Toward the Laissez-Faire Republic

Inveighing Against Injustice & Tyranny
& Coercive Busybodyism

Sam's Ideological Web Page on Human Freedom and the Laissez-Faire Republic

This webpage is dedicated to the principles of individual human rights, private property, free markets and limited constitutional government. Please allow several seconds for the web page to be fully displayed.

Selective Shortcuts & Links
Scroll down for more.
IntroductionArticles, Essays, & Short Stories

Favorite ColumnistsBooks & Tapes

Favorite QuotesThe Clinton-Gore Regime

Hero of the Mind:  Frederic BastiatOther Heroes of the Mind

The "Liberal" Mentality A Politically Incorrect Examination of Coercive Busybodyism

Marxism: The Rise to Power, Atrocities, & Inevitable Decline of a Hard-Core Reactionary Socialist Cult

Greenism: The Environment, "Watermelons" (green on the outside, red on the inside), & Junk Science

Myths, Fallacies & Dubious ClichesA New and Growing Section

Liberty Links (General)News & Analysis Section

Objectivist Links

Jokes, Comics & Fun Stuff
Libertarian Links

Ideology Basics Directory Page
Free Market Economics

Foreign Policy & Military Defense
Pending Legislation & Activism Gun Sites & Personal Defense
Web Rings

Business Products & Services
Guest Book Historical Documents

Libertarian broadcasters Neal Boortz & Larry Elder!

El Rushbo!

Hope and Change!
I would like to believe that the defeat of Obama and the Democrats at the polls in November will signal the final decline and fall of socialism and the sick "liberal" mentality which has burdened our culture for so long. Probably wishful thinking on my part. Bad ideas can often linger. The notion that government spending and skyrocketing debt can create real net jobs has been thoroughly discredited even though it has been tried.again and again from FDR's New Deal to the Obamacrat regime. They always destroy many more jobs than are created. The control freaks who call themselves "progressives" are reactionaries who believe they know how to run the lives and spend the earnings of the American people better than the people can themselves. As we have seen with Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Gary Hart, Rahm Emmanuel, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, and other politicians the truth is they cannot even run their own lives. I'll be damned if they'll run mine!

The Republican election triumph in Wisconsin is a major victory for Gov. Walker, honesty, realistic policies and rationality versus Tom Barrett, Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, and the irrational greed of left-wing unions. Obummer will be a one-termer. A time to savor and celebrate and prepare!

The Democrats barely won a one-vote majority in the state senate -- but it is temporary.  The Wisconsin Senate is not in session until January which means after the general elections, at which time the Republiicans will take back control.

The Recall Heard Round the World! by Ann Coulter


Ideally, the proper function of government, essentially, is NOT to govern peaceful people in their private lives or voluntary exchanges. It is limited to governing criminals -- those convicted of violating the rights of peaceful people. It is not to set prices, regulate what vitamins we may take, establish racial quotas, manage healthcare, or redistribute wealth among non-criminals. If Obama's true goal was to help the economy recover, his policies of massive federal spending and indebtedness have failed. This administration has spent more than all previous administrations combined. Yet, they have destroyed far more jobs than they have created. Trying to "stimulate" the economy back to health through government spending is like trying to gain nourishment by drinking your own blood! The government cannot put back into the economy more than what it takes out of it -- and given the huge overhaed and waste involved in government programs -- on net it puts back in less than it takes away while artificially stimulating some sectors at the forced expense of others. When FDR tried this, it kept the country in depression for many years unnecessarily and causing widespread economic anguish. What must be done is to slash federal spending to the bone, cut taxes generally, abolish the capital gains tax, repeal Dodd-Frank and many other laws, and replace the Federal Reserve legal counterfeiting monopoly with a sound (golden) monetary system.

Too many "libertarians" nowdays use a lot of the old anarcho-Trotskyite crackpot rhetoric of the seventies and eighties and there is a simple-minded blame-America-always attitude when it comes to foreign policy that offends many who encounter these self-styled libertarians.   But there was a time when libertarian meant someone who supported the classic position of laissez faire as the proper scope of constitutional government -- that government's scope should be limited to strongly policing, isolating, and punishing criminals and defending against foreign threats while leaving peaceful adult citizens alone as much as is possible.  This was the position of those who founded the Libertarian Party such as John Hospers and David Nolan and those scholars who influenced the cause of constitutional liberty such as John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, Herbert Spencer, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, Hans Sennholz, Roger MacBride, Leonard Read, Isabel Paterson, George Reisman, and others.

