Yonatan Hailo, Who Killed His Rapist, vs. Elor Azariah Who Killed His Attacker

I was just made aware of this case after perusing headlines in NRG. Apparently, back in 2010, there was this guy Yonatan Hailo who had an attacker harassing him, extorting him for money, beating him up and even anally raping him several times. Hailo had no criminal record at the time. At some point, this rapist was busy abusing Hailo when he turned around to urinate.

Hailo then strangled him to unconsciousness and beat him over the head with a rock and killed him. Hailo then turned himself in to the police. There were no witnesses at the scene.

Hailo is in an Israeli government cage for 12 years for killing his rapist/extortionist. The news from today is that his sentence was (thankfully) shortened from 20 years to 12 years.

The “judges” responsible for this atrocity of jailing a man for killing his rapist made the excuse that he had the opportunity to not kill him and only disable him, and Hailo never went to the police.

Of course he didn’t go to the police. What a joke. Had he gone to the police they would have done either nothing, or arrested his attacker briefly, and when the attacker got out of jail he would go after Hailo again. So Hailo of course had no choice.

This is the same case as Azriah who killed that Arab after the Arab attacked a fellow soldier with a knife. In Azariah case it’s not so clear cut because Azariah as a soldier is arguably the aggressor in the situation and the Arab has the right to kill him. But once attacked Azariah had a right to fight back because he was not there to kill anyone directly at the time.

The reason these cases are so serious for the state is that they challenge the state’s monopoly on administering justice. If anyone does that, the state’s existence is in jeopardy. Vigilantes are incompatible with the state’s existence. But Hailo had every right to kill his attacker, as does every woman or man who is threatened with sexual assault or actively raped.

I would only aspire to do the same. If anyone ever God forbid raped me or threatened to do so, I would have no moral qualms about killing that person in any way possible. The only difference is I would not turn myself in because I know I will be arrested for a long time.

People own their own bodies. The state does not own any of us. They think they do but they do not. Just remember that if you dare defend your own body from attack, you can get in serious trouble.

Had Hailo went to the cops, he might easily be dead today. Had he not gone to the cops after killing his attacker, he might be free today.

Don’t ever go to the cops if you don’t absolutely have to, as in the case of a home invasion or something and there’s nobody else to help you.

Hailo has Jewish law on his side as well. Whatever the prohibition against homosexuality is, meaning whether or not it includes consensual sex (I do not believe it does), it most definitely includes homosexual rape, and the penalty for that is death. In my opinion, the only reason that the Torah did not put heterosexual rape in the death penalty category is out of concern for the raped woman, who may not be able to marry anyone after the attack for cultural reasons, which would put her in an economically destitute situation. She has the option of forcing him to marry her and support her, which we find unconscionable, but could work in a case Patty Hearst-type case, which is not that uncommon.

Anyway, I doubt God would fault a woman for killing her rapist in any case, and by libertarian law anyone has the right to kill his or her rapist without state permission at any given opportunity.

I personally thank Hailo for ridding the planet of the thing that attacked him and I hope he gets out of his government cage as soon as possible. As far as I’m concerned, Hailo has the status of a captive, a שבוי though I am not at all recommending anyone try to break him out of prison. Never fight the state directly.

Exposing Meaningless Politico-Newspeak, A Case In Point

One of these guys who posts about 80% of the time on why tax money should go to things he wants instead of things other people want, posted again about where he thinks the big Loot Pile should go. Something about how Trump would be the end of the world and Hillary Clinton would save America from certain doom. I said there is no difference between them. Another person responded to me like so. Let’s take it apart line by line. I’m doing this because I told him I would, and when I said that his words were meaningless I wasn’t just saying that as an insult. I was saying they have no substance. I will bold the parts that are especially meaningless political nonsense:

Rafi – A great deal of the difference is simple to see. In short, by Executive Order, the Republicans want to remove a lot of things that amount to equality for the masses.

