Successful liberals may practice capitalism, but by professing socialism they gum up the works for the rest of us. Maybe they profess socialism because they feel guilty about their wealth. But if that's the case, they should open their checkbooks and send money to the charities of their choice--and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

Instead, they promote State-mandated "charity," i.e., fascio-socialism, i.e., a system of legalized extortion, confiscation and redistribution. Liberals fancy themselves selfless and idealistic for their welfare-state advocacy, much as the neocons deem their interminable regime of humanitarian bombing (how else can the Benevolent Hegemon bring democracy, women's rights and lower golf scores to the unwashed wogs?) selfless and idealistic. Libertarian theory can teach both camps that no matter the alleged idealism of their ends, the means employed to advance those ends are cruel, wicked and unnecessary.

If governments must exist, they must be bound by the same moral code that is binding on the rest of us. In other words, they must not tax ("Thou Shalt Not Steal"), wage aggressive war ("Thou Shalt Not Kill"), spy, kidnap or conscript. If you accept this premise, you are an anarchist.

Law can be privatized. There is a demand in society for peace, security, contract enforcement, domestic tranquility and dispute resolution. The market will provide these services if the State allows it to do so. Anarchists are not utopian. They understand the market will not provide these services perfectly. Anarchists simply believe the market will provide in a more humane and efficient manner than the State.

The State seeks always and everywhere to protect its legal monopoly on the use of violence. Society consists of those free and ethical individuals interacting to generate spontaneous order. The State exists to preserve the disorder

Someone at Fisheaters.com posted a comment suggesting the alliance with Israel protects the U.S. from its enemies in the Middle East. I posted Joe Sobran's quote in response: "Until the U.S. forged an alliance with Israel, the U.S. had no enemies in the Middle East," to which another Fisheater responded: "Wasn't Egypt and Syria at the time of U.S Isreali [sic] alliance under the soviet wings?" My answer follows:

Could be. Why not? At one time, the U.S. was under Soviet wings.

Of course, the Hitler du jour back then was actually Hitler. So the U.S. had no choice but to forge an alliance with the Soviets. Then, at the end of World War II, after the U.S. handed half of Europe over to FDR's beloved "Uncle Joe" Stalin, U.S. foreign policy turned on a dime and "Uncle Joe" became the Hitler du jour and the U.S.S.R. the Uncompromising Enemy With Whom No Compromise is Possible.

The U.S.S.R. was such a formidable foe, in fact, that the U.S. during the Carter and Reagan Administrations had no choice but to forge an alliance with Osama bin Laden and his merry band of al-Qaeda terrorists, purportedly to help expel the Soviets from Afghanistan. The U.S.S.R. proceeded to collapse under the weight of its mismanaged economy and imperial overreach (sound familiar?) and, lo and behold, erstwhile U.S. ally bin Laden became the reigning Hitler du jour.

So you see? It all works out. The U.S. preserves worldwide disorder, inflicting death and destruction wherever it intervenes (which is pretty much everywhere). Those who hate the U.S. hate it for its freedom. Israel is a staunch ally that spies on the U.S., fires on U.S. warships, drains billions of dollars of year from the U.S. economy, and sucks the U.S. into endless, no-win wars on Israel's behalf.

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. And on and on it goes.