The anarcho-Trotskyite leftover types kind of glombed onto the libertarian movement perhaps mistakenly thinking that "anti-statist" meant "anti-state" and many even became active in the LP, though one wonders how they squared working within a political party with their vaunted anarchism.  This is not the only reason libertarianism has acquired a bad name with the public but it is at the root of why many of the more rational people have become alienated from anything with the label "libertarian" on it.   The cause that started out with so much hope decades ago has become distorted almost beyond recognition by left-wing reactionaries who claim to embrace free-market economics but at the same time advocate a whimarchist politics of gang wars and unlimited violence in which free markets cannot exist.

Since a member of the LDS church is running for President this year, the only real alternative to four more years of disastrous Democrat rule, whatever his deficits, those who support constitutional liberty must now try to make him and his candidacy as good as they can be.  I am not a Mormon, but I strongly agree with the political position expressed so eloquently by the late Ezra Taft Benson, LDS leader, in his small book On the Proper Role of Government.  It should be required reading by all Americans, especially in the year 2012.  Indeed, given the opportunity before us, this may well be the best way to spread true libertarian ideas.


Secret Service Agents Bragged to hookers, "We work for' Obama!"
Up to 21 women involved
New levels of culture of corruption in the Obama regime.

Instead of spending it on hookers, they could have been at the casino gambling with our taxpayer money!

The War in Iraq, Libertarians, and Ron Paul
Ron Paul Doesn't Speak for All of Us
The war in Iraq issue has divided libertarians or has exposed divisions which were already there. I believe many libertarians and some conservatives sincerely oppose the war on essentially procedural grounds -- that the word "war" was not explicitly used in Congress's grant of military authority to the President in going into Iraq. Even though there is disagreement among constitutionalists about whether Congress's authorization amounted to a "real" declaration of war or not, this is at least an argument which tries to refer back to the Constitution and I understand it even if I do not necessarily agree with it. I see that as perhaps their strongest legitimate argument against the war in Iraq. It at least appears to be a libertarian or constitutionalist argument. (Yet some of the same people who claim this as their basis for opposing the war in Iraq nevertheless supported the war in Afghanistan, which had no explicit declaration of the word "war" from Congress either. Inconsistent constitutionalism, it seems to me.)

But I also believe many of the "anti-war" libertarians have accepted certain Democrat media talking points as the basis for their opposition, even though they are not true. They have absorbed the hate-Bush propaganda which is so ubiquitous in the media, especially Democrat Party establishment house organs such as NPR, NBC, ABC, CBS, Time magazine, Washington Post, L.A. Times, and the New York Times, just to name a few. Those who rely for their news and interpretations on such sources are apt to be misled, especially on the issue of the war in Iraq. Many Americans have been led to believe, for example, that Bush and Cheney "lied us into war" and that Scooter Libby exposed Valerie Plame as a "covert" CIA agent and that this was in revenge for her husband's claim that Saddam Hussein never sought "yellow cake" uranium in Africa. None of these claims of this scenario are true. The statements of Valerie Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, have been shown to be without credibility. Libby was not the person who "outed" Valerie Plame (who was not a covert agent anyway). Yet, because most Americans get only "impressions" of news and generally get those impressions from watching television every night, the constant barrage of propaganda has caused many, including even some libertarians, to buy into this chain of false claims disseminated by anti-Bush partisans within the federal bureaucracy and their Democrat allies in the media.