Equality for the masses. Executive order? Obama has had plenty of those. This means nothing specific and things that he thinks are equality for the masses in his mind probably mean things like minimum wage and minimum income assurance. “Equality for the masses” is a phrase that every single socialist dictator ever, has ever said. It means nothing.

They would stifle opportunity for poor and remove educational funding for the handicapped.

Stifle opportunity for the poor could mean anything. In his mind, it probably means less jobs laws or repealing jobs laws or weakening unions or holding back minimum wage raises or lowering public pension plans or some such similar thing. “For the handicapped” is nothing but an emotional appeal to make people think of dying widows and orphans who can only be taken care of by government.

They would eliminate many protections for the environment.

Government is the biggest polluter by far of anything. Waste management is monopolized by government, and they have created landfills. Water is monopolized by government and there are shortages during drought because prices are not adjusted to free market levels in times of scarcity. Forests are managed by government and they are being burned instead of being privately owned. Public parks are owned by governments and they are disgusting and dangerous with garbage all over the place. There is no litter in private parks because clean up is in the budget of admission to the park. The only protection for the environment is private property, because people take care of their private property. Whatever government owns, private people cannot own, so government degrades the environment of anything they touch. D or R, makes no lick of difference.

Woman’s rights would go out the window.

Now what does that mean? All women would go to prison? They will no longer be able to vote? No driving cars? A law passed so they are not allowed to be hired into the workforce? What is he talking about? Abortions maybe? Trump is pro abortion. Maybe maternity leave? That women’s rights somehow means they have a right to other people’s money because some of them don’t work when they’re pregnant? Or equal work equal pay laws which will force businesses to hire women at higher prices than now, which will unemploy many women as employers will have to cut back?

Our founding attempts at universal healthcare would be gone the first week,

Universal healthcare? Forcing everyone to buy insurance by threatening to fine them if they don’t does not magically give everyone universal healthcare. That’s like saying forcing everyone in the world to buy food will end world hunger. Or passing a law that every worker must be paid $1,000 an hour will solve poverty. Or forcing everyone to buy a mansion will solve the housing crisis, and if they don’t buy the mansion or get hired at $1,000 an hour they’re fined $200 by the IRS and if they can’t pay it they go to prison.

It’s absurd. Obama is forcing everyone to buy health insurance or pay him $200 or whatever it is. But do they now have good doctors and better healthcare because of Obama’s threats to fine them if they don’t buy health insurance? And nobody is going to repeal Obamacare anyway. Nobody. Once a program that increases state power is in place, it is never repealed by anyone.

It’s not universal healthcare. It’s universal health insurance. Say if all the doctors in the US suddenly quit and there were no more, but everyone is still covered by the Obamacare insurance mandate, then in that case, by his absolutely meaningless statement, there is “universal healthcare” in America even though there are no doctors. To him it just means forced insurance coverage. That to him is healthcare. No matter how that forced insurance coverage affects the actual medical industry or people’s health or life expectancy.

putting over 20,000,000 people back into a position with no insurance.

He hasn’t been reading up on skyrocketing premiums due to regulations and insurance companies flat out pulling out of the health insurance market and specifically Obamacare exchanges, because it is no longer profitable. But they can all pull out and insurance companies can refuse to cover anyone, but if the law is still on the books they’re still “covered” in his meaningless newspeak, even though there is nothing covering them. The law is on the books! It’s a success! So is Venezuela and its universal coverage laws. Great place, I hear, for some good old fashioned “universal health care”. There’s universal health care laws in North Korea too.

Republicans would rape Social Security that many of our seniors, myself included, paid into for years and depend on for retirement income.

