Undoubtedly you’ve seen this latest:

For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.

…

The proposed development, called “The Lost Liberty Hotel” will feature the “Just Desserts Café” and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”

All of the libertarian types out there who’re talking up this idiocy need to think long and hard about what they’re endorsing. It isn’t a good, good day, or justice or even fairness.

Casey Khan of Lewrockwell.com writes:

Let’s say these guys win this land grab in the Towne of Weare and the case goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. What will constitute a victory for them? Will they celebrate the court ruling in favor of taking or defending the private property?

It’s an excellent question for anyone cheerleading this nonsense, and it serves to illustrate the dangers inherent in libertarian types attempting to use the State against their enemies.

Similar observations can be made about those who endorse government borders or a government War On Terror: if in fact the government was powerful enough to enforce your wishes, would you be happy then? If national people-registration and control ever became intrusive and powerful enough to prevent “illegals” from being able to to enter or stay in the country, would you be happy then? If every suspected terrorist or terrorist sympathizer could be summarily dealt with as the government security forces judged best, would that be a victory for you?

Do you understand the point being made, here? You can’t use the government as a club against a particular Supreme Court Justice: the government is a package deal.

Earlier in the year No Treason migrated to a new service provider and a significant portion of the content didn’t migrate properly. I’ve now fixed the old blog and permanent articles as well as the forum.

Micha Ghertner at Catallarchy dredges up this gem:

Show your support for the LP!

…By forking over an extra twenty-five bucks to the official Maryland state government rathole fund.

I’ll get right on that.

Sure.

Lew Rockwell has written a lot of strong pieces. Here is the latest:

If the market had not been working spectacularly well despite attempts by government to hobble it and channel its energies, we would certainly find ourselves much poorer today than we were 50 years ago. And yet here we are, a country with a population that has fully doubled in size in that period and a GDP that has increased by a multiple of 28. This much we can say: by historical standards, this is a miracle, and the market, not the government, is responsible.

In the meantime, the market has outrun the state to such an extent that the whole planning apparatus of the postwar period, always based on a kind of pseudo-science, has become preposterously untenable.

This is especially true given the size and expanse of the global economy. In 1953, the dollar value of world merchandise trade between all countries totaled $84 billion, not a small sum but about one fourth the size of the total US GDP in the same year. Today, the dollar value of world merchandise trade is 7.3 trillion, or nearly two-thirds the size of the totally US GDP. This increasing integration of the world economy, which was given a huge boost by the collapse of Soviet satellites and the opening of China, has shattered the dreams of anyone who hope national economic planning had a future.

If I can present the following metaphor of how I imagine the relationship of the productive matrix of human voluntarism to exist alongside the leviathan state. Imagine a vigorous game of football with fast and effective players, cooperating with their teams and competing with the other team. These, we might say, constitute the activities of the market economy: consumers, producers, savers, investors, innovators, workers, and all institutions associated with the voluntary sector of society such as houses of worship, educational institutions, charitable endeavors, families, and artistic and literary associations of every sort. They are the players in this game.

However, right on the 50 yard line sits a huge and overgrown elephant, enormously strong but also swelled up, slow, and completely unsuited to being a player in this game. Everyone knows that this monstrous animal is there, and they wish it were not. But rather than attempt to slay it and drag it away, the game proceeds apace, with runners, kickers, and throwers zipping around it. The elephant is powerful and authoritative, more so than ever, but it can hardly move. It can bat its trunk at players that prove especially annoying but it cannot finally stop the game from taking place. And the longer these players confront this strange obstacle, the better they become at working around it, and growing stronger and faster despite it.

I reject one of his stated conclusions, “The only real restraint against all forms of government is public opinion”, but I think he actually has the right answer in his piece anyway. The only real restraint against all forms of government is human ingenuity in the marketplace.

They were delightful.

They fairly earned their name.

Stop calling the dirtbags in the third branch of FedCo “The Supremes”.

They’re not. And the real Supremes did nothing to deserve being dragged into this.

You have been warned.

Often us anarchists are confronted with the charge that we’re unrealistic. Usually this is followed by a more-or-less rhetorical question as to what we suggest doing about the current situation. I say “rhetorical” because the questioner is usually attempting to prove that we have nothing in our proverbial pocket that’ll fix the matter at hand. Whether our lack of a plan for him to follow would in fact prove anything at all is a matter we won’t dwell on here, because in this particular instance I do have a plan, in fact I have more than a plan.

I have a philosophical point of view that will enable you, Dear Reader, to manufacture your very own plans for your life. Sounds too good to be true? Read on.

The point is really very simple: you, and only you, are responsible for producing the things you desire. Recall the definition of production: “The application of reason to the problem of survival”. Really it’s expandable to the application of reason to the problem at hand. Example: let’s say I want a car. How do I solve this problem? Answer is I need to produce a car for myself, using my reason. I reason that the best way to do that is to get a job and buy the car. I get a job, then I get a car.

