“A Baltimore teacher had his jaw broken.”

Are teachers in trouble?

I mean are teachers at risk of physical violence in schools?

I guess it depends.  It depends on a lot of factors.  But according to Walter Williams, schools are quite dangerous for teachers.  Writing in 2015, he cites example after example of teachers being assaulted.  Yet I wonder where is the justice.  Williams writes:

As the new school year begins, you might like to be updated on some school happenings that will no doubt be repeated this academic year. After this update, I have some questions one might ask the black leadership.

The ongoing and escalating assault on primary- and secondary-school teachers is not a pretty sight. Holly Houston is a post-traumatic stress specialist. She counsels teachers in Chicago public schools and reported, “Of the teachers that I have counseled over the years who have been assaulted, 100 percent of them have satisfied diagnostic criteria for PTSD.” It’s not just big-city schoolteachers traumatized. Dr. Darlyne Nemeth, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, said last year, “I have treated many teachers with PTSD, and I am currently following a few of them.”

A Philadelphia seventh-grade girl with a history of incidents against her teacher sprayed perfume in the teacher’s face after telling her that she smelled “like old white pussy.” After telling her classmates “I’m about to kick this bitch’s white ass,” she shoved the teacher, knocking her to the floor. In 2014, a Philadelphia 68-year-old substitute teacher was knocked out cold by a student (http://tinyurl.com/orldslb).  Earlier that year, two other teachers in the same school were assaulted. By the way, Philadelphia schools employ close to 400 school police officers.

In a school district near St. Louis, teachers have had pepper spray and dog repellant sprayed in their faces. A Baltimore teacher had his jaw broken. In Baltimore, each school day in 2010, an average of four teachers and staff were assaulted. A 325-pound high-school student in Houston knocked out his 66-year-old female teacher (http://tinyurl.com/oqxmrfg). Nationally, an average of 1,175 teachers and staff were physically attacked each day of the 2011-12 school year.

School violence is going to get worse. Last year, the Obama administration sent all the school districts in the country a letter warning them to avoid racial bias when suspending or expelling students. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan claimed that racial discrimination in the administration of discipline is “a real problem today. It’s not just an issue from 30 or 40 or 50 years ago.” Last year, in Washington, D.C., an official of a teachers union tried to explain to a national gathering of black elected officials why white teachers are so problematic for black students, saying they just do not understand black culture. Excuses and calls for leniency will embolden school thugs.

What about student conduct in the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s? Don’t take my word. Ask black congressional representatives, 46 percent of whom were born in the ’20s, ’30s or ’40s. Start off with Reps. John Conyers (86), Charles Rangel (85), Eddie Bernice Johnson (79), Alcee Hastings (79) and Maxine Waters (77). Ask them whether their parents or kin would have tolerated their assaulting and cursing teachers or any other adult. Ask them what would have happened to them had they assaulted or cursed a teacher or adult. Ask whether their parents would have accepted the grossly disrespectful behavior seen among many black youngsters in public places — for example, using foul language and racial epithets. I’d bet the rent money that they won’t tell you that their parents would have called for a “timeout.” Instead, they will tell you that they would have felt pain in their hind parts. Then ask these leaders why today’s blacks should accept behavior that previous generations would not.

The sorry and tragic state of black education and its attendant problems will not be turned around until there’s a change in what’s acceptable behavior and what’s unacceptable behavior. That change must come from within the black community. By the way, it is an idiotic argument to suggest that white teachers are problematic for black students because they don’t know the culture. I’m nearly 80 years old, and during my North Philadelphia school years, in schools that were predominantly black, at best there may have been three black teachers.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. 

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel Don’t Take Refugees

h/t Lew Rockwell

This was an interesting assessment of immigration around the world.  I liked what Hoppe said that no one can despise personal immigration.  It is a position advocated by libertarians and freedom-minded folks all the time.  One should be able to vote with his feet if he doesn’t like where he lives or if he spies better opportunities elsewhere.  So no one can deny the beauty of it.  But the immigration we are seeing in the world today is not the individual trying to make good.  It’s mass immigration.  And one must ask if the western countries are responsible for the world’s refugees?  Or should they stay put and resolve internal conflicts at home?