Here comes the harsh part. “Rape Social Security”, as if Social Security is some chaste virgin yet to be deflowered, when in fact every single penny he ever “paid into for years” has already been spent on welfare and warfare and then some. There is no social security. The money comes from the next generation being taxed so he can get his retirement checks and his universal healthcare, which the next generation is also paying for. This sounds like I’m insulting him. It’s just the truth. I can’t be accused of insulting someone for pointing out what is actually happening. He wants money from me for his retirement. That’s what it means. That’s just the truth. He’ll say yes, I am paying for his retirement checks, but since it’s theft by “voting and democracy” then it’s covered by the “social contract” so I have to pay his retirement checks or I’m the immoral one.

He’s saying he wants the money that the government spent already on killing people, to come from me, because there is no one else to take it from. Can’t tax yourself to pay yourself. You can only tax others to pay you. If I refuse, he accuses me of supporting rape, implicitly. Social security is broke. At some point the checks will run dry, no matter who is president. At $20 trillion in debt, there is nothing there. Whether you want to rape SS or not, it’s gone. He’ll have to find something else to live on soon, or take so much money from the next generation that they will have nothing in the end, like the Greeks trying to tax themselves to death to pay the insane public pension system there. Many are starving. It will be that way in the US too, but worse.

And none of that speaks to the question of what kind of person Trump is.

True, none of that speaks to anything. It’s all sentences that could mean anything and everything.

Trump is right about one thing. We need to make America great again, but certainly not by his definition. America is still great, but it’s based largely on opportunity. A more liberal agenda provides help and opportunity for a much greater number of its citizens.

Code for he wants government to take more from some people and give to other people.

Lastly, no Republican administration since the 1950s has finished with economic growth.

This one is especially void of meaning. “Finished” with “economic growth”? Economic growth has nothing to do with who the president is. It has to do with how much the Federal Reserve inflates the money supply. When they print a lot, it looks like growth but it’s just a boom in a boom bust cycle that will eventually impoverish many. And then either party will bail out the banks who benefited from the boom so they don’t have to suffer the crash like everyone else. When they stop printing everything crashes. It’s just a question of the money supply. So essentially, he’s saying that no republican president ever finished his term while the federal reserve was in a heavy printing phase.

Who cares what the timing was? He knows nothing about economics but he cites this meaningless timing coincidence as if it shows something important, like “democratic policies” lead to economic growth.

They are still trying to pound us with the trickle down theory that over 50 years has proven will not work.

What do you mean “work”? What does “work” mean? That the Republican style of wealth redistribution doesn’t increase GDP numbers to his liking? That if money is stolen away and given to other people in a more democratic style, then GDP numbers will be higher? Nobody has any right to take and give by force just for the purpose of increasing an arbitrary number calculated by bureaucrats with political agendas in some room in Washington DC. Both R’s and D’s take from some groups to give to other groups. They one-up each other on spending schemes while the economy follows the Fed. Republican or democrat tax schemes have nothing to do with it.

Their politicking is based on lies and BS,

Yes, that’s true. There’s some meaning.

that the Democrats are going to take away their guns… Wouldn’t they have done it yet?

They already did. Chicago has the toughest gun regulations in the country introduced by Democrats, and the highest shooting rate in the country by far. 468 deaths last year. The result of making it impossible to legally carry guns. But republicans aren’t any better.

They say the Democrats are going to tax the rich into poverty. Why not yet?

They’re not going to tax the rich into poverty. They’re going to tax everyone into poverty. By direct taxes or hyperinflation, the end nobody has any wealth left. But the republicans are no different. They spent more than the Democrats. Because each administration has spent more than the one before it regardless of the party. They spend his money. My money. That makes us poorer. The more they spend the more we are impoverished. It is yet. It is already. And when interest rates edge up to 5% and the US finally defaults on its debt, the poverty level throughout the United States for everyone who gets most of his income from redistributed taxes, will skyrocket. Regardless of who is president.

The fact is, the highest taxes this country ever had were put in place by Republicans, as high as 90% on the richest of the rich during the Eisenhower administration.

