Michele Malkin has just written a column in which she attempts to expose Donald Trump as a faux conservative. “The Donald,” Malkin writes, has long abused the law of “eminent domain” for his own material self-interests. She insists that in using government to confiscate the private holdings of others, Trump reveals an insufficient respect for private property rights and “Constitutional principles.”
Should a child be forced to attend a public school that will turn him into a functional illiterate? Because no public school will guarantee that a child will be taught to read in a manner that will help him achieve high literacy, why should a parent send a child to that kind of school? Indeed, why should compulsory school attendance laws force parents to do something that will harm their children?
Smugglers are heroes of sorts. The essence of what a smuggler offers is: "Government tyrants want to either prevent or interfere with peaceable voluntary exchange among individuals. I can reduce the impact of that interference." Let's look at smuggling, keeping in mind that not everything illegal is immoral and not everything legal is moral.
In our post-Constitutional police-state, rulers often pass laws and regulations according to the following formula: someone suffers, whether from a genuine tragedy or mere inconvenience; said victim bewails his pain while demanding more laws to save the rest of us from his particular agony, however unusual its cause; the corporate media amplifies his screams while praising his “courage”; and presto, politicians pretend to solve the problem as they gain more control over our lives.