Behind the Lines: Israeli Libertarian

Ayn Rand/Nathaniel Branden

2008-07-18T19:09:00.000+03:00

To My American Readers - Thank You All

2008-07-04T11:35:00.000+03:00

I make it a personal habit to congratulate my American correspondents, and people on forums I frequent, on the 4th of July. Usually, I try to find something important to say to them, but this year, I'm flat out. Maybe I'm just too cynical after some of the recent events, but I don't have anything to say outside of the obvious:

What happened in 1776 was not just important for Americans. It was an event that shook the world – because it proved that the idea of freedom isn't just yet another utopia. That freedom can work. That freedom is an option.

The tyrants can take over the world, and they can make us all slaves. But they cannot change the past. The very fact that at one point in the past, men risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to declare liberty, and then maintained this liberty for generations, is a blow to tyrannies of all kinds. And they know it. Men like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams are dangerous to them, even two centuries later.

The message of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams is uniquely American – but it is also eternal. It reminds us overseas – it reminds all people in the world – that no matter what injustice we are subjected to, we are all, ultimately, free. We deserve to be free. We are no worms, crawling under the throne of some king or almighty leader, we are human beings, with human dignity and freedom inherent to our very nature. That is the message of America.

America is the land of endless opportunity – because America is the land of freedom.

America is the land of limitless wealth – because America is the land of freedom.

America is the land of almost unstoppable military might – because America is the land of freedom.

Never has this power, or this wealth, been America's share because it has some special resources, or minerals, or because its people have the right diet. Forever has America's message been: “Do what we do, accept our message of freedom, and you will be wealthy and powerful and happy, just like us.”

America's message is one that America can share with the world – freely – and does share, freely, without losing her wealth, or its power. Because freedom is not hoarded, nor is it rationed.

The message of freedom is universal. That message, above all else, is America's gift to the world.

Thank you, America.

Because They're That Awesome.

2008-07-03T10:23:00.000+03:00

Regarding the terrorist incident

2008-07-03T09:52:00.000+03:00

Police said the incident was definitely terrorism, emphasizing that the perpetrator, Jabr Duwait, a 32-year-old father of two from East Jerusalem, was carrying an Israeli identity card.[4] He was being hired by a local construction firm for the Jerusalem Light Rail.

From Comrade Wiki, of course.

Previously it was said that one of the policemen involved was wounded by gunfire. This appears, as of now, not to be true.

At least 4 killed, 36 hurt in J'lem bulldozer terror attack

2008-07-02T13:05:00.000+03:00

From the Jerusalem Post

At least 4 killed, 36 hurt in J'lem bulldozer terror attack
Jul. 2, 2008
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

At least four people were killed and 36 were wounded - two seriously, four moderately and 30 lightly - on Wednesday afternoon when a bulldozer driver went on a rampage in downtown Jerusalem.

Police said that the driver plowed his vehicle into two public buses, toppling them over, and slammed into several cars.

The driver was shot dead by an elite policeman, police said, adding that the incident was a terror attack. Police emphasized that the terrorist was carrying an Israeli identity card and was a resident of east Jerusalem.

Witnesses said the driver was killed after a brief struggle with two policemen.

One of the elite policeman was lightly wounded, apprently by gunfire, indicating that the terrorist was armed.

The attack, on the junction of Jaffa and Sha'arie Yisreal streets, set off a panic in the area. Dozens of people ran through the streets to flee the scene of the attack and a car was still stuck under the bulldozer. Police said it was unclear how many people were in the trapped vehicle.

The bulldozer was apprently being used for construction work on the Jerusalem light rail project.

MicroBalrog Notes:

1. Ban guns. They'll use tractors. And illegal guns.

2. Guns are even useful against guys with tractors.

Less and less army recruits

2008-07-01T13:20:00.000+03:00

According to the department of Human Resources Planning of the IDF, only 52% of the young men will be joining the army this year.

Year after year, the percentage of people avoiding military service increases - and yet, states the Army, "this situation will not hurt national security".

I suspect it will not hurt national security because we do not need these men anyway.

The more people opt out of 'compulsory' military service, the better - because the more of them opt out, the more pressure it puts on the army to switch over to a real, voluntary military.

