Old Truth Blog

Jeffrey Thayne of ldsphilosopher.com has written a thorough Q&A on the constitutionality of Federal immigration laws that sits beautifully next to Connor Boyack's article that LDSLiberty.org published here . The two together should settle the question of what business the Federal government has in peaceful immigration.

What am I smoking, you ask? Wouldn't you like to know! Actually, all I'm "smoking" is oxygen, but I am serious when I say that inner city traffic problem would be fixed by removing lights and signs. Just watch this 5 minute video if you don't believe me: Now, on to market and immigration controls!

March 2019: I read this essay and added commentary for Episode 291 of the Everything Voluntary podcast . My wife and I were talking last night. She asks me insightful questions in order to fall asleep. You see, she asks a great question, and then uses my ramblings as a sedative. Works every time. Her drug last night was what I had to say about "rich people" and "poor people". I explained to her that I don't see two groups of people, rich and poor. I see four groups. Two types of rich, and two types of poor. The two types of people that make up "the rich" are 1) those who made their wealth by providing goods and services for trade with others voluntarily, and 2) those who used force, ie. theft or the machinations and power of government, either directly (politicians) or indirectly (lobbyists and their principals) to get their wealth. I like rich people that are "voluntarily" rich, I dislike rich people that are "coercivel...

Lehi, UT, July 6, 2010 — On the heels of the release of bestselling author Thomas E. Woods' new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, a local political activist has launched a project to put the book into the hands of every state legislator in Utah. In his latest work, Woods, a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, explains the history, purpose, and effective use of state nullification as a check on federal laws and programs that exceed constitutional authority. On the announcement of the Utah Nullification project, Woods commented: "Thomas Jefferson warned that if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones. History clearly shows that it has just done that, and despite their protests, resolutions, and lawsuits, the states have repeatedly ceded their sovereignty to an ever-expanding accumulation of federal powe...

February 2019: I read this essay and added commentary for Episode 286 of the Everything Voluntary podcast . What are rights? The purpose of this short essay, or collection of thoughts, is to explore that question. So many commentators on rights treat them as something tangible, such as: "We have rights." as compared to "We have milk." "Don't tread on my rights." as compared to "Don't tread on my land." "Rights are a gift from God." as compared to "Manna is a gift from God." What is obvious is that they are anything but tangible. So why do we talk and write like this about rights? If I am alone on an island, do I have rights? What rights do I have? It seems I wouldn't have rights because I would have no need for the entire concept. Why not? Because the concept of rights depends on others. To claim you have rights is nothing more than to claim you have exclusive control and authority over your actions and ...

As I argued recently, political anarchy is the absence of unrighteous dominion . The state, characterized by its monopoly on the use of force and/or the coercive nature of its collection of funds, is one form of unrighteous dominion. Before a number of American colonies would ratify the United States Constitution , they demanded that it be amended to include what is called the " Bill of Rights ". Even though the Constitution was designed to grant only certain powers to the Federal Government, these colonies understood how nearly futile it is to "chain" down the state from exercising power beyond its granted authority. They understood that political anarchy, relative to the central state, must remain in certain spheres of action. As I will argue, the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the political anarchy of these spheres, and we should be diligent in expanding political anarchy into other spheres of action. What Are Rights? There are two ways of looking a...

We are taught in holy writ that "when we undertake...to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves". Also, that "it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." That is because to control or dominate over another unrighteously is evil, and where evil is, God is not. It is my belief that political anarchy  is the absence of this "unrighteous dominion". I am completely aware of the objections that such a statement of belief as this may create. As I will show, these objections are misdirected, the word anarchy  has been misused in contemporary thought, and a state of political anarchy  is actually desirable for a righteous people. Anarchy and Tyranny From politicians to religious leaders, anarchy  has been u...

The state is an institution of government that receives wide-spread support among all sorts of political philosophies. The difference, however, is that different political philosophies support different sizes and scopes of the state. A few examples: your typical " conservative " favors using the state for military and national defense, as well as enforcing morality among the people; your typical " liberal " (in the modern sense) favors using the state to regulate the economy and provide social services; even your typical " libertarian " who is generally opposed to the state in favor of liberty will support using the state in a limited, defense and crime prevention capacity. As I will argue here, so long as the state can collect funds by force to pay for national defense and crime prevention, it can collect funds by force to pay for anything, and so long as the state can legitimately enforce it's monopoly of the defense and justice services, so too can ...

Latter-day Saint Constitutionalists have interpreted scripture pertaining to the Constitution of the United States in varying degrees. Some believe it itself is scripture, on par with the canonized Standard Works. Others have a looser (in my view correct) interpretation that only those parts “supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges” are inspired. It is the purpose of this article to point out the major, foundational flaw in the Constitution that is overlooked by many Latter-day Saint Constitutionalists. It is also the purpose of this article to point out how we can honor the Lord’s justification “in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land.” The Highest Degree For argument sake, I will concede the highest degree of Latter-day Saint Constitutional interpretation that the Constitution should be regarded as scripture. This quote by the thirteenth President of the Church, Ezra Taft Benson, is an example of this belief, “I rever...

Hat-tip LRC : American drones dropped in Pakistan kill at least 10 times as many civilians as terrorists and/or Taliban (Pakistani and/or Afghan),  according to a July Brookings report. Now the Pakistan government reports that 39 out of 44 drone attacks killed nothing but civilians in 2009.  Obama now owns the Afghanistan War and has stepped up the drone attacks. Note that 10/11 = a 91% deadly error rate, and that 39/44 = an 89% error rate. These confirm one another and the “success” of drone warfare against civilians.