Ludwig von Mises Institute

From: Jeremiah Dyke [mailto:jeremiah_dyke@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:29 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: My Guru Mentor: A thought/theory question

Lets assume I have a “kick me” sign on my back and you proceed to kick me. Is this not advertisement? In the situation where a third party is responsible for the sign who is liable for the kick? I’m sure this question comes in many varieties.

Any direction you can send me?

Dear Jeremiah:

I don’t know any publication on that. My thought is that if you have a kick me sign on your FRONT, then, I may kick you (because you’d know it was there). But, if on your back, the presumption is that someone else stuck it there; then, I’d have to get your permission before I kicked you.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 5, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fax: (504) 864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu

…but didn’t know to ask. This is a store in Los Angeles called Galco’s that only sells small brand sodas. (No Coke or Pepsi here.) As the video progresses, the owner makes a number of very interesting anti-government comments in relation to the soda business and, in particular, bottle recycling.

[Thanks to Tom Woods]

ISRAEL PROPOSES WORK CAMPS FOR ILLEGAL MIGRANTS

The government is considering establishing work camps in the south of the country, where illegal migrant workers will receive shelter, food and medical care, Army Radio reported Wednesday. In exchange, illegal migrants would perform manual labor outside the camps, but would not earn a salary. [emphasis mine]

They would stay at the camp until their asylum claims are decided, which could take months or years. [emphasis mine] The proposal, part of the effort to address the problems posed by illegal migrants, would place asylum seekers at jobs in communities in the Negev and Arava. Their salaries would go to the state, in order to fund the camps.

At the very least, I wonder if these camps will be more or less “humane” than the Japanese American internment camps that the United States built during World War II?

I noticed something very interesting at the end of this video. When you see the heads of state marching in the parade, there are no security people close to them. (If there are, they certainly aren’t nearly as close to the state officials as you normally see Secret Service agents surround a U.S. President in a crowd). Could this be because no one would dare to assassinate them and, therefore, no security is necessary? Or maybe because in Capitalist China, unlike the United States of Socialist America, the citizens are starting to realize that their government is slowly becoming irrelevant?

UPDATE: As a few LRC readers have pointed out, at the very end of the clip you can see what look like agents in the background. Even so, they are much farther away from the politicos than you would see Secret Service agents in proximity to a U.S. president in a crowd scene.

Writes Elizabeth Cameron:

Whatever else his motivations might have been, Dr. Hasan, being a psychiatrist, had instant access to his own drugs of choice; psych drugs, as you probably know, have been connected with a significant percentage of domestic mass shootings.  This point will no doubt be ignored by the media, and instead, there will be cries for more mental treatment and testing of military personnel (and more restriction of weapons), which is exactly the opposite of what they need. It is not a small problem: I have learned that overseas, where the soldiers are being medicated for stress at a dramatically increased rate, they are now losing more men to suicide than to battle.

In addition to this, any reasonable person would assume that if they went into a military installation, they would encounter people with guns.  That these people were unarmed  may indeed demonstrate the paranoia of the state, but it is just beyond stupid. Really, it just defies comprehension — a base full of soldiers, and they are all sitting ducks.

When I get to be king, every soldier on base will be required to carry a sidearm, loaded, for defense of himself and fellow personnel, and the psychs and their prescription pads will be given their walking papers.

Dr. Hasan is a total creature of the state: VA Tech, the federal “uniformed services” medical school, Walter Reed mega-hospital, single-payer psychiatrist.

Karen and Laurence, this latest example of a “lone shooter” reminds me of an oddly-similar situation from some 2 years ago, that of the supposed suicide of Colonel Ted Westhusing. It strikes me as rather coincidental as well that Major Hasan was, like Colonel Westhusing, well-educated and high-ranking. Neither of these men could accurately be categorized as an uninformed-grunt-acting-out, as was the initial party line for the torturers at Abu Ghraib. The only difference is that Westhusing killed only himself, while Hasan apparently figured he would take a few others with him. (Yes, I realize Hasan is not dead, but I’d figure that anyone who starts shooting on an army base isn’t really planning for a long vacation afterward!)