Via Oleg Volk

2008-06-25T15:24:00.000+03:00

Germany Jails Homeschool Parents - AGAIN

2008-06-25T14:54:00.000+03:00

On Wednesday, June 18, a district court in the German state of Hesse sentenced Jurgen and Rosemary Dudek each to three months in prison simply because they homeschool their seven children.

More here.

I see a sense of certain irony that the press release is dated June 19th - Freedom Day.

I would gloat about this as well - but this is Israel, and ISrael, just like Germany, does NOT know better about this.

If you have children, I suggest you GTFO of a country that bans homeschooling - even if you do not intend to homeschool yourself. A country that bans homeschooling is not likely to respect any kind of parental rights.

Knesset Approves Castle Doctrine

2008-06-25T09:35:00.001+03:00

Knesset approves law allowing property owners to kill intruders

By Haaretz Service

The Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee on Wednesday approved in second and third readings a broad version of the "Shai Dromi Bill," which absolves from criminal responsibility anyone who kills or injures an intruder in his home, business or farm.

According to the approved version, "a person shall not be held criminally responsible for an action that was necessary immediately to repel someone breaking into or entering a residence, place of business or fenced farm, with the intention of perpetrating a crime, or someone trying to break in."

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what the Israeli Libertarian calls "retarded". Sure, it's a very nice bill. I agree with it almost completely.

But let's be honest:

Practically nobody in Israel can own guns.

What good does it do to an 82-year-old grandmother (the usual target of break-ins in this country) when a 17-year-old fool gets into her house with a knife or simply a stick? Or even his bare hands?

As he slams her, head-first, into a wall, will the fact that she has a right to self-defense be of any use to her?

Those in support of citizen self-defense must recognize this for what it is: an empty, idiotic gesture.

The right to self-defense is useless without the tools of self-defense.

Plain, Senseless Thuggery

2008-06-22T11:38:00.001+03:00

"The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) released its semi-annual report Sunday, detailing evidence of abuse inflicted on Palestinian detainees while being taken into custody by Israeli soldiers.

The report, dubbed "Unlawful in reality – soldiers' abuse of Palestinian detainees," unveils a series of cases in which Palestinians who were arrested and handcuffed were abused by IDF soldiers while being detained or transported to a holding facility, to the extent that some of them needed medical attention.

The PCATI report noted 90 testimonies of abuse between 2006 and 2007, but said the actual number of cases is higher. The IDF, said the report, is doing little to nothing to stop this abuse."

The newsflash is from here.

What really freaks me out is not really the article, but the public's reaction to it. Let us head over to Ynet and see what the readers think.

Right now, none of the commenters are even bothered that the soldiers are illegally abusing people. The only commenter who thinks this is disgusting is an American poster.

The locals post niceties such as this:

"send the human right group members for a training in China

these persons have nothing to do in their lives except to denounce bad jews."

Another fellow is 'not bothered by this' becase 'it means the IDF is fighting terror (despite having an incompetent government)'.

How does this mean that the IDF is fighting terorr?

Are these people, perchance, torturing terrorists to obtain useful information (which is illegal)? Are they perhaps interrogating them?

No, this is not the case. What we're talking about here is the soldiers grabbing some guys who may or may not even be terrorists, beating them - read the article! - and then handing them over to Shabak, who may or may not torture them for informatio. That is often illegal too, but that is not the point.

If one is a great fan of overreaching, sadistical government, they may argue here that torturing people for information should be legal.

But what purpose on earth does it serve to just grab people and beat them up?

One of the founding values of the IDF was supposed to be "the dignity of Man". How does it preserve the Dignity of Man to act like this? Do you suppose the dignity of Palestinian suspects is furthered by them being beaten up like that? Do you think the dignity of the soldiers is?

Why can anybody support this? What use is this to anyone, outside of plain, senseless thuggery?

P.S. I do not, naturally, believe that the IDF deliberately issues orders for soldiers to abuse Palestinians, or anything like that. However, the fact that a lot of people are okay with this behavior, and that the army does not properly investigate it, is symptomatic of many things wrong with our society.

It's BAAACK

2008-06-22T11:33:00.000+03:00

My dear friends!