Hoppe starts by raising the immigration in European countries.  He points to the destablizing effects of the Middle East conflicts.  The result is a huge flood of immigrants and refuges.  And refugees come en masse.   He explains that the welfare state in western Europe existed before, and its problems are not new. But the numbers increased in a such a drastic way would not be possible if in these regions–the Middle East–some sort of civility existed in some way. One wishes that Saddam Hussein would be back, that Qaddafi would be back and that Assad would be back.

He asks “What is the motive?” of these conflicts and the inevitable migration of refugees?  He explains

Of those who want to create some sort of world state dominated by the United States. European Union is a sub-chapter of a one-world government. People can no longer vote with their feet.

But this is the real goal:

To destroy the identities of all nations and countries.

And how do you achieve this destruction of the identity of people?  You promote the policy of multiculturalism.

A point of culmination has been reached. Add to this democracy, and you get civil strife, and in some cases you get civil war.

The population is largely brainwashed. The German politician tells its citizens with their past, as Nazis,

Refugees provide an employment program for social workers.  The effects and the numbers of immigration are difficult to assess.  But there’s still a majority who take a sober view on immigration, namely, the view that no one would be against immigration per se.

This point I like:

But you take people who will add value to your country, the place where you like and love.  You want to exclude people who do not add value, who are parasites on other people’s work.  You cannot express this attitude in Germany.  You’re automatically called a Nazi.

Look at people’s personal life.  Who do you want as neighbors?  Those increase the value of your own life, your own property.  There are some states that do a better job at this. Take a look at Australia.  Boats of people tried to get into Australia, and that government turns them away.

What type of qualifications are preferred, are desirable?  If you select people you’ll want to make your country better.

Saudi Arabia does not take any refugees or Qatar, despite the fac that they are closer culturally to Syrians.  And there’s very little criticism of these countries by western countries.  Golan Heights is controlled territory.  Israel doesn’t take a single refugee of course.

Hoppe’s solution?

Pressure should be exercised on those countries to do their fair share.  Pay some states in Africa and we pay you.  Why don’t you take them?  This is not acceptable to the western elites.

This was interesting and horrifying because of how true it is.  I found that egalitarianism was the predominant ideology in public schools.  This is what is horrific.  Hoppe points out accurately its problems:

Dominant ideology in the west, particularly in the United States is egalitarianism.  All people are just the same.  We just have to mold them in the right schools, and they will all turn out the same.  They believe if people fall into the hands of social workers, we will all be Einsteins.  You see from the social workers themselves that they did not become Einsteins.

If all cultures are the same, then you adopt idiotic immigration policies.

Of course you want to have productive people come into your country.

In Germany, for instance, we have welfare payments that are higher than middle class incomes in most countries in the world.  And if you have that, then you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state together.  No possibility of dismantling the welfare state.  If you allow people coming into the country without screening them in some way for their qualifications, the welfare state will astronomically increase.

When Hoppe says that it’s difficult to assess, he is correct.  It’s difficult to assess the effects of mass immigration on the economy, on culture, on religion, and on indigenous families.


“The state does not defend us; rather, the state aggresses against us and it uses our confiscated property to defend itself. “

Democracy really is an evil system that uses majority and mob rule to enjoy empire. Mob rule means gangs–but it’s not the 18th Street Gangs that rule: the state is one large gang constantly vying for legitimacy.  It means the use and legitimization of violence to exact theft and confiscation of property.  Democratic governments will kill to get what it wants. Yet democracy is sold as the most liberating political system the world has ever known. It isn’t.  It is simply took the property of kings, dukes, and princes and transferred that property to democratic governments, sold as “for the people” to gain ongoing support from the people.  Oh, your highness!

The alternative to democracy is liberty.  Hans-Hermann Hoppe provides a definition:

A society is free if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or “homestead” previously unowned things as private property, if everyone is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of other peoples’ property), and if everyone is free to contract with others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is unfree to the extent of such aggressions.

DAILY BELL: Please answer these questions as our readers were not already aware of your fine work and considered opinions. Let’s jump right in. Why is democracy “The God That Failed?”

DR. HANS-HERMANN HOPPE: The traditional, premodern state form is that of a (absolute) monarchy. The democratic movement was directed against kings and the classes of hereditary nobles. Monarchy was criticized as being incompatible with the basic principle of “equality before the law.” It rested on privilege and was unfair and exploitative. Democracy was supposed to be the way out. In opening participation and entry into state-government to everyone on equal terms, so the advocates of democracy claimed, equality before the law would become reality and true freedom would reign. But this is all a big error.

