM would want employees to unionize and squeeze these young, growing companies. While organizing is a right of every worker, forcing those who do not want to join a union via coercion and violence should not be allowed. What would unionizing do to the blacks already working for these companies when they go out of business, or their growth in inevitably stunted due to outrageous worker demands or work stoppages? Unions were once used to prevent blacks from under bidding white workers in the early 20th century. Later, unions were dominant in majority black Detroit, where has that gotten them?

Yep, that's just what Detroit needs....more unions.
Yep, that’s just what Detroit needs….more unions.

 

“The U.S. should initiate executive action and congressional legislation to financially support the development of cooperatives, land trusts and other alternative institutions by expanding access to private financing, individual donations, and technical assistance.”

Basically, BLM wants wealthy private individuals, businesses, and non-profits to support development of co-ops, land purchase, and “alternative institutions.” Yet, they just said they want to raise taxes on the rich, capital gains income, and wealthy corporations. How does that help? Their solution to this is a “tax measure that gives individuals a deduction of 125 percent on federal income tax for investment in cooperatives.” So, they want to raise taxes on the rich, then create a loop hole that could possibly funnel money to    cooperatives and alternative institutions (whatever that is).”  Their theory is “Worker cooperatives and community land trusts would provide people with a range of job and housing opportunities while also ensuring their involvement in decision making.”

OK. All of this sounds fine, but why tinkier with the tax code to add more loop holes? It’s funny that another one of their proposals is to “Eliminate all corporate loopholes.”  How about we lower or abolish as many taxes and regulations as possible?

“Federal and state job programs that specifically target the most economically marginalized Black people, and compensation for those involved in the care economy. Job programs must provide a living wage and encourage support for local workers centers, unions, and Black-owned businesses which are accountable to the community.”

Ah, jobs programs. Surely this hasn’t been tried before (is there a sarcasm font?). Lets look at Job Corps, a program created under the Great Society legislation back in the 60’s and still heavily funded to this day. This was a jobs program meant to help disadvantaged youth and the poor. How has it done? According to the Heritage Foundation:

For a federal taxpayer investment of $25,000 per Job Corps participant,[4] the 2008 outcome study found:

  • Compared to non-participants, Job Corp participants were less likely to earn a high school diploma (7.5 percent versus 5.3 percent);[5]

  • Compared to non-participants, Job Corp participants were no more likely to attend or complete college;[6]

  • Four years after participating in the evaluation, the average weekly earnings of Job Corps participants was $22 more than the average weekly earnings of the control group;[7]

  • Employed Job Corps participants earned $0.22 more in hourly wages compared to employed control group members.[8]

22 Cents more than a non-member?! And this is costing U.S. Tax payers 1.5 Billion dollars a year. I guess BLM’s response would be we aren’t spending enough. Maybe, just maybe, government jobs programs don’t work. Sure, there might be a few people who benefit, but at what cost? Every year, every mayor, councilmen, congressmen, senator, or presidential candidate tells poor blacks “I will bring more jobs programs to the community!”

NO MORE JOBS PROGRAMS!

In today’s age, you can literally learn almost anything for barely nothing. An unimaginable amount of information is at your fingertips. All it takes is self motivation and drive. You can have the most well-funded jobs program in history, but if the participants don’t have the drive to succeed, they will not. What we need to look at is what is causing that despair? BLM is trying to address the symptoms of the problems (and not doing a good job of it judging from these proposals), but not attack the root of the problem. What is the root of the problem? Don’t tell me slavery, systemic racism, or anything like that. At the end of the day, the 44 million blacks in this country are all individuals, capable of making decisions.

BLM should be working on restoring the black family unit (something that once existed despite the ravages of slavery). They should be addressing why so many blacks aren’t seeking higher education even though it is more accessible than anytime time in history. Or how about bring peace to our communities that are torn apart by violence? How about setting goals for excellence instead of mediocrity? How about promoting entrepreneurship, free market economics, innovation in delivering goods and services to and for our communities?

“What are your demands?”

I liked Black Lives Matter more before they answered that question.