I realize, of course, that I have most likely lost all readers in the past three months that this blog has been silent, but I am back, to bring you more of my snarky, hate-filled comments regarding the future of the Israeli welfare state (short summary: it has none).

That's just insane.

2008-03-06T10:11:00.000+02:00

The Knesset passed in first reading a bill increasing the maximum penalty for the sale of firecrackers to 7 years.

Do I need to comment at all? Can there be comments on this?

IDF troops mutiny over Sofas, abandon post

2008-02-21T13:41:00.001+02:00

From Yedioth Ahronoth:

Five soldiers of the Shaked Batallion of the Givati Brigade abandoned their posts yesterday due to a conflict with their commander.

According to the IDF spokesman, the troops have abandoned the front-line outpost (later to return) due to their commanders' attempt to enforce a General Staff Order according to which no civilian furniture may be put in Army tents, in this case – several sofas.

Original Article in Hebrew

Now returning to the actual topic of the blog...

2008-02-18T11:21:00.000+02:00

Apparently, the Central Bank is considering removing Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir from the relevant money notes, and replacing them outright with politically neutral poets.

That is a great thing, in my opinion. The worship of David Ben-Gurion (Altalena disaster, anyone?), and Golda really, really needs to end.

Remember this one, conservatives?

2008-02-18T11:14:00.001+02:00

A Blast from the Past.

2008-02-18T11:13:00.001+02:00

Why National Health care will kill your freedom

2008-02-15T13:33:00.003+02:00

State-funded health care has always been the flagship project of modern-day welfare statists. Golda Meir is famous, among other things, for diverting funds from the front during her tenure as a minister in 1948, so that the Israeli state-funded health care system could be funded.

Varying arguments exist at to its effectiveness and cost – arguments from cost, life expectancy, infant mortality, and blah, blah, blah. I do not possess the intellectual and statistical tools necessary to properly discuss the effectiveness of this measure, but I will do so once I've researched the issue.

But there is something that should be really glaringly obvious.

Let us suppose that we have a state-owned health care system in place. For simplicity, suppose that this a system where people simply pay for the system from their tax money.

So here are Citizen A, Citizen B, and Citizen C. Should citizen C start smoking – and potentially, cause himself lung cancer – he will thus hike up the health care expenditures of our theoretical country, and thus jack up the health care bill of A and B. If previously, banning smoking was an issue for two or three prudes at best, now citizen A and B have a vested monetary interest in voting for a smoking ban.

When a group of people believes that they're acting for their own self-interest, they may eventually switch to another avenue of profit if the current one doesn't work as well as they expected it to. Conversely, if a group of people believes that they're acting for a higher cause, they'll often get disillusioned, tire of it, and leave. But teach people they can do both at the same time (in the way that teachers' unions persuade everybody that by whining for higher pay, they are actually 'securing the future of our children) – and you have yourself a truly relentless contingent.

Now here are Citizen A and Citizen B – they're well-persuaded that by destroying the hobbies making C's life worthwhile, they're both doing him good and improving their own paycheck. Do you imagine how miserable these two are going to make you?

Consider the United Kingdom with its variety of health-related media fads – a struggle (recently) against smoking in pubs, for compulsory 'health food' in schools, and now, using health as a justification for fingerprinting children. Because, you know, a monitored child is a healthy child. Consider in this vein Israel, with the government still struggling against alcohol consumption. Oh, and consider the War on Drugs.

How does that tie in all of a sudden, you ask?

Once you've persuaded society that it's good and proper to have A and B to pay for C's health care, then the best and most important argument against the war on drugs, against bans on the food-of-the-week, against regulations on how much fashion models may weigh – the argument that a person owns his own body – loses all weight forever. If A and B are compelled to pay for C's health expenses, it would be downright immoral for him to live a lifestyle that keeps A and B's expenses up.

Nationalized health care is the last brick in the wall encasing our freedoms. Once it's in place, it's pointless to rattle our chains and shout "For the love of God, Montressor!"

In that story that doesn't help anybody, either.

A simple advocacy of the jury system

2008-02-14T19:24:00.000+02:00

Today I discovered – after reading the student magazine at Tel-Aviv University, 'Thesis' – that 98% of trial proceedings in Israel end in a conviction. This number is not, of course, in itself meaningful So let us compare this to similar numbers in the US, or – even better – the Russian Federaion. Approximately 20% of US trials, and 18% of Russian trials end in an acquittal – or, in other terms, about ten times as many, in relative, not absolute numbers, as in the Israeli justice system.