Amid all the shock, and certainly shock is warranted, I, like so many here, wonder if seemingly obvious questions about not only this event, but the totality of military action such as that in Afghanistan and Iraq, will be asked. How can our society remain ignorant of the fact that statist violence is only capable of generating evil? The expansion of violence cannot provide a logical remedy for the failure of violence. Simply put, killing people to illustrate that killing people is wrong doesn’t work.

Who killed these victims, and Westhusing, and Tillman, and so many others, including so many innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan? I submit that it was not Hasan or men like him, not really. With apologies for not being more creative, I’ll just paraphrase myself from that previous essay in answer.

Every person who displays a “support the troops” magnet on their car killed them. Every person who stands around the water cooler (or posts on “the internets”) about the desperate need for Amerikan intervention to stop the spread of heinous “Islamo-Fascists” killed them. Every school official who allows the U.S. military to recruit new killers-for-hire on school grounds killed them. Every person who is not absolutely certain that a standing army has no purpose but aggression and imperialism killed them. He pulled the trigger, but someone else loaded the bullet. When one allows active-duty-dodging chickenhawks to determine the foreign policy of the U.S. he cocks the gun. I am certain that no one wants to die in a terrorist bombing. I am equally sure no one wants to die from a bomb dropped because they live in a place from whence terrorists supposedly come.

At what point will these types of events bring significant discussion–not just among crazy anarchists and other supposedly-Utopian freedom-lovers, but from the general populace–about why such actions as invading Iraq can have no positive outcome?

UPDATE from Skrag:

I personally think that listening to the horror stories of soldiers returning from overseas, after likely talking to some of them before they left, or witnessing some of them not returning after he coerced them into going, may have been what drove him over the edge. His job was a contradiction, just like mine as a combat medic. I was trained to save lives at all costs, and to kill ruthlessly. For most this is a path straight to insanity.

Throughout my career, no soldier, regardless of rank or position, was allowed to have in his/her private possession any firearm. When I was on the rifle/pistol team I had to go to the armory to pick up my weapons for any practice or competition and return them immediately upon completion. That always struck me as unusual. While I had 24/7 access to firearms and explosives while in the combat zone, I was not allowed to possess any such item even on a military installation unless it was for training or competition. Slaves should never be allowed the means to resist.

If only he had been allowed to change his job, as in any normal human endeavor, the supposed shooter at Ft. Hood might have left in peace. Only the military claims the right to kill you or jail you for wanting to change your job, so the man was held against his will. This does not, needless to say, justify shooting others, here or overseas. He should simply have left the army. As should all soldiers destined for immoral and illegal wars.

At first it seems odd that the Army does not allow soldiers to carry weapons on base, which I discovered as a result of the Ft. Hood soldier killing. But actually not: like the old USSR, the US government distrusts its own troops. I did find it ironic to hear the job of an army phychiatrist described as “healing” and “counselling.” In fact, it is his job to use drugs and lies to convince kids who don’t want to kill more strangers who have never done anything to them, that it is a great thing to do.

UPDATE from Mark:

It’s well known by most military people that officers or soldiers who are unpopular with the other troops often get “accidentally” killed in combat situations. Ask anyone who was in Viet Nam. Military people are constantly terrified by the thought of troop revolts.

And yes, it’s not surprising that a military “mental health professional” turns into a murderer as his job was to make people feel okay about killing…I’m sure he felt great as he was pulling the trigger.

UPDATE from Mark Anderson:

I was on active duty in the Marine Corps infantry from 1995 to 1999. That you just posted about gun control in the military is rather amazing, because I was recollecting my own military experience and I knew right away how this killing spree was able to happen.

Contrary to what many people may perceive, we are not all walking around with firearms 24/7. Our weapons (i.e., firearms) were kept in a locked and guarded armory, totally inaccessible. The only time we could check out our rifle from the armory was not upon our own discretion, but if we had to go to the rifle range that week, or we were doing field training, and so forth. Unless we were doing a live-fire exercise, we were using blanks with the rifles for the training.

If somebody owned a personal firearm and they lived on base – rather than off base – they were NOT allowed to keep it in the barracks. That, too, had to be checked into the armory. Lew, Army gun control is a good way to describe. Every single one of those victims was most likely unarmed.