 

Ryan

 

 

 

 

Source: The Afro Libertarian

Tearing down your idols

A few days ago, the NBA great and entrepreneur Michael Jordan penned a piece on the sports site Undefeated, in which he denounced the killings of blacks by law enforcement. He said “I have been deeply troubled by the deaths of African-Americans at the hands of law enforcement and angered by the cowardly and hateful targeting and killing of police officers. I grieve with the families who have lost loved ones, as I know their pain all too well.” He followed this up with a donation of 1 million dollars to the International Association of Chiefs of Police’s newly established Institute for Community-Police Relations and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Isn’t that nice of the G.O.A.T?

Well, not everyone was happy about this. In particular, sections of the black community either rolled their eyes or hurried to their social media outlets or blogs (Hi bloggers!) to bloviate on how Jordan either “isn’t doing enough” or “is too late” in regards to getting involved in race relations in America. Jordan has an interesting relationship with the Black America. He is one of, if not the greatest basketball player of all time, and was celebrated by white and blacks a like throughout his career in the NBA. Blacks have always loved Jordan because as a minority group, you like to see “one of yours’” do well. Everyone wanted to “be like Mike.” Jordan also became an extremely successful entrepreneur, largely due to his Jordan brand tennis shoes that are still enormously popular today, even though he’s been retired from basketball for 13 years. The shoes are particularly popular among young blacks. When limited editions are released, people will line up outside of stores in the wee hours of the morning to get hold of new pair a “Jay’s.” While most blacks continue to idolize Jordan for his success, black academics, activists, writers, and people who feel they represent “the black community” do not really appreciate ol’ M.J. Michael Jordan has never been a vocal person, especially in regards to racial controversy, issues, or politics. This has rubbed many blacks the wrong way. They feel that an African-American with major influence and money should be vocal and use their status as a way to create change in society (in particular the change liberal blacks want to see, not Jordan himself). There have even been attempts to smear Jordan by attributing fake quotes to him and spreading them via social media.

Jordan

This meme has been floating around social media for years, but if anyone spends more than 3 minutes with Google, they will find that Michael Jordan has never said such a thing. It’s a hoax, but many people think it is true (my aunt shared it on Facebook a few months back, saying “Y’all better stop supporting that Uncle Tom!”)

In a recent piece in The Root, writer Stephen A. Crockett Jr. expressed his dismay with Jordan in a post titled “Michael Jordan: A Day Late and a Million Dollars Short”

It’s with great thought and all due respect that I say, “F–k Michael Jordan.” The cause doesn’t need his money, or his statement or his sympathy now; we needed it then, back when his name held weight. Back when he was the largest athlete on the planet. Back in 1990, when African-American U.S. Senate candidate Harvey Gantt was trying to wrestle North Carolina away from the racist control of Sen. Jesse Helms. That’s right, the same Jesse Helms who didn’t want to make Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday a national holiday. Jordan was asked to endorse Gantt, a request to which he famously replied, “Republicans buy sneakers, too.”

For clarity, the “Republicans buy sneakers too” line has become a meme of it’s own. The line first appeared in Sam Smith’s book “Second Coming”, in it, Smith mentions Ganatt’s hope to get a Jordan endorsement for his Senate race. Smith wrote of Jordan, “He wasn’t into politics, he explained, didn’t really know the issues. And, as he later told a friend, “Republicans buy shoes, too.” This line has been reprinted so many times and attributed to Jordan in multiple settings. It has grown a life of it’s own. Many blacks feel that line is indicative of being a sellout. A man putting profit over fighting for black community.

I call it smart.

If Jordan has no interest in politics, no real understanding of issues as he said then, why would he endorse some hack politician? Because some other black elitist said so? If Jordan’s interest was in growing his brand and business then good for him! From what I’ve read Jordan has donated to the Obama campaign in the past. Is that not enough for Stephen? Do we ask the CEO of McDonald’s his political affiliation? What’s Ralph Lauren’s stance on Common Core?

Why should I care?!

Stephen continues with his blabbering:

If Jordan really wants to use his voice and cachet to stop violence, how about he talk with Nike and demand that it stop making shoes that carry his name and likeness so expensive and unattainable that kids are being killed for them? How about he call Dazie Williams and tell her he’s sorry that her 22-year-old son, Joshua Woods, was killed after he purchased a pair of his shoes? That’s one area where his voice could actually be effective.