Something is clearly wrong here. Naturally, the fact Israel allows the prosecution to appeal the case increases the power of the government. Under Russian law, the judge in an appeals court is prohibited to render a decision that would worsen the situation of the defendant or convict. He can, at worst, render a previous judgement stand, but never make it worse for you. In America, if the jury finds you not guilty, it's over – but not so in Israel.

Worse, Israel's system doesn't have juries at all – it has judges, and that's it. Judges who are not appointed by elected officials or elected directly – in fact, none of the judges in Israel are elected directly – but instead, appointed by a committee where most of the members are judges or members of the attorneys' association. As result, they copy the governing prejudices of a single narrow caste, and apply them to their practice with varying degree of subtley.

That, of course, is the very monstrosity that a jury system is designed to prevent.

Contemplate, in comparison, the American jury in the way it is supposed to function. You have twelve people, selected at random. Then, unlike an Israeli court, where a vote of 2-1 judges is enough to convict a man on the facts of the case, the unanimous agreement of all 12 jurors is necessary to acquit.

Naturally speaking, should there be the suspicion that the jury convicted you due to their long-standing hatred of blacks, Jews, bald people, you will be allowed to appeal. But the converse is not true. The jury can vote to acquit you, and should they do so, it is almost impossible that their decision will be reversed.

Naturally, this leads to a certain amount of people being released who shouldn't be – somewhere on the Internet, a particularly trigger-happy reader is already typing the name 'O.J.Simpson', but of course, that's the whole damn point of juries.

Naturally, juries rarely to acquit people who are blatantly and obviously evil murderers – though it sometimes happens (see O.J. Simpson again). Had they been known to often make such mistakes, humanity would have long since abandoned the trial by jury.

When American judges are polled on their opinion on their cases in a variety of research, they usually state they would have made the same decision as the jurors – except as, as I said, in a variety of borderline situations where the scales could conceivably tip both ways.

It is exactly in such situations that the jury – with it's lack of elite-dictated prejudices, and, most importantly, with its tendency to acquit – is going to come in useful.

Sure, maybe a few more guilty people will be set free. It's still better than having innocent people imprisoned.

And rember: It's better to set two dozen guilty men free than to imprison one innocent.

Castle Doctrine Yay!

2008-02-13T17:52:00.001+02:00

Israel's Castle Doctrine law, sponsored by a Likud MK, passed the first reading in the Knesset today 119-1.

We will soon be able to shoot intruders in our homes.

At least those happy 2% that have guns.

A Letter to A Republican Friend

2008-02-12T16:23:00.000+02:00

You know, I was never one of these starry-eyed people who thought that Ron Paul was bound to win, no matter what. I believe Ron Paul could win, if nothing went disastrously wrong. And I still say it – he could have won, damn it.

Ron Paul was not a RINO, like some other candidates. He was at that precarious edge where conservatism and libertarianism meet – you can call him a conservative or a libertarian and be equally right.

You and I are not really different in our views. We both want the income tax gone, we want the government reduced in size and in power, we want the Constitution, we want our freedom. And you know, Ron Paul would have helped us both a whole damn lot. Oh, sure, he wouldn't repeal all the steaming piles of New Deal crap- sorry, regulations and taxes – in one day. Nobody can. But he'd have cut a thick, quivering, slice right out of Shelob's belly and you know it, too. And even had he not won, we'd have given them a good fight – you and I, together.

Do you imagine it, now? Imagine the Presidential debate, Ron Paul versus Hillary Clinton, Hillary trotting out the same old statist solutions – "ban guns, raise taxes, destroy private enterprise" – and Ron Paul arguing, not for a different statist solution – "regulate guns, raise taxes" – but for something actually different. Imagine an actual stand-up fight between Hillary – the very embodiment of everything wrong with the American Left – and Ron Paul. It would have been the Battle of Yavin all over again. Even if we didn't win, we'd create a real alternative for them. There'd be a fight, a real fight for freedom.