A clash between the U.S. and Saddam Hussein was virtually inevitable and not avoidable in the long run. My position has been that the U.S. had little choice: either deal with Saddam Hussein and his military buildup now (ASAP) or have to fight him years later when confrontation could not be avoided any longer and when his forces would have been far stronger and more destructive in terms of weapons of mass destruction and alliances. That being my view, I'd rather see it done now and with Bush 43 as President rather than put it off when Saddam would have been more dangerous and when the U.S. President might be some doofus Democrat like Kerry or Gore or Hillary Clinton. Whatever mistakes the Bush Administration has made in the war against the jihadists, I am easily persuaded in my mind that a Democrat President would have done far worse. Despite my consistent opposition to President Bush's liberal policies on other issues, it is clear that things would be far worse if Kerry or Gore had been elected, especially with regard to foreign policy, national security, and defense. (Again, as I have said before, it's not that I think Bush was so good, but that the Democrat alternatives were so bad. Unfortunately, too many Americans still do not have a clue about how much damage Bill Clinton did as President to this country's national security and too many people continue to underestimate the extent of duplicity on the part of the current Democrat leadership.)

The U.S. (or anyone else for that matter) had both the legal and moral right to take down Saddam and his regime. In addition, it was in the geopolitical interests of the U.S. to do so. The Iran-Iraq War was long over. He had ceased to be an "ally" long ago. He was harboring anti-American terrorists including Zarqawi and Abu Nidal. (There is even evidence of terrorist training camps inside Iraq going back to the 1990s.) Intelligence from all over the world indicated Saddam's military buildup included weapons of mass destruction and programs for developing WMDs. He had already used WMDs against Iraqis, killing Kurds in great numbers. How would he use them in the future? Might some of them find their way into the hands of terrorists like those who attacked the U.S. on 09/11/01? Sadam had been properly slapped down by Bush 41 after his unprovoked aggression against neighboring Kuwait, with whom the U.S. had a defense agreement. Saddam continued to violate the terms of the ceasefire after that first Gulf War, Anyone who claims that the U.S. did not have a right to strike Saddam Hussein and curtail his military buildup in retaliation for his military actions and threats ignores what was happening or was just not paying attention.

Contrary to Democrat talking points and anti-Bush partisan political propaganda, the evidence indicated Saddam Hussein did have WMDs, did have programs for developing WMDs, and was seeking to get "yellow cake" uranium (despite Joseph Wilson's claims to the contrary). Some WMDs and evidence of WMDs were later found by the U.S. military in Iraq, but there is evidence that most of the WMDs were transported out of Iraq prior to the arrival of U.S. and allied troops. There was plenty of time to accomplish this as the Bush Administration clearly telegraphed its punches while going through UN channels and getting allied support.  Israeli military intelligence says that a large Iraqi military transport operation between Iraq and Syria took place several weeks before the arrival of U.S. troops.   (They could have been at a casino gambling.)

Whether the U.S. invasion of Iraq is seen as a rescue of the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein or as an attempt to replace Saddam with a reliable ally in the broader war against the jihadists, or both, it was certainly not a case of "U.S. imperialism" or unprovoked aggression by the allies against a peaceful government -- as the anti-American Left would have people believe.

In his recent article published in the Wall Street Journal ("Libertarians and the War:  Ron Paul Doesn't Speak for All of Us" July 17, 2007), Georgetown University professor and libertarian writer Randy Barnett does not appear to address the "declaration of war" issue which many anti-war libertarians invoke, but he does point out quite correctly that "[w]hile all libertarians accept the principle of self-defense, and most accept the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S. territory, libertarian first principles of individual rights and the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack." And, of course, no one ever claimed that they do, at least no one I know of in the pro-Iraqi liberation faction among libertarians.

Strict libertarianism says it is wrong to initiate force against a peaceful person or regime that has not initiated force against others. It does not say that you cannot use force in retaliation against someone who has initiated force, which Saddam Hussein had done on a massive scale. Specific tactics and strategy of war cannot be deduced from such first principles as self-ownership, private property, rule of law, etc. There is nothing in libertarian principles or the theory of the laissez-faire constitutional republic which dictates such matters. Such specific issues of tactics and strategy are matters of judgment and prudence by military experts. Other than advocating an international gold standard, low or no tariffs, and trying to avoid (if possible) foreign wars as a general policy, there can be a wide latitude of positions among libertarians when it comes to foreign policy and geopolitical strategy.