UPDATE from Terry Nall:

I remember how disappointed I was the first time I went to the firing range at my first duty station in the army. They have a sergeant next to you positioned so that he can grab your weapon before you can swing it around and kill your supervisor. Soldiers are inmates.

The three best-read are: 4 reasons we do not (yet) see hyperinflation, by Keith Fitz-Gerald; Walter Williams on dumb and dumber students, thanks to public ed.; and Alex Jones says Ron Paul’s gotta run in 2012, by Andrew Moran.

They cry in their mother tongue, a new study shows. (Thanks to Ralph Raico.)

What a shame that Americans are outraged about a soldier who goes on a killing spree in this country but cheer on soldiers who kill in Afghanistan because they are “defending our freedoms” and “keeping us safe from terrorists.” The truth, of course, is that the global war on terror is destroying our freedoms and creating terrorists.

Two readers have correctly pointed out two errors I had in my listing of “pen names” of various writers. Tom Wolfe’s and Oscar Wilde’s birth names were the same names under which they wrote. The “birth names” I had listed were their middle names. I found these names in a directory in which it appeared to me that the middle names were their birth names. I apologize for my errors, although I do take comfort in knowing that there is a healthy skepticism among LRC readers regarding what they read!

The Army Major who went on a killing spree at Fort Hood killed at least twelve people and injured more than thirty at present count. And his business was tending to (and “repairing”) the mindsets of the guys who were sent overseas to kill for the state. He was a psychiatrist.

The alleged shooter, Maj. Hasan, was a psychiatrist who had been recently promoted to major and transferred to Fort Hood from the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. Maj. Hasan’s professional specialties included post-traumatic stress disorder, combat stress and other emotional issues common to the troops implicated in earlier incidents of military fratricide. He was slated to deploy to Iraq in coming weeks, according to military officials.

If this had been a non-military incident, with some regular Joe plotting and pulling off a slaughter of dozens of people, the media coverage would be loaded with anti-gun hysterics calling for immediate gun control laws. Yet all Obama could muster was, “It’s difficult enough when we lose these brave Americans in battles overseas.” Why does no one seem interested in the mindset of an Army psychiatrist who was about to be sent to Afghanistan to fight an unwinnable war?

Do you think some intelligent young people have caught on to the lies and tricks of Obamanism? Note the books shown at 1:07 of this video from the Year of Youth. Thanks to Michael Gaddy for the link.

See John Bolton’s article in the new Hillsdale College’s Imprimis. Obama is a “neoisolationist” because he is not enough of an imperialist and a warmonger.

I am glad that Santorum wasn’t listed as a choice on the Ron Paul VP poll. See my article “Santorumism.” The only real libertarians listed on the poll are Schiff, Rockwell, the Judge, Badnarik, and Ron Paul’s son. Baldwin is a conservative protectionist and drug warrior. Palin is a warmonger. Here is a great choice who wasn’t listed:

Who should it be? You can vote. And thanks to those who voted for me. It reminds me of the people nice enough to offer me the VP slot in 2008 on the Lousiana Republican primary ballot. I turned it down in favor of Barry Goldwater, Jr.

Here are the answers:

Charles Dodgson [ Lewis Carroll]
Alexsei Peshkov [Maxim Gorki]
Publius Ovidius Nas [Ovid]
Thomas Kennerly, Jr. [Tom Wolfe]
Francois Marie Arouet [Voltaire]
Marian Cross [George Eliot]
Theodore Geisel [Dr. Seuss]
Isabella Van Wagener [Sojourner Truth]
Karen Blixen [Isak Dinesen]
Titus Livius [Livy]
Mary Woolstonecraft [Mary Shelley]
Amadine Dupin [George Sand]
George Noel Gordon [Lord Byron]
Henri Beyle [Stendahl]
Jean Baptiste Poquelin [Moliere]
Charles de Secondat [Montesquieu]
Lev Bronstein [Leon Trotsky]
Vladimir Ulyanov [Vladimir Lenin]
Jacques Thibault [Anatole France]
Quintus Horatius Flaccus [Horace]
Fingel Wills [Oscar Wilde]
Samuel Clemens [Mark Twain]
Publius Vergilius Maro [Virgil]
Leonard Schneider [Lenny Bruce]
William Porter [O. Henry]
Eric Blair [George Orwell]
Chloe Wofford [Toni Morrison]

William Thomson [Lord Kelvin]
Alisa Rosenbaum [Ayn Rand]
Butler Shaffer [Anonymous; the
noted Greek
writer]

Don’t laugh. My inbox is cluttered with versions of that suggestion, and the GOP, aimless as ever, is up for grabs.