Yes, Eisenhower was an evil man who murdered many Korean men women and children. And set very high tax rates. If he thinks anyone ever actually paid 90% of his income to Eisenhower though, I have a bridge for sale.

There’s no way we can elect a Republican in November and in any good conscience claim to be the land of opportunity. It will be the land of opportunity lost.

So anyone who votes for a Republican has no good conscience? Jeez and he thinks I’m insulting. What about all the people who vote Republican because they’re trying to protect some of their wealth, however misguided because it doesn’t make a difference anyway? It doesn’t matter who wins the 8 year throne. Whoever is president in the next 8 years will oversee the worst economic catastrophe ever. Neither Trump nor Hillary will stop it. When interest rates and price inflation hit 5% and the Fed gets caught chasing its tail but unable to save the dollar, most Americans will be destitute. This is why I suggested he leave the country now, and call on anyone who wishes to preserve whatever is left of their wealth to move it out of US jurisdiction. It is all going to be confiscated, either through taxation or most likely hyperinflation.

The last chance for the US was 2012 with Ron Paul. It’s over now. Nothing can be done.

Interview/Debate with Ryan Dawson This Week

So there’s this guy Ryan Dawson. I was introduced to him through Bob Wenzel’s Targetliberty/Economicpolicyjournal.com blogs which I read every day. I enjoy his commentary, one of those low-tech simple Youtube channels where it’s just a guy talking frankly.

Dawson is intensely anti Israel. I mean he really hates the State of Israel a la Rothbard. He generally focuses on the more superficial insanities of post modern society like mixed gender bathrooms by force, which really is one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever fathomed, but every so often he uploads a video of some anti Israel protest.

I contacted the guy and I will be talking with him over Skype. Unlike 99.9% of Israeli Jews, or other Pro Israel diaspora Jews, I have a very muted emotional reaction to his anti Israel propaganda. It’s why I can talk to these people. I’m only mildly perturbed, and I think I can talk to him and convince him of the justness of being a “settler”. I I can’t whatever. The term settler really just means you live in a territory that is not in official control by a State, which is great by me. But in reality it is, because I still have to pay taxes to Israel when I live here, so the whole thing is bull.

His anti-Israel stuff is a mix of falsehood and misinterpretation, but it’s all based on truth, sadly. We are the occupiers and the aggressors. He takes media reports such as Jews burning arabs in Duma (it was Arabs burning each other) and he exploits them, which is fine and doesn’t really annoy me so much.

It may go on YouTube, it may not, I don’t know. If it does I’ll post it here.

Ya’alon Leaves, Yehuda Glick Enters Knesset, But Don’t Expect Too Much from Glick

There will now only be 119 morally challenged kleptomaniacs in the Knesset, as Moshe Bogey Ya’alon was kicked out for some reason and Rav Yehuda Glick will take his place. Since Glick is the 33rd on the Likud roster, he’s now in.

I have a lot of respect for Glick as of now. The coolest thing I’ve ever seen him do is say some Arabic prayer on Har Habayit with muslims. But I’m pretty sure that respect will fall away quickly and he’ll be absorbed by the system. He is good on one issue, and that is prayer on Har Habayit. There’s not much else I know about him in terms of his understanding of economics or his thinking about the State. I would assume he is your average Dati Leumi who believes the State is “Holy” and that the army is the hand of God.

Back in March there was a soldier who shot an Arab at point blank range in the head. The Arab wounded another soldier in Hevron by stabbing him and this other soldier shot him in the head after he was neutralized and supposedly no longer a threat. The debacle is what eventually somehow unseated Ya’alon.

The debate is being centered on whether the soldier thought that the Arab still had a bomb belt or not. But that doesn’t matter. That’s just smoke and mirrors, a legal defense being used to skirt the main issue.