By making himself a single-issue candidate -- especially on an issue on which libertarians are so divided – Ron Paul is sadly distracting from other very important issues and from the bedrock libertarian principles on which we all agree. As Professor Barnett writes in the closing paragraph of his WSJ editorial, those libertarians who supported the liberation of Iraq and who support success in leaving behind a stable ally there ". . . are still rooting for success in Iraq because it would make Americans more safe, while defeat would greatly undermine the fight against those who declared war on the U.S. They are concerned that Americans may get the misleading impression that all libertarians oppose the Iraq war -- as Ron Paul does -- and even that libertarianism itself dictates opposition to this war. It would be a shame if this misinterpretation inhibited a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote the general welfare of the American people."

I agree. Thank you, Professor Barnett.

Claim free roulette chips and play bingo online today.

To check out the latest on Eddie's Rants & Raves, doubleclick here!

Partial Archives for Eddie's Rants & Raves
(Links to Earlier News and Commentary
from Eddie's Controversial Web Log Rants & Raves)
May 2003
April 2003

The Tenth Amendment Foundation


John Galt -- Enemy of the State!
The Mission Impossible Squad vs. American Hero John Galt!
Bill Clinton and Janet Reno demand:
"John Galt must be destroyed!"

Some Basic Definitions
An Introduction to Some Basic Definitions of important terms in the Freedom Philosophy

The Three Categories
What is the proper role of government, and how should it be limited? With which categories of human activity should political government be concerned?

A Very Short Article by Professor Walter Williams on Violent Force & the Moral Limits of Governmental Action

Read This Great American Classic!

On the Proper Role of Government The Classic by Ezra Taft Benson

A Government of Law and not of Whim

Separation of Force and Whim -- A Key Principle of Freedom

A Poem About Your Freedom to Spend (or Save) Your Earnings As You Choose vs Political Meddling & Schemes by Others to Take and Spend Your Taxes on Their Foolish Schemes
For a lively dialogue between two friends on the idea of a free society versus Big Government, feel free to enjoy the following: A Poem About Individual Rights

"Left" and "Right"?
Hey! Do you know your left from your right? Many Americans don't these days! They are like someone watching a football game without knowing the rules of the game, which team is which, or how to keep score! Politics is very confusing to them.
"Left and Right" by Joseph Sobran:  What Do the Terms "Left" and "Right" Mean in American Politics?
Or, "Up" versus "Down"?
A Vertical "Peg" Spectrum? --  A New Slant on an Old Conflict

What A Libertarian Is -- and Is Not
     What is the basic definition of "libertarian" in today's political arena?   And, how are libertarians different from conservatives, from liberals, from democrats, from anarchists, & from pragmatists?  This essay seeks to answer these questions in clear English.

Claim free roulette chips and play bingo online today.

The Essence of Liberty
     David F. Nolan, cofounder of the American Libertarian Party, sets forth five essential platform planks which unite all Libertarians despite any differences they may have on other issues.

"Redefining the Political Spectrum" by Joseph Farah
  Is fascism the opposite of Communism or is it just another variant of Big Government socialism?

"Seattle Riots Reveal Where the Real Threats Are Coming From" by Sam Francis
Where does the real danger of violence and terrorism come from in the world today -- from the Right-Wing or the Left-Wing? Controversial columnist Sam Francis gives his answer.

 Majority Vote in A Republic vs Majority-Rule Democracy
     What is the difference between a democracy and a republic? Was the American Constitutional Republic a democracy? Here, in a very short, easy-to-read exposition, are the clear answers to those questions .

A Heretic's Outline of Political Systems
What are the two ultimate political systems between which all others may be placed? Consider An Alternative Outline of Political Systems

The Cause and Cure of Coercive Monopolies
Monopolistic Robber Barons:  Under  Which System Do They Fare the Best -- Interventionism or Laissez Faire?  This is the first of what will be several articles in a series on "monopoly" and "competition" which will be a fairly comprehensive overview of the important topics and dealing with the cause and cure of exploitative monopolies.
General Outline for a Course on Monopoly and Competition

POWER ELITES IN AMERICA: OLIGOPOLY AND POLITICAL PULL (Or, Beware the Regulatory-Industiral Complex)
With references to a variety of sources from different points of view on the ideological spectrum, this paper shows how government interventionism and socialism are the politics of oligopoly and monopoly power, and includes notes and selected bibliography.