So, now it’s Jordan’s fault that his shoes are so in demand (which is what makes them expensive), and somehow causes a criminal to want to murder to attain them? Jordan has to apologize for this? Shouldn’t Stephen be shaming the murderer? Shouldn’t we be denouncing theft and murder instead of pointing anger towards the guy producing shoes? If I was killed after being robbed for my Chevy Tahoe, should the CEO of GM apologize for selling me such a nice car? These people lack sense.

I don’t know Michael Jordan. For all I know he could be a piece of shit. I honestly don’t care. I do know I enjoyed watching him play basketball throughout his career which inspired countless numbers of young black children to believe they can follow their dreams of playing pro-sports. I never owned his shoes, they were too expensive and my parents were too frugal (incidentally I ended up frugal also), but if someone wants to spend their hard earned money his shoe, or any fashion, that is up to them.

What is it with black people and tearing down their idols? As if every black person with a hint of influence has to use it to support “the cause” as Stephen A. Crockett Jr. wrote. What is the “cause” anyway? Is it police brutality? Black lives matter? What are we  mad about today? Is my cause the same as yours?

 

Ryan

Source: The Afro Libertarian

Talking about inequality and/in fatherhood…

Pew Research recently released a new study on everyone’s favorite subject. You guessed it. “The racial wealth-gap!”

I must say, I found it quite fascinating. One interesting note was that the wealth gap between blacks and whites has actually widened since 1967.

 In 2014, median black household income was about $43,300, while white household income was about $71,300. 8 By comparison, 20 years prior, black household income was about $37,800 compared with $63,600 among white households. And in 1967, the first year for which data are available, median black household income was $24,700, compared with $44,700 among white households.

How could this be? Because Racism? Obviously racism still exists, but I think it’s not a stretch to say we’ve come a VERY long way since 1967, no? Particularly, when it comes to black’s education levels, poverty levels, upward mobility and not to mention the fall of Jim Crow. Why are blacks still lagging? Maybe it’s education. More blacks are poor therefore, there are less blacks with college degrees, right? Well, even when you normalize for college education, whites still outpace blacks by far:

For example, among those with a bachelor’s degree, blacks earn significantly less than whites ($82,300 for black householders vs. $106,600 for whites). In fact, the income of blacks at all levels of educational attainment lags behind that of their white counterparts.

“Well, it has to be racism now!” Wait. This study does not include the area of study for those college educated blacks and whites. A recent study dives deeper:

More African-Americans are going to college than ever before. But according to new research from the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University, African-American college students are more likely to pursue majors that lead to low-paying jobs, setting up many for future debt and underemployment.

Black folks rather major in studies that lead to social work or education than engineering, science, pharma, computers, etc. That will not help our wealth stats damnit!

African-Americans make up only a small percentage of some of the highest-paying of majors, including those in STEM and business. They’re only 8 percent of engineering, 7 percent of mathematics and 5 percent of computer science majors. Worse, Carnevale said even those who do major in high-paying fields, typically choose the lowest paying major within them. For example, the majority of black women in STEM typically study biology, the lowest-paying of the science discipline. Among engineers, most black men study civil engineering, the lowest-paying in that sector.

In contrast, black college students are over-represented in service-oriented fields: humanities, education and social work (shown in the chart below). One of the lowest-paying majors common among African-Americans with a bachelor’s degree is early childhood education and the median earnings is only $38,000 annually compared to $65,000 for computer science (the lowest among high-paying majors for African-Americans). Carnivale says this is largely because American society overall “does not value service-oriented occupations.”

Another factor that doesn’t help blacks earning is the increase in single parent homes. When the household consists of a struggling single mother, and 2 kids, it’s tough to move up the wealth gap charts. According to Pew Research:

Non-marital births are far more common among blacks than whites. In 2014, roughly seven-in-ten (71%) births to black women occurred outside of marriage, compared with 29% of births to white women. This gap in non-marital childbearing is a longstanding one. In 1970, fully 38% of all births to black women occurred outside of marriage, compared with just 6% among white women. By 1990, 67% of births to black women were non-marital, versus 17% among white women.

Non-marital births have risen in the U.S. across all races over the decades, but no other has seen such a dramatic rise like African-Americans. I know blacks hate to hear that stat thrown in their face when discussing issues that effect our community, but it is an ugly fact. The demise of the black family is the 800 pound guerilla in the room when you’re talking about black on black violence, black imprisonment, and economic stagnation. What caused such a increase is mothers raising fatherless children? Libertarians and conservatives love the point out the fact that the increase in out of wedlock births coincided with the growth of the welfare state due to LBJ’s Great Society (which was mostly implemented under Richard Nixon in his “War on Poverty” campaign). These programs largely incentivized fatherless households. If you had a husband, you weren’t getting food stamps and public housing. You might not want to hear it, but they are correct in pointing this out. That said, it’s not like poor black women literally said “Oh, no need for us to get married or anything, I can get welfare.” What it did do was create a culture where it was implicitly “OK” for the father not to do his duty as head of the household. A lot of these families ended up living in projects and slums, with poor schools and very little hope in sight. It also create a cycle of generational poverty, where a self-destructive culture has grown around it and metastasized like cancer. To where if you try to break out of that culture, you’re considered a sellout, Uncle Tom, or soft.

I don’t know what the answers are, but I do know 71% of black children being born to single parents will not help when it comes shrinking the wealth gap between blacks and whites. Maybe we should stop worrying about the wealth gap and look within, and build a better, more prosperous society for ourselves regardless of where we sit on the charts.

Ryan

Source: The Afro Libertarian

How I became a libertarian

I hate generalizations, especially when talking about human beings. We all are individuals, with different thoughts, motivations, emotional/physical strengths and weaknesses, talents, shortcomings, cultural influences, pathologies, etc. That said, it’s safe to say you won’t run into many black libertarians on a given day in the streets or on social media. There are many reasons, one being their aren’t many self identifying libertarians in general, but second is most blacks identify with the democrat party (since 1964, 82 to 95 percent of blacks voters have voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate). Now this isn’t to say most blacks are liberal. They might approve of some liberal policies depending on the issue, but like most Americans, most blacks are in the middle.

That was me. I grew up in a democrat household. My mother, a catholic church going woman, and my father, a Baptist preacher and entrepreneur were fairly conservative culturally. The didn’t drink, didn’t party, use welfare. They went to church and bible study and instilled in their children morality and love. But, every election, when it was time to vote they would take their democratic election ticket and vote down the line. I remember my mom taking me with her in voting booth, “why are you voting for him, ma?” I asked. She responded “Because he’s the democrat.” As I got older I would ask what’s wrong with the Republicans? They would typically say “Oh they’re a bunch of racists” or “David Duke was a Republican!” (the infamous ex-KKK leader who ran for Governor of Louisiana in the 90’s). As I grew into an adult, I began to gain more interest in politics. George W. Bush was president, and I knew most blacks didn’t like him so I fell in line. I wasn’t a fan of war, but it did fascinate me. I appreciated America having a super powerful military, and how we used it to spread democracy around the world to defend people. I didn’t like Bush because I figured he just wasn’t doing enough domestically like helping the poor, etc. When Katrina tore through my hometown of New Orleans, I witnessed the failure of all levels of government, and how they created a false sense of security for the citizens of the New Orleans. I often brain stormed on what could be done to bring more prosperity to my city. I was sick of seeing my people poor and riddled in crime and despair. “We need more businesses, and economic opportunity!” But how does that work?

I read typical black authors like Michael Eric Dyson, Cornell West, etc. While I enjoyed their readings, I still found myself unfulfilled. I read some Malcolm X and Booker T. Washington, I was impressed by their preaching’s of self ownership, self determination, and building strong foundations for economic freedom in the black community. I started getting more into the “game” of politics. I would watch Fox News and CNN and looked at it more as a sporting event. Still, I found myself without a  home ideologically. While I liked Democrats for the most part since they were good on police brutality, and  normally “said the right things” like “We need more money for education instead of prisons”, but I wasn’t a big fan of taxes and I’ve seen the dependency created by the welfare state first hand. I appreciated Republicans emphasis on lower taxes and building businesses. I was a young man in the work force, so I finally got to experience paying taxes and living on my own. So I identified with that. Yet, I still couldn’t buy into the Republicans love of war, and their emphasis on controlling culture. I also wasn’t a fan of some of the xenophobic behavior of some self described Republicans I knew. I was lost. I found myself becoming more and more disenchanted with the U.S. Foreign policy, especially after working for the Army as a contractor. I struggled to find a good reason we were over there. Then one day, I saw a movie called “Why We Fight“, and it opened with President Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation where he warned about the “Military Industrial Complex”.  Eventually I started flirting with conspiracy theories. The Skulls and Bones and Masons! The Bush Family bloodline! The Illuminati!!! All this was fun, but still, seemed a bit fantastical to me.

