14 votes

Boston Globe Article Titled "Little Libertarians on the Prairie"

Story alleges Laura Ingalls Wilder's daughter not only helped shape the books, but was integral to Libertarian ideas.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Paraphrasing from memory...

Ma: "Christmas is coming soon. What shall we do about it?"
Pa: "I don't think there's anything we can do about it. It will come no matter what we do."

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

Smear piece, why was this women given inside access?

The article claims the homesteaders were given "free" land by the government. Untrue and they should be called on it. It wasn't the government's to give. Native Americans rightly believed that earth was a common heritage and couldn't be own, only held in guardianship while being used. People like the Ingalls had every bit the same right to use that land as Native Americans, under Native Americans' own customs, so long as they did not try to own it. It was the government and the giant military contractors, mostly ranchers, who established sprawling property rights in the West, through militarized protectorships and genocide. This is just a shameful hitpiece on a children's book series. It does demonstrate the degree to which the Neocons and progressives are becoming threatened by libertarian ideas though, and that's a success.

little house on the prarie

is definitely a freedom\liberty under-toned show and teaches great moral values.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

The Discovery of Freedom

is an absolutely incredible read, not merely for the philosophical insights, but for a different view of history, from the perspective of someone who loves liberty. And you can read it for FREE, here.

Read it, and you'll never see the Middle East crises the same way again. A very balanced and fascinating look at the different religions and their relationship to individual liberty.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Worth a read

I just finished it recently and you are right. Overall, a very good read, especially concerning the history of the Saracens. In the latter parts, though, there are some foreign policy misconceptions (in particular, conflating US imperialism in the years after 1898 with spreading the American Revolution) noted that have metastasized since the year of publication, 1943. BTW, the Little House books are also great!

Smear Campaign

This is a subtle smear piece written by and for insular, coastal, urban progressives. It seeks to marginalize libertarianism by compounding the stereotypes of libertarianism as quaint, impractical, archaic, and rooted in myth.

Progressives think they're so smart and that libertarians are so dumb.

What's encouraging is that the singular relevant ideological battle-- progressivism v libertarianism-- is now moving into the mainstream.

But we're still outnumbered 50:1.

Good News!

Only 50:1? We've made astonishing progress then. When I first voted for Roger MacBride (in 1976) it was mostly "Liber-what?" Now at least it's "Those damned libertarians!"

Of course it may well be a few more post-election confessions before we stop hearing "I was going to vote for the Librarian guy, but I didn't want to waste my vote so I voted for Romney."

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

Cyril's picture

One could ask her about what Little ObaMARX in DC is preparing

Well, one could always ask her about what the Little ObaMARX in DC is preparing himself to do against Syria... you know, little ObaMARX from her dear government that always intervenes so righteously in human affairs...


... is where she drinks her green Kool Aid in her cozy place.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Boston Globe

If someone wants to join the Boston Globe to comment, it is pointed out that Ron Paul took Social Security, but not that Social Security is not a gift, it's the return to him of his OWN MONEY that he earned.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

meekandmild's picture

When you pay your Social Security Insurance premiums

You expect to receive the benefits of your policy. Just like you would for car insurance when you have an accident; or any other type of insurance.

We are forced to pay the SSI insurance. What is wrong from collecting the benefits of the SSI forced policy?

What's wrong

is that your SSI "premiums" are not saved or invested -- they are spent immediately. You're not "getting your money back" when you take Social Security -- you're getting somebody else's money. YES you were robbed, and you deserve to get your money back -- from the people who stole it. If you want to make a career of armed robbery targeting government employees, I'm all for you.

Robbing other innocent people to get your stolen money back, or demanding that "government" rob more people to pay you back -- not so much.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme of a particularly vicious sort, one in which people are forced to participate, despite the certainty that it is unsustainable and economically destructive. The sooner we end the whole filthy "system," the better.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

I agree with you 100% except

I agree with you 100% except for the fact that I am 25 and have absolutely no illusion that there will be any of my SSI money left in the 'fund' once I retire.

That is why I was so interested in Ron Paul's 'opt out' policy.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

Which Explains A Lot

I loved those books.

Yes, we knew about Rose during the 2008 campaign...

My grandmother lived in a sod house on the prairie.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Why do you say "alleges"? Its true.

The 3 big women in the libertarian movement are:

Rose Wilder Lane

Isabel Paterson

Ayn Rand.

I read the review, and it seemed factual and objective. These three woman had a lot to do with starting "libertarian 2.0" in the 1900's to 2000's. The only reply to the comment that "government helped along the way", is that "it also hurt along the way too".

Such a libertarian book on "What Government Did: The good, the Bad & the Ugly" has yet to be written. Perhaps that is one for Professor Thomas Woods to write, or maybe for you(?).

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Ever read Paterson, Treg?

I read about half of The God of the Machine, a long time ago, and found myself wondering how anyone could take her seriously. Bunch of strained, flawed and ridiculous analogies. I never finished the book. Did you?

Rand and Lane were both first-rate writers and thinkers. Paterson -- not.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose