FW: The Daily Bell

If you’ve already deprogrammed yourself, then you will enjoy the Daily Bell as it tracks the evolution of the “monetary elite” and “dominant social memes”. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then this pub is probably not for you. Try Reason Magazine.

Here is the Daily Bell’s analysis of Lou Dobbs’ dismissal from CNN:

“If CNN truly wanted to offer an alternative to Fox (which wishes to use the power of the state for military and domestic intel purposes) and MSNBC (which wishes to use the power of the state for further socialist leveling purposes) it would position itself as a free-market libertarian alternative … But instead, CNN’s idea of “neutrality” is to position itself BETWEEN Fox and MSNBC … in such a way as it seems less EXTREME than either of the other networks. CNN will then characterize this position as neutrality. It is not.”

While Dobbs is no friend of liberty (especially if your skin-tone happens to be brown), the Daily Bell is correct that his dismissal is not a positive sign for CNN.

Those who have broken free from the left-right mentality do not always do so in a libertarian directions. From Mike Bloomberg to John McCain to Olympia Snowe to Joe Lieberman, we find that being neither Red nor Blue can sometimes mean turning Purple — the worst of both worlds.

(Classical) Liberalism is an ideology; it just happens to be the right one. Being bi-partisan does not a liberal make. Being opposed to coercion in all its forms does a liberal make. We don’t need a bi-partisan news channel on cable, we need a truly liberal channel. Oh, and in case you are so uninformed as to suggest MSNBC is the ‘liberal’ channel, check the dictionary — they are socialists.

So far, it seems Fox Business is the best candidate for a libertarian partisan outlet. And for actual neutrality, Bloomberg News. Kudos to them.

 

Advertisements

Hamiltonian Empire Halfway to Outlawing Voluntary Healthcare

It’s a little hard to describe how I’m feeling as the Hamiltonian Empire moves toward prohibiting outright the free exercise of medicine across the 50 states. What I want to know is: in a world of such willing slaves, where is a freeman safe? To which land am I expected to retire in lieu of this — the original land of liberty?

If my simian contemporaries cannot perceive their own chains, how can I begin to teach them to pick the lock? The voter seems satisfied with the notion that there is a healthcare “crisis” and without an Imperial intervention, there would be people dying in the streets. Will anyone ask why the governments of our sovereign states cannot handle the matter? Surely because they would not come to such a coercive conclusion! The states are in a market, competing amongst themselves. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has preempted this drive to ‘universal healthcare’ and is suffering the consequences. Costs are rising, care is suffering, and desirable residents are leaving for other states. Coercionists always seek the highest plane of power to project their edicts because they know that individuals have a natural drive to be free. The other advantage is that the citizens are more easily duped by matters ‘elevated’ to ‘national’ level. They can be convinced that the sound rules of interpersonal respect — do not hit, steal, or murder — no longer apply. They can be convinced that there are complexities to the issue that can only be understood by the likes of Nancy Pelosi.

Until you morons of the left and right figure out that “federal law” is just another way to say “no escape,” you will continue to sink into poverty and despair. And worse, you’ll drag the innocent and enlightened down with you.

I often wonder, at moments such as these, whether the classical liberal tradition was too hasty in embracing another universal — suffrage.