“Ah well, guess I will get in line a vote for Obama.”

One day, as I walked by this coffee shop, I saw dozens of college kids inside wearing “Ron Paul 08” shirts and holding signs and stickers. I wondered “Who is Ron Paul?” The next day I recall driving to work, and seeing Ron Paul signs EVERYWHERE, hanging from over passes and on every corner.  Even though I planned on voting for Obama, I was always interested in candidates that weren’t mainstream, such as Ross Perot, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader.  I eventually google’d him. As I read Ron Paul’s stances on issues, I was floored.

Views on Education: Abolish the Department of Education

Views on Economy: Abolish the Fed

Views on Taxes: Abolish the IRS

“What?! This guy is nuts! I like him!” But after some research I saw the media had labeled him a “fringe candidate” and he had zero shot of winning the nomination, so I moved on (yet he lingered in the back of my mind). One night, I watched this documentary called “Zeitgeist Addendum” and they talked about the Federal Reserve, and how the fiat money is all a sham. I was very intrigued and found myself doing some research. “There goes that Ron Paul again!” when saw a video criticizing the Fed.  I started gaining more interest in the economy and how it worked. Then the 2008 bubble burst. Obama and McCain were running to DC to figure out how much of our money to hand to bankers. This felt wrong to me. “Shouldn’t Republicans be against taking tax payer money and giving it to big banks? Isn’t that the opposite of what a “free market”  is supposed to be?”  Eventually Congress approved a $700B bailout of various banks. There was one republican steadfast against this bailout, that was Ron Paul of course. This was my first time as a working adult experiencing a recession, and the media is telling me this is the worst since the great depression! I must know more! One day, a coworker sent me a link to a video called “Peter Schiff was right“. I was floored. This guy warned about the recession for years while everyone else thought he was a joke. Media is telling me no one could have saw this coming, but clearly they are lying.

I read Schiff’s wiki page and it noted that he was “Economic Advisor” to (You guessed it!) RON PAUL. Ok, something is pulling me to this Ron Paul guy. I researched him more and more, watched videos of speeches and debates, and read his writings. I found out about libertarianism. I watched Youtube videos of Milton Freidman talking about libertarianism and free markets. I bought Peter Schiff’s book “How and Economy Grows and why it Crashes”. I begin listening to programs like “Freedom Watch” with Judge Napolitano, and Lew Rockwell podcast. I stumbled upon Mises.org, which opened the door to a treasure trove of information, articles, books, etc from great libertarian thinkers and economists. For the 1st time in my life I was absorbed into gaining knowledge on something that had nothing to do with school or career. I just wanted the truth, and this felt RIGHT. The logic made sense. The morality felt honest. In 2009 while I was still in that small government libertarian phase, I noticed one of my coworkers wearing a Mises University polo shirt. We started talking about libertarianism and he was the first to make me aware of anarcho-capitalism. As a burgeoning libertarian myself, this was quite much to hear. He could tell, so he handed me 3 books:

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard

Private Roads by Walter Block

I read Economics in One lesson the same day, and it was like a light bulb going off in my head. It cleared up so much. Then I read Anatomy of the State. If “One Lesson” was the light bulb, Anatomy of the State was a hydrogen bomb laying waste to everything I was taught to believe all my life. This was my “red pill” moment. Since then the education process has continued. Reading as much as possible from people I agree and disagree. Thankfully we live in the internet age, where we have sooo much access to knowledge right at our fingertips. I love listening and reading guys like Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Brion McClanahan, Judge Napolitano, and Bob Murphy. I am constantly amazed at the foresight and brilliance of people like Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig Von Mises, Robert Higgs, Thomas Sowell, Frederick Bastiat, Lysander Spooner, and so many others. What other philosophical ideology could have done that for me?

I plan on using this site to share the knowledge I come across and to document my growth. I deeply care about the state of the human condition, and I believe freedom and liberty is the ultimate answer to us living free and prosperous lives. I will focus a lot of my thoughts on issues concerning blacks and minorities due to the fact that I think the message of liberty is not being exposed to that demographic for various reasons. I want to make a very very tiny contribution to moving us ALL in the direction of liberty.

Ryan

 

 

Source: The Afro Libertarian