A Lesson for a Congressman -- and All Americans
"Not Yours To Give"   An inspiring short story from the legendary Davy Crockett

Other Social & Economic Issues
U.S. FOREIGN AID AND UNITED NATIONS VOTING -- THE RECORD: Contrary to what many people believe, U.S. foreign aid is not buying many real allies around the world. This Heritage Foundation Backgrounder report (6/11/98) provides continuing proof that recipients of U.S. foreign aid vote against the United States more often than they vote with it.
The Disaster of Government-to-Government Foreign Aid Programs Who Really Benefits -- and Who Loses -- in These Costly Subsidy Schemes?
LETHAL COMPASSION: Why national health care is the cure that kills. Here is the affordable alternative
The Scandinavian Welfare States-- The Future That Doesn't Work.
The Rise and Fall of the Swedish Model by Mauricio Rojas-- an analysis of the roots of the Swedish model, why it seemed to succeed for a time, and why it collapsed in failure.
What Went Wrong in Sweden-- a new book which reveals the truth about the failure of socialism and welfare-statism in Sweden

FANATIC "WATERMELONS" (green on the ourside, red on the inside) & PHONY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
The Truth About Global Warming & Greenhouse Gases
"Global Warming & Hot Air:  Angela Antonelli reports on why the talks broke down at the Hague 12/04/00
"Environmentalism's Malaria Holocaust" by Dr. George Reisman:  Why the Eco-Fascists Have Blood on Their Hands -- the Price in Human Suffering from Unnecessarily Banning DDT
The Green Gestapo: Environmentalism Gone Insane! by Jarret Wollstein
The Truth About Freaky Frogs: A New Report from Science Daily
JunkScience.comExposes Junk Science
Anxiety Center The good news is the bad news from the Eco-Fascists is WRONG
Access to Energy a Pro-Science, Pro-Technology, Pro-Free Enterprise Monthly Newsletter
Planet Earth 'has not got any warmer since 1940'
Green Watch Keeping tabs on the extremist groups, what they are up to, and the sources of their funding

The "Liberal"/Fascist/Socialist Mentality

Examining the Anti-Reality Psychology Behind Those Who Yearn to Run Other Peoples' Lives and Spend Other Peoples' Earnings & The Irrational Roots of the Politics of Class Envy, Selective Pity, and Manipulation through Guilt Tripping
"Liberals" & the Cult of Moral Relativism:  An Introduction
"Liberalism" as one of the "Degrees of Busybodyism?"

Right on! by David Horowitz This articulate former leftist is one of the most astute and unflagging opponents of and reporters about the nature and goals of the political Left in America, past and present. Few can do a better job at explaining the left-wing cult mindset and its implications. One cannot really understand the Pelosi/Obama/Emmanuel agenda without a sense of its anti-American left-wing roots of thirty years ago.  Although Horowitz admits to having a pro-Israel bias, he was born in the United States and has moved away from his former Maoist sympathies when he supported the Black Panthers, has moved to the pro-freedom right, and is now a patriotic American who is anti-Communist as well as anti-Islamacist.  (David regards leftists as "radicals" whereas I consider them to be reactionaries and anti-progress as they oppose freedom and capitalism.  He writes of his support for "democracy" whereas I support a constitutional republic in the tradition of the American founders -- and I oppose democracy, either direct or representative.  David seems to lean toward Lincoln Republicanism.  Those who know me know that I have never been a Lincoln Republican.  Although I disagree with him on some issues, I recognize him as a vital ally in the fight against the anti-American Left.)

"Socialist Hallmarks" “For the surest sign of socialist thinking is the shameless assertion that, while the Third Reich was evil, the Soviet Union was benign.” by Balint Vazsonyi (Aug 3, 1999)

Introductory Guide to Political Correctness

Accuracy in Academia -- monitoring the rot in our colleges & universities

Liberal Cliches, Fallacies, and False Political Claims
Left-Wing Demonstrators Miss the Mark
Dare to Compare the Socialist Agenda of the 1920s-1930s

The Reactionary Left-Wing Cult of Marxism

Are you a Commie Pinko? Do you agree with Karl Marx? Check out the ten planks advocated by Marx in The Communist Manifesto.
Socialism is super busybodyism with the power of the meddlesome state behind it. What are the degrees of busybodyism?
Marx's Manifesto: 150 Years of Evil by David Horowitz

Marxism Wanted Poster -- for the crimes and atrocities of the militant cults of Marxism

Those Crooks in the Clinton-Gore White House: The Sellout of America by Power Addicts
He can't even run his own life -- how dare he try to run ours!