True, under democracy everyone can become king, so to speak, not only a privileged circle of people. Thus, in a democracy no personal privileges exist. However, functional privileges and privileged functions exist. Public officials, if they act in an official capacity, are governed and protected by “public law” and thereby occupy a privileged position vis-à-vis persons acting under the mere authority of “private law.” In particular, public officials are permitted to finance or subsidize their own activities through taxes. That is, they are permitted to engage in, and live off, what in private dealings between private law subjects is prohibited and considered “theft” and “stolen loot.” Thus, privilege and legal discrimination — and the distinction between rulers and subjects — will not disappear under democracy.

Even worse: Under monarchy, the distinction between rulers and ruled is clear. I know, for instance, that I will never become king, and because of that I will tend to resist the king’s attempts to raise taxes. Under democracy, the distinction between rulers and ruled becomes blurred. The illusion can arise “that we all rule ourselves,” and the resistance against increased taxation is accordingly diminished. I might end up on the receiving end: as a tax recipient rather than a tax payer, and thus view taxation more favorably.

And moreover, as a hereditary monopolist, a king regards the territory and the people under his rule as his personal property and engages in the monopolistic exploitation of this “property.” Under democracy, monopoly and monopolistic exploitation do not disappear. Rather, what happens is this: instead of a king and a nobility who regard the country as their private property, a temporary and interchangeable caretaker is put in monopolistic charge of the country. The caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his and his protégés’ advantage. He owns its current use — usufruct — but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. To the contrary, it makes exploitation less calculating and carried out with little or no regard to the capital stock. Exploitation becomes shortsighted and capital consumption will be systematically promoted.

DAILY BELL: If democracy has failed what would you put in its place? What is the ideal society? Anarchocapitalism?

HOPPE: I prefer the term “private-law society.” In a private-law society, every individual and institution is subject to one and the same set of laws. No public law granting privileges to specific persons or functions exists in this society. There is only private law (and private property), equally applicable to each and everyone. No one is permitted to acquire property by means other than through original appropriation of previously unowned things, through production, or through voluntary exchange; and no one possesses a privilege to tax and expropriate. Moreover, no one is permitted to prohibit anyone else from using his property in order to enter any line of production he wishes and compete against whomever he pleases.

DAILY BELL: How would law and order be provided in this society? How would your ideal justice system work?

HOPPE: In a private-law society the production of law and order — of security — would be undertaken by freely financed individuals and agencies competing for a voluntarily paying (or not-paying) clientele — just like the production of all other goods and services. How this system would work can be best understood in contrast to the workings of the present, all-too-familiar statist system. If one wanted to summarize in one word the decisive difference — and advantage — of a competitive security industry as compared to the current statist practice, it would be: contract.

The state operates in a legal vacuum. There exists no contract between the state and its citizens. It is not contractually fixed what is actually owned by whom, and what, accordingly, is to be protected. It is not fixed what service the state is to provide, what is to happen if the state fails in its duty, nor what the price is that the “customer” of such “service” must pay. Rather, the state unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can change them, per legislation, during the game.

Obviously, such behavior is inconceivable for freely financed security providers. Just imagine a security provider, whether police, insurer, or arbitrator, whose offer consisted in something like this: I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you — but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service. Any such security provider would immediately disappear from the market due to a complete lack of customers.

Each private, freely financed security producer must instead offer its prospective clients a contract. And these contracts must, in order to appear acceptable to voluntarily paying consumers, contain clear property descriptions as well as clearly defined mutual services and obligations. Each party to a contract, for the duration or until the fulfillment of the contract, would be bound by its terms and conditions; and every change of terms or conditions would require the unanimous consent of all parties concerned.

Specifically, in order to appear acceptable to security buyers, these contracts must contain provisions about what will be done in the case of a conflict or dispute between the protector or insurer and his own protected or insured clients as well as in the case of a conflict between different protectors or insurers and their respective clients.

Read the rest of the interview.  It is excellent.  Then get the book and read it.

Originally appeared at Lew Rockwell.com.

