Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

On Amnesty

Ron Paul says he's against amnesty for migrants without government papers. I am too. Amnesty is a pardon for wrong-doing. Why would migrants without government papers need a pardon? They've done nothing wrong. But in the spirit of the season, the migrants might consider granting amnesty to the government thugs who have hounded them since they got here.

Cross-posted at Liberty & Power.


NiccoloA said...

Sheldon, have you ever been on the Mises forums. It's ridiculous.

LewRockwell.com does an article against the migrants almost every week. EVERY WEEK! And to top it off, look at this crap,


Sheldon Richman said...

I've seen the disgusting commercial (and linked to it in the previous post). Thanks.

Jimi G said...

Still wondering why you are even contemplating supporting a presidential candidate, Sheldon. Especially Paul.

Sheldon Richman said...

I still see net value in it.

Jimi G said...

Net Value. Hmm.

Uncertain results + good intentions - first principles = a sucker bet

I guess net value could encompass negative net value as well. I see your point.

Caution: those first principles are scarce and not easily recouped.

Anonymous said...

I don't really understand your position. Should we not have any rules about imigration? I think imigration is great but I think that people who respect the laws are the ones we should welcome. If the laws suck then we should change them. I think that if we did not have such an oppressive state that wants to control all aspects of our lives through social engineering, that we would not make such a big deal about imigration. On the other side I think that this stupid law in Arizona is a terrible idea that will lead us further into total state control.

Sheldon Richman said...

Anon, what do you mean "we"? Is there a moral obligation to comply with legislated violations of the natural law?