Clinton and Missile Defense by J. R. Nyquist

Our National Security Nightmare by Frank Gaffney Jr.

China holds ace in the hole with Clinton by William Safire

The Deadliest Download by William Safire

Military Decline Puts U.S. in a Bind by Bruce Bartlett

Teaching by Example by Al Knight

No Imperial Presidency by Dr. George Reisman

The White House Elmer Gantry & His Enablers by Sam Wells

Undermining the Military  by Thomas Sowell

An Apology by Eddie Willers

The Clintons versus American Military Personnel and Defense Preparedness  by Paul Craig Roberts

Clinton Foreign Policy Screw Ups Endanger Amnericans in the Long Run by Frank Gaffney Jr.

Clinton's Utah Coal Lockup: A trillion dollar Lippo payoff? by Sarah Foster

"Pop a Smoke!"   Like Hanoi Jane Fonda, Bill Clinton's long-standing contempt for the U.S. military and military personnel is well-known -- and morale among the services is at an all-time low because he is their Commander in Chief. Here are some candid observations about Bill Clinton from Marines who served in Vietnam.

Judicial Watch  Larry Klayman fights a valiant battle for a thorough and no-holds-barred investigation of Bill Clinton!

Has the democratic welfare state become that great fiction by which nearly everyone seeks to live at the forced expense of everyone else? Government cannot give anything to anybody unless it takes it away from somebody else, and when it does this it uses force and coercion in violation of the rights of those from whom it takes. The political state -- interventionist government -- cannot bestow any benefit to society as a whole -- it can only take from some and give to others, minus the overhead absorbed by the administering bureaucracy.   (This is worse than if the government were to play roulette with the taxpayers' money.)

A welfare state
is what happens
when you let
a government
of the people
and for the people
BUY the people.


Jokes, Comics, & Other Fun Stuff!

The Hitchhiker -- political humor!

P. J. Comix! -- No-holds-barred satirical comic strips
No longer available; apparently taken off the web by powers that be as being too "politicaly incorrect" according to he "liberal"-Left Thought Police.

Janet Poppins! The new nanny from Amerika has arrived!

Favorite Columnists & Commentators

Current Column by multidisciplinary scholar Dr. Thomas Sowell

Column by conservative diva Ann Coulter

Recent columns by famed concert pianist and Hungarian-born historian Balint Vazsonyi!

Current Column by Dr. Walter Williams of George Mason University

Walter Williams explains why politicians are often so bad.

A Very Short Article by Professor Walter Williams on Violent Force & the Moral Limits of Governmental Action

Current Column by Black conservative talk show personality Larry Elder

News & Analysis

The Drudge Report -- Don't make the mistake of depending on only one source for news and commentary (especially if the one source is TV)! Investigate for yourself and get news weeks or even months BEFORE the "Liberal" Media Establishment decides to finally report on it. The Internet offers a greater diversity of news and opinion than you will ever get watching the Boob Tube. The Drudge Report provides an important alternative to the Establishment slant. - America's News Page   -- America's News Page

World Net - A Free Press For A Free People-- A Free Press For A Free People

Accuracy In Media-- Watchdog on Media Bias

The Washington Times

Rush Limbaugh -- the Web Site! The conservative Republican weighs in against "liberal" Democrats and environmental whackoes! - Conservative news & Information-- Conservative News & Information

The Kansas City Star -- The Web Edition of the K C Star

Web Rings

FreeLand! Ring Logo
This FreeLand!Ring   site is owned by
Sam Wells
[ Prev | Next | Next 5

Want to join the ring?  Get the INFO!

Guest Book

Published by Eddie Willers
You can reach me by e-mail at:

You may help support this website with a voluntary contribution. Thank you!
amount To help support this site, choose the amount at left and click the Donate button below. Thank you!

*   *   *

*   *   *