Trump’s Bombing of Syria Is About Domestic Politics

h/t Charles Burris at LewRockwell

Jay makes these points:

Trump claims friendship with Putin during his campaign.  Calls for peace with Putin.  That was during the campaign.  The bombing alters that tone, which serves other folks in the security state.

Jay says that

Political outcome of the bombing is domestic politics.  [We’re now presented with a new image of Trump vis-a-vis Putin.]  Trump stands up to Russia. Trump is taking on Assad. [The bombing] gets to shut down the whole conversation in DC that Trump has some treasonous connections with Putin and Russia. Now he’s standing up against them. Seems obvious to be more about domestic politics rather than international politics.

He adds

Syrian bombing was an extension of his war with the U.S. intelligence community.

And certainly in terms of political gain, it was just days after Trump announced that Assad would not be the target, saying that the U.S. would not be trying to overthrow Assad, that there should be a broad front to fight against ISIS. If it isn’t an extension of his war with the US intelligence community.

Then Wilkerson corrects Trump’s points about dying by sarin gas:

Any way is a horrible way to die!!

Socialism: Worker’s Paradise? Laugh. Out Loud.

h/t Robert Wenzel @ Economic Policy Journal

Anyone entering the halls of higher education will get a good dose of Marxism, socialism, communism, and all the anti-fascist rhetoric he can fit onto his plate.  Pure and simple it is indoctrination.  So I am not surprised that so many (liberal) Americans are just fine with socialism.  The New Left has tried to divorce the mass murder of Marxist-Leninist regimes or justify it historically from the Marxist ethic of wealth redistribution.  So what the new Left really is is the worst group of the uninitiated clamoring for broader welfare. It’s FDR and LBJ multiplied by the millions.

“federal government create[d] subprime lending program to get minorities [with bad credit] into homes they could not afford”

h/t Robert Wenzel @ TargetLiberty

Shapiro explains that it’s the free market that provides the choices available in the stores, not anything to do with white privilege.  What follows is my transcription.

2:50  Statistical disparity does not necessarily mean racial discrimination.  Vast majority of men playing in the NBA are black.  Very few of them are 5’9″ Jews.  That’s not because there is some sort of antisemitic conspiracy to keep 5’9″ Jews out of the National Basketball Association.

3:07  She said that one of the things that works against you if you’re black in the United States, is how people perceive of your financial responsibility.

3:17  Capitalism is color-blind.  The only color that capitalism concerns itself with is green. Seriously, capitalism doesn’t care about your color, it doesn’t care about your race, it doesn’t care about your sexuality; in fact, capitalism is the single best way to overcome racism, sexism, and bigotry, and homophobia because it you decide to be any of these things–if you decide to be a racist, sexist, homo-phobe, the guy next door will not and he will take all of that money from you.  You will be out-competed.  This is the beautiful thing about capitalism.  Your advantage in the market place is catering to as many clients as possible and to hiring the best people as possible.

3:55  The usual statistics that are thrown out are the usual statistics about, for example, lenders systematically discriminate against qualified black borrowers.  The truth is if banks routinely did this, they would go bankrupt.  Of course, because there would be other banks that came and spent who would spend money on black borrowers and those people would pay back their loans.   And these banks would be able to make a mint off of all of this. The wide spread perception in all of this that black people were not getting loans led the federal government to create a subprime lending program specifically designated to get people of minority ethnic status to into homes they could not afford with bad credit.  If it had all been lending discrimination, you would have assumed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have been fine.  There would have never been a subprime mortgage crisis. Nothing I am saying here says that discrimination never existed in American history.  that would be stupid and a-factual, but to suggest that it is a continuing factor in American life tat is putting people under the boot of white establishment is nonsense.


4:46  They say there is discrimination in job performance, and this is white privilege.  The fact is that  Mizzou has affirmative action in its hiring processes.  There are already laws on its books, that bar discrimination based on race in hiring.  There’s already a federal equal employment opportunity commission that investigates charges of racism on a routine basis.  It has a program.  It’s called e-Race.  Eradicating Racism and Colorism in Employment.  It’s designed to fight discrimination of people of color. that is not white privilege.  it’s the government going out of its way to attempt to fight individual racists in some cases go beyond the evidence in order to demonstrate racism.  Talk to the Asian guy who has to score 230 points above the black guy to get in the same college before you tell me about white privilege.