And yet we're not getting that fight. Instead, the GOP will run McCain or someone very like him. You know what that means? Either Hillary wins – and that's not going to be nice in any shape or meaning of the word – or McCain wins. Which is even worse.

Any economist will tell you that people repeat activities which benefit them. Any zoologist will tell you that even an octopus can be taught to repeat an activity that benefits it. Operating on the tenuous assumption that the GOP leadership posesses at least the IQ of a piece of invertebrate seafood, if they can win by running a McCain for office, that this is what they'll do. Again and again.

McCain is indistinguishable from a Democrat in any of his major positions, except, of course, his desire to bomb stuff abroad (which many Democrats hold to as well). Elect him, run a guy like him for office in 2016, and you will destroy American conservatism. There will be a political spectrum not unlike the one in Europe – Welfare-State Party R and Welfare-State Party D.

And unfortunately, I have a very personal reason to care, even though I am not an American at all. You see, what happens in America reflects on the world entire. When Reagan cut taxes and deregulated business, his example was followed in dozens of countries. America doesn't have to invade countries to lead the world – it leads by example, too, whether it wants to or not. And now you are all set to give the world a terrible example.

Should the mantle of the Welfare-State descend upon America completely – as it seems to be about to – there will be no visible alternative. If America adopts gun licensing, universal compulsory education, huge taxes, Europe-style, there will no longer be an alternative for anybody to point to, no longer an prototype to call upon of how different things can be, no longer a source of libertarian ideas and conservative examples.

Damn it, man, you could have voted for Fred Thompson. At least the man had ideas. You could have voted for Tancredo. What, have you deliberately searched for the most unprincipled, most socialist, most un-conservative man in the entire Republican party? Have you decided that you will ruin what's best in America, no matter what it costs?

I know you'll be stamping your feet and calling me a fanatic. It's awesome how the 'moderates' are quickest to stamp their feet and call other people names when someone questions the value of their moderation – but you know, maybe that's a good sign. Maybe that's because, deep in your heart, you, too, wished you could have a real candidate, someone who would actually challenge the status-quo.

But maybe you're not like that. Maybe you just didn't vote for Ron because you didn't like his foreign policy. Don't you feel stupid now, lying there with your own foot on your throat? Here, you can have your wonderful war that you so wanted – it's just that you can't have any guns, or freedom, or gold to go with it. You ended up with a guy who promised you the war you wanted, but you have nothing else. Nothing.

Don't you feel like a fool now, sitting there and slurping on that bean soup you traded your bithright for?

Oh, I know what you're going to say. You're going to claim that I hate Jews and Israel, and so on. Except of course, I'm an Israeli citizen. My ID card number is 307333377 so you can verify this claim. Like that term, 'ID card'? Israel has national ID cards. Soon enough, you will have a shiny new one, too.

I want you to realize, deep in your mind, what a McCain vs. Clinton race means, for America, for the world, for everybody. It means America no longer has any meaningful opposition to the marauding, all-prevailing, State, outside of several think tanks and two or three Congressmen. It'll take decades until someone runs on a real small-government platform. I'll be 31 by the time whoever wins the next election leaves office.

The incrementalist socialists took about 70 years to get government to the size it is today – if you start counting from FDR. About 95 years if you start counting from Wilson.

Do you want to bet on how old I can be until we can cut government back to its proper size – the size at which we can buy M1928 Thompsons over the counter, never fill out an income tax form, never fear a government agent seizing our children and business and everything we hold dear? How old will I be then, you Quisling? 70? 90? 100?

That's your legacy, you moron. You destroyed the only meaningful chance you, me, anybody who's reading this letter, ever had to actually experience what a free society would be like. Oh we can work for our children, for our principles, just to poke Leviathan in his eye. But we will never, ever, ever get to experience what it's actually like.

Imagine if we were characters in A New Hope. Imagine how the rebels would have felt if Rebel Command would have looked at those Death Star blueprints, with the thermal exhaust port marked out good and clear, and said "Let's surrender. It's not like an X-wing can actually get in there." That's how a lot of people feel right now. Because that's what you did.

I hope you feel proud.