Those considering Santorum’s prospects these days might be interested in, if not dismayed by, the latest evidence of his apparently incurable bellicosity.

Listed below are the given names of various persons with whom we are more familiar by their pen-names. What are their pen-names? I will forward the answers shortly [this is a closed-book exam, with added points given for good penmanship]:

Charles Dodgson
Alexsei Peshkov
Publius Ovidius Naso
Thomas Kennerly, Jr.
Francois Marie Arouet
Marian Cross
Theodore Geisel
Isabella Van Wagener
Karen Blixen
Titus Livius
Mary Woolstonecraft
Amadine Dupin
George Noel Gordon
Henri Beyle
Jean Baptiste Poquelin
Charles de Secondat
Lev Bronstein
Vladimir Ulyanov
Jacques Thibault
Quintus Horatius Flaccus
Fingel Wills
Samuel Clemens
Publius Vergilius Maro
Leonard Schneider
William Porter
Eric Blair
Chloe Wofford
William Thomson
Alisa Rosenbaum
Butler Shaffer

Writes Jeff Justis:

‘Unlicensed construction‘ now brings the threat of public humiliation, violence, and potential death (notice the cop with his firearm drawn and pointed at the “criminal’s” head).

Delinda Epstein, a 51-year-old Las Vegas resident, had comfortable life prior to the real estate collapse that cost her a good job with a construction company. Unemployed for more than a year, she lost her truck and home, and now lives in a tiny apartment.

Desperate to pay the rent, Epstein decided to post an ad on Craigslist offering to do small chores, run errands, and perform other odd jobs in exchange for a negotiated fee. Providing transportation was one of several services she mentioned.

Shortly thereafter, she received a call from a man identifying himself as “Richie,” who wanted to be picked up at the airport and shuttled over to Rhodes Ranch (an upscale “golf course community”). Epstein drove to the airport, picked up the man, and negotiated a $30 fee.

Immediately thereafter, a badge-wielding goon rapped on her windshield and announced that he and “Richie” were undercover officers with the Transportation Authority (TA). Epstein was slapped with a $3,800 fine for offering “unlicensed transportation services.”

The fine was reduced to $250, which is still an extravagant sum given Epstein’s straitened circumstances. She had to surrender her car, which had been impounded would be returned only if Epstein paid several hundred dollars in processing fees. And the TA is demanding that she get rid of her cell phone number — which had been used in hundreds of job applications — because it had been used in a supposedly illegal business transaction.

It’s important to recognize that this was pure entrapment: It was the TA that contacted Epstein and asked the desperate but industrious woman to provide a ride; their undercover officer was not deceived by an unlicensed limo driver.

As bad as things were for Epstein, they could have been worse: She could have been offering to perform “unlicensed” construction work in Broward County, Florida.

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office (BSO), along with bureaucratic paper-polluters and armed donut-maulers state-wide,  has been running a “sting” targeting unlicensed, out-of-work construction contractors offering to perform construction and repair work. Such transactions are referred to as “economic crimes.”

The typical bust is run like the one that targeted Delinda Epstein: An undercover tax-feeder poses as someone needing a job done; an enterprising worker is lured into offering his services; a price is negotiated.

The bust ends when a team of armed deputies come storming into the room with guns drawn and pointed at the contractor, who is thrown face-first to the floor, handcuffed, and otherwise abused — for the “crime” of offering to perform a needed service at an appropriate price without government permission. (See the video found here.)

“The BSO and state officials said the operations have a double purpose: to show construction professionals they need to do work legally or face the consequences, and to warn homeowners about the dangers of using unlicensed tradespeople,” pontificates the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Apparently, the most obvious danger of using an unlicensed contractor is that this act of rampant capitalism might attract the attention of armed maniacs on the government payroll.

(Thanks to Rob Privette)