In the matter at hand, the problem is the government stealing your property. You are responsible for solving that problem for yourself. You need to produce a solution. Now unlike a car, which is available in a wide variety of forms, solutions to government aren’t (yet) out there for ready purchase. Instead, you’ll need to manufacture a solution for yourself. Given that your time and resources are limited, this necessarily means that your solution will not be the best that you can imagine. But it will be the best that you can achieve.

So: how do you manufacture your own solution to the government stealing your property? Well, you need to weigh your own individual values against one another to come up with your solution, but I have some general examples that might serve to get you started.

Make it unprofitable for government to take your property. This doesn’t mean holing up with your assault rifle and starting to “shoot the bastards”, note. What I mean by unprofitable is to make it simply not worth the effort required to confiscate your land. Primarily this means purchasing property that isn’t worth seizing: stay away from beaches, parks, main roads, historical sites (sell those musket balls on Ebay, don’t go blabbing to Live At Five!), etc.

Minimize your risk. If you judge your house is in danger of being stolen, take steps to cut your losses. Don’t spring for that new roof just yet. Sock that extra cash into an investment more portable than a swimming pool.

Move. A combination of the first two suggestions, but well woth noting on its own merits. Often people ignore the simple fact that they can produce a great deal of relative freedom for themselves by relocating. If you can produce more freedom for yourself by moving across a line on a map, do so.

Other thoughts:
Use the government’s inefficiencies against itself: if you know that it will take them six months to fill out enough forms to steal your house, that’s six months you have to plan. Don’t hesitate to fight dirty (if you can win): if you can embarass the city council enough with charges of racism that they’ll back down, do so. Don’t ignore simple greed: If slipping the mayor a campaign contribution will get you let alone, if he’ll stay bought, then buy him off.

What you don’t want to do:

Don’t make yourself worth killing. Is your house worth the rest of your and your family’s lives? No? Then don’t go punching/shooting/threatening cops and politicos.

Don’t fool yourself into believing that other people are going to lift a finger to help you. This is a very important concept, and it goes back to the philosophy mentioned above. Most people are in fact rational when they have to be, as one of our editors noted so well. All of the conservatives making talk about shooting government officials? Mere wind. When confronted with the direct choice of either dying alongside of you in a futile stand against government or getting on with their lives, they will choose their lives every time. How many people came to help Randy Weaver? How many gun-toting conservatives showed up in Waco? How many “gunbloggers” donated their lives to help Dorothy LaFortune? Answer is none at all, so how many d’you suppose would come to help you? Answer again is none at all, they’re going to be too busy getting on with their lives. If you’re counting on support from anyone else beyond having them drive the second moving van, you need to be married to them.

Don’t bother trying to vote your way out of this. Anyone that suggests that you need to spend more time voting, writing to Congress, faxing the President, etc., you make them answer this question, for their state. If they evade or avoid the question, promptly round-file their advice: they are not interested in a rational, practical solution, instead they want you to help them continue to fool themselves.

Don’t try for perfection. You aren’t going to save the world all by your lonesome, in fact the world doesn’t much want to be saved. You are attempting the art of the practical: if your charges of bigotry against the city manager induces him to cough up some extra cash for your house just to get rid of you and you can scoot across the county line into relative safety, then you’re ahead of the game. Your solution doesn’t have to be elegant, it just has to work.

To sum it all up: understand the philosophy that underpins all of this. That’s the key to solving this problem and most others that you see out there. You’re effectively on your own to make your way in the world: no Association, Constitution, or Institution is going to produce your freedom. It’s up to you: Do it now.

By the sovereign power invested in me by the State of Nature I name this day Shut The Fuck Up Day and I heartily encourage everyone who is expressing dismay at the Kelo decision while still implicitly asserting that the collective does in fact own everything to just Shut The Fuck Up.

To celebrate find some statists (It’s too easy!) and invite them to Shut The Fuck Up. Look, here come some of them now…

Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. She emphasized that rather than adhering to its precedents, the court had strayed from them by endorsing economic development as an appropriate public use.

“Who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive use of her property?” Justice O’Connor asked.

She added: “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

Both Justice O’Connor and Justice Thomas, who also filed his own dissent, emphasized that the decision’s burden would fall on the less powerful and wealthy. “The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more,” Justice O’Connor said. “The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.”

Justices O’Conner, Thomas, Rhenquist and Scalia - Please, just Shut The Fuck Up.

Brilliant:

ATTENTION ALL AMERICANS

BE A PARTICIPANT ON THIS FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY THAT THE ENTIRE NATION WILL SIMULTANEOUSLY RECITE THE PREAMBLE TO THE US CONSTITUTION ACROSS THE WORLD ON THE INTERNET, TELEVISION, AND RADIO!

Yeah, the Constitution. Good thing we’ve got that to protect us:

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.

Workin’ out pretty good, isn’t it?