The issue really is who has the right to seek justice. Most people say only the State, because otherwise we’d all be dead after shooting one another. That’s Hobbes’s point in the Leviathan. But the real answer is anyone has a right to seek justice. The case is complicated here though because occupied Arabs (the incident happened in Hevron) have a moral right to stab and kill the occupying force. Then the question becomes since the soldier did not have an intent to kill people before the stabbing, is he still a legitimate target? I don’t know. Maybe.

But let’s assume for a moment that the soldier’s presence in Hevron is morally justified, or at least that once attacked with lethal force, the soldier or his defenders have a right to fight back with lethal force. If he has the right by libertarian law even being an occupier, then his shooting of the Arab is no problem. Glick, however, doesn’t think so, because he believes that killing someone who sought to kill you, without first going through the state monopoly justice system, is immoral.

He’s wrong, and it shows that he is essentially a statist, like everyone else. הבא להרגך השכם והרגו does not have a caveat that we must wait for the State to decide.

And because Glick is a statist, he will meld into the system. His moves against the State, like praying on the Temple Mount, will be silenced, and he will go along with it, because he cannot challenge the state to the point that he would weaken its authority. His activism is probably just to make himself a name and once he has it he’ll back down. If he thinks I’m wrong I welcome his comment here and I’ll post it.

Glick would be a good force with Feiglin’s leadership, but his knowledge of economics is probably very weak. Don’t expect anything good to come out of Glick in terms of liberty, unfortunately.

I’m calling upon him publicly to reject coalition discipline, reject a Knesset salary, vote “yes” on all bills to reduce state power and money and “no” on all bills to expand state power and money.

But he won’t. He’ll start speaking politically correctly now, and he won’t go up to Har Habayit anymore, not without explicit permission from Netanyahu.

A Libertarian Headline at NRG: “Voting is Meaningless”

I check the headlines every so often for Israeli news, just in case a war breaks out or people have been hurt or killed God forbid and I should know about it. So I opened up NRG this morning and I saw this headline. I didn’t read the article and don’t plan on it:

הזחילה לממשלה: ליברמן הפך לבובה של נתניהו

במבחן הממשי הראשון ליברמן נשבר. ולא סתם נשבר, אלא השתטח עד עפר בפומבי כדי שנתניהו יקרא לו. בסופו של דבר, כולם משקרים את כולם, בכלל זה ראש הממשלה את הציבור, דבר שמעלה תהיות על משמעות הפתק בקלפי

I don’t know about or follow the political mess because the quality of my life diminishes when I try to pay attention to it, but the subtext is very encouraging.

“The crawl to Netanyahu: Liberman has become Netanyahu’s puppet.”

“Liberman has broken on his first real test. And he didn’t just break – he prostrated himself in the dirt in public so Netanyahu would call on him. At the end of the day, everybody’s lying to everyone else, including the Prime Minister to the public, which brings into question the significance of placing a ballot in the ballot box.”

The guy who wrote this is Ariel Kahane. I don’t know who he is but he’s probably your average right winger type.

I wonder if he knows that the sky is blue.

How Obama Just Exacerbated Income Inequality With His Overtime Meshuga’as

In a fit of absolute genius the likes you wouldn’t see from a highly evolved muskrat, Obama today is forcing buyers of labor to pay more for that labor at any rate over 40 hours per week. He thinks this will mean that more workers will make more money. As in the total number of dollars spent on labor will rise because of this law.

What he doesn’t understand is that less workers will be making more money and the remainder will lose, because laws cannot magically increase the amount of money people are willing to spend on labor. Less people will make more money in order to equal out the total dollar amount spent. The others will either be cut to part time or fired.

What happens is we go from a situation of relative equality, where say:

100 people make $100 overtime, for a total overtime dollar amount of $10,000

To a situation of less equality where:

90 people make $111.11 overtime for a total dollar amount, again, of $10,000, and the other 10 people have zero.

Therefore, overtime legislation creates income inequality. 

Obama doesn’t think. Therefore he isn’t.