Boris Karpa is a columnist and libertarian activist in Israel. He can be reached through microbalrog@gmail.com

Thinking Beyond Ron Paul

2008-02-11T14:24:00.000+02:00

What Next?
Thinking Beyond Ron Paul
by Darian Worden
DarianWorden@gmail.com

Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise

It looks like Ron Paul is not heading to electoral success. If Paul will not go on the ballot in November then his libertarian supporters ought to think about what comes next. Those with no interest in Paul should still think of what impact his campaign has had on the future of the libertarian movement and what to do about it.

More here:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle455-20080210-05.html

Ron Paul Wins 2008 Primaries

2008-02-10T09:31:00.000+02:00

This may sound strange to some people – McCain has the nomination almost completely locked up, and it seems Huckabee is angling for the VP slot. It is most likely, at this stage, that America is headed for a Hillary or a McCain Presidency, and it is completely unclear which is worse. Some people will argue Hillary is Satan. Others will argue McCain is Hitler. Both are valid, relevant points.

But I will argue Ron Paul can still win, even if he does not 'win'. In fact, in many senses, Ron Paul has already won. Even if he has a heart attack and dies today, Ron Paul will die victorious

Consider this: Never before had a libertarian candidate received so much grass-roots support, so many actual primary votes, so much money. Ron Paul raised more money in just one day than Badnarik had in his entire election cycle by an order of magnitude.

Ron Paul has made it so that quitting the UN, abolishing the income tax, the War on Drugs, and all gun control laws altogether weren't just things that people talk about in radical party meetings, but something that gets serious page space on Newsweek. By doing that alone, Ron Paul has triumphed.

Ron Paul's campaign staff was not prepared for the battle they fought. They came to run to just make a point, and they ended up drawn in a fight to win, and they couldn't manage it. But, again, Ron Paul has already won, and now – with the help of his valiant volunteers – can win something that McCain, Hillary, and their minions can never accomplish.

Restoring Constitutional order to America will not take one day, not even one decade. We have decades of long, hard work ahead of us. Ron Paul has said it again and again, and I am just repeating what he said.

If we want to make sure Ron Paul wins this – if we want to ensure liberty wins – then, no matter how disappointed we feel right now, we must not quit.

Yes, we believed Ron Paul was going to fly the X-wing up the thermal exhaust port of the Welfare State and blow it all to smithereens. But that was not going to happen, even had he won the Presidency.

If we want to win – if we want to live free, or at least have our children live free – then we must move immediately to capitalize on what we have done. We must use the mailing lists of the people who were active and who donated in the Campaign to raise money for the cause of liberty, and to organize events of various kinds for libertarian causes even after the campaign – just like the Goldwater people did with his donor lists after he lost the election.

We must utilize the organizational capital and the political momentum gained by this campaign to build connections between the various wings of the freedom movement. Those who gained positions within the GOP must remain there, to continue pulling the party in the right direction. Those who made signs, stood at street corners, canvassed, must now make signs, stand at street corners, and canvas for the various mini-Ron Pauls that are now beginning to run.

Join the GOA. Join the JPFO. Join the HSLDA. Remain active.

Do not allow the minor and superficial loss of this campaign get you out of activism. If that happens, Hillary and McCain truly win.

Remember, Ron Paul – and freedom – won in this primary cycle, and with your help, they will win again

More about Israel's public sector.

2008-02-09T19:29:00.000+02:00

According to TheMarker – the economic supplement to Ha'aretz, of course – there is such a thing as the Department for Public Complaints Against Judges in the Ministry of Justice. (I don't know if that's the official name – I only read about this in a Russian translation of the Hebrew article. If I find out better, I'll correct it). So anyhow, the director of this department gets paid 61,000 NIS per month before benefits. When the benefits are factored in, her salary rolls in to 78,000 NIS per month, or 935,000 NIS per year. That's $252,700 per year – more than the salary of the speaker of the US Senate.

Naturally, my readers will point out, this is only an exception, and most of the employees of the state don't get paid as much. That is true. The Chief Administrator of the Ministry of Defense (separate, I note, from the Minister, or from the Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry), whose job is undefined – apparently, TheMarker has not the slightest clue what the man actually does for a living. He gets paid 60.7 thousand shekels per month. The various Deputy Chief Executive Officers of the Ministry of Defense (no, there is not just one Deputy CEO of the Ministry of Defense, that would be a naïve assumption) get 58,000 NIS. Crane operators in the state-owned ports get up to five times what a regular crane operator gets – 52,000 NIS per month.