Everyone is invited this September 17th to come and pledge allegiance to the flag of BulldozingYourHouseForTheGreaterGoodistan! The celebration will be held at the future site of Honest Bob’s Used Cars, now temporarily occupied by Mr. And Mrs. Jimmy Smith and family! At noon, an oversize commemorative check will be presented to the Smiths, followed five minutes later by a twenty-one bulldozer salute! All Americans are invited via webcast to recite the Preamble as the D7s roll off the trailers and through what was once the Smith’s living room! Be sure to come to the Celebration Of Freedom following the ceremonial demolition - you could win a key that could start the first car off of Honest Bob’s new dealership!

Special note to the various voting conservatives and faux libertarians: don’t go belly-aching over this latest nonsense. This was all in the cards from the very beginning:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain–that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

So whatcha bitchin’ about? Everything is proceeding exactly according to plan: you’re nailed down nice and tight by the government you know and love, and you wouldn’t have it any other way: it just hurts so good.

Anyway, at least it isn’t Albania, right?

Now move the fuck along: the show’s over here. There’s another election coming up soon, so you-all better bust your asses thinking about your vote. You wouldn’t want to lose any freedom, or anything.

…in the intellectual biographies collected by Walter Block. There’s a reason for that. Every time one of these comes out, I can’t help but think of this one by Bryan Caplan:

This essay was originally solicited by Walter Block for his forthcoming volume of libertarian autobiographies. Much to my surprise, however, he was only willing to accept it for publication if I heavily edited the content, particularly the sections critical of Murray Rothbard and Austrian economics. His main argument was that if he accepted my essay unchanged, he would have to allow other contributors to reply to my controversial views. I remain puzzled by this idea. It seems to me that the only way to “reply” to an autobiography would be to accuse the author of misrepresenting the story of his life. Unfortunately, Walter and I were unable to reach a mutually acceptable compromise, so I have decided to run the unedited, uncut, no-holds-barred version here on my webpage.

In a recent comment Kevin Baker writes:

All of us here, you me, everyone who spends time in here reading this stuff, has the intellect, inclination, free time and motivation to think about philosophy.

And what percentage of the population do we represent? How many people don’t have any or all of the prerequisites? What portion of the population - worldwide - is interested only in accumulating enough food for themselves and their children? Is secondarily interested in the safety, security, and health of same? And will follow anybody who promises to provide that? Or at least promises to stay taking that, so long as they cooperate? How many will sacrifice themselves if it means the promise of the future safety of their children?

We all have the faculty but few will employ it properly under current circumstances.

By nature all men have a rational faculty but it gets employed two different ways. We are instrumentally rational when we employ reason in pursuit of a goal, whatever it may be. It’s the faculty we use to get from point A to point B. This is the default rationality that we see in nearly all men nearly all the time. It’s what makes us economic agents - we’re goal directed and we have an ability to achieve goals.

There is a rationality beyond the instrumental. We are epistemically rational when we require that our reasoning be grounded in reality.

Your average voter demonstrates instrumental rationality: He proceeds reasonably according to a (very popular) theory he holds that voting will advance him toward certain goals. He is not demonstrating epistemic rationality because the theory under which he operates is ill supported by reality.

Epistemic rationality can be understood as the faculty of philosophy, the faculty for knowing reality.

Why don’t all men insist on grounding their theories in reality? Partly because they judge, not without reason, that they can achieve their goals by instrumental reason alone and so it is largely a waste of time to trouble themselves further. In our current circumstances this is substantially true.

We all have the faculty of epistemic rationality but most only employ it when their immediate survival depends on it. A man living on the frontier has to care about reality because it will soon kill him if he doesn’t. A man living in a welfare state can ignore a great deal of reality and still survive, even thrive. For a while.

There are a very small number of people who tend strongly to manifest epistemic rationality even when their immediate survival does not require it. I call us “zero percenters” because when you round to the nearest one percent there are roughly none of us.

I think we zero percenters are either born this way or else our nature is determined at an early age. Most people become more or less epistemically rational as their survival requires, but zero percenters are stuck. There’s no way back for us. Have you noticed that most people can evade or dismiss an argument they can’t refute? I can’t. Zero percenters can’t.

What I’ve asked Baker is whether his assessment of the situation entitles him to steal and whether it entitles him to compel others by force to accept a system he is comfortable with. These are questions he must answer or evade to proceed with his political project. He has not answered them, but he evidently intends to proceed anyway.

Baker is not altogether wrong in his observations of people in general, he’s just altogether wrong in his understanding of what I advocate. He thinks that I must be attempting to persuade people to adopt a system because, after all, that’s what instrumental politics is all about. The truth has not occurred to him because it’s not to be found on the way from point A to point B.

Recently uncovered by Y.T.: The John Sabotta Sketchblog.

That’s the essence of the crying questions being put forth by voting conservatives in comments here. They need government to steal from you in order to survive, they say: they simply can’t think of any other way to exist except by having a section of everyone’s life carved off and dumped into the common pot for the common good, and they challenge anyone to come up with a better way for them to live their lives.

My questions are these: Am I required to provide robbers with an alternative career? Does my failure to do so invalidate the idea that people ought not steal?

These are pretty simple questions, but I don’t think I’ll hold my breath waiting for any answers.