Naturally, the same thing that happens every year will repeat itself. The country will whine for a month about the salaries of these losers and forget about it. People who suggest cutting even one bureaucrat from his desk will be derided as anti-hevrati (anti-social) and possibly even anti-mamlachti (anti-statist).

And yet people insist on whining Israel has too much capitalism. Surely, the stupid of some people is a marvel to behold.

Radicals for Capitalism: Brian Doherty and the Past of the Libertarian Movement

2007-12-01T17:52:00.000+02:00

These days, my friends often give me books for my birthday. And my last birthday was no different. A very good friend of mine gave me two books – one was a history of the Goldwater Presidential candidacy, and the other – Bryan Doherty's "Radicals for Capitalism", a history of the modern American libertarian movement. It was a hefty hardcover book, with 150 of its 750 pages dedicated to indexes and bibliographies. And yet, it turned out to be not just an informative – but a singularly informative read.

Bryan Doherty is an employee of the Cato Institute – one of the few libertarian political institutions that made it into the political mainstream, and has been in the past endorsed by such figureheads of the status quo as Greenspan, Bernanke, and even the (in)famous Rupert Murdoch. Many libertarians have derided the Cato Institute as a group of "Beltway libertarians", "sell-outs", and what-have-you. And yet – at least on the pages of "Radicals" – Doherty does not return fire.

The book describes with sympathy – if not always with total agreement – the various figures of the libertarian movement, from such titans as Lysander Spooner, Robert Nozick, and Ayn Rand to the more obscure Raymond Hoiles, Isabel Paterson, and Andre Marrou. He describes the personal habits of libertarian figures as well as their work – always with a smile, sometimes sympathethic, sometimes ironic, but without any hostility to any of them. And while he's at it, he always provides a bibliographic reference to their work – so if you're done reading the works of all the bigshots like Rand and Nozick, this book can be your guide to an entire world of reading.

That is not to say that this book is entirely uncritical. Doherty details the rise and fall of the United States Libertarian Party (and yes, it had a rise), the habits of Ayn Rand's close circle, and even dedicates page after page of his book to quote critics of his very own Cato Institute. He is always sympathethic to all libertarians – and yet, he finds himself too mature to fawn over anyone, even his own team.

The book is the only academic history of the modern libertarian movement, and as such there is no other work to which it can be honestly compared. But despite that, several judgements can already be passed on it. It is both easily readable – to be attractive not only to the scholar but to the every day leader. If you're a libertarian who wants to know more about the origins of the movement, "Radicals" is a good place to start. If you are an opponent of libertarianism, the book is again a good place to read up about the nature of the movement -
Doherty writes no agitprop.

Regardless of who you are, if you are interested in politics today, "Radicals for Capitalism" is a compelling read. It tells of a small group of dedicated political outsiders who, after decades of work, have slowly wormed their way into the political mainstream. Sure, today's America is light-years away from the ideal of the Founding Fathers – but it's also been steered a far way from the welfarist paradise FDR and his faithful had in mind – and Doherty's book gives a very fair insight about the role the libertarian movement played in this shift.

Boris Karpa is an Israeli libertarian activist and political columnist. He can be contacted at microbalrog@gmail.com or http://israelilibertarian.blogspot.com

Ron Paul Should be the Zionist Choice for US President

2007-11-17T21:34:00.000+02:00

Ron Paul Should be the Zionist Choice for US President

by Shmuel Ben-Gad

He opposes US foreign aid to Israel.

Since the Six Day War, US presidents and presidential candidates have tended to speak of the US and Israel as great friends and allies. They have also tended to favor the shrinking of Israel's borders. This has reached a low point under the Bush administration, which is the first one to explicitly make its policy the establishment of an Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Thus, the US alliance with Israel has been a decidedly mixed blessing.

Israel receives military and financial assistance, and also some diplomatic support at the United Nations, but the US puts pressure on Israel to surrender parts of the homeland. Even worse, this relationship seems to foster a mentality of dependence amongst many Israelis who, it seems, cannot imagine Israel defying the United States in any major way

Read the full text here.