.
My wife left to visit her sister in Missouri this morning. On her way through Homeland Stupidity, she was told she could not carry her toothpaste on the plane. The toothpaste was in a 4.6 oz container, but was more than half EMPTY, leaving her with about 2 oz. of toothpaste. The container was clear and this was obvious. Since the limit is 3 oz, I told her she should be able to take it, since any idiot could see it wasn’t 3 oz. But the brave, non-producing tax-eater would have none of that.
My wife, a 53 year-old grandmother of nine, asked, “it’s half empty, why are you taking it?” Answer: “We don’t know what’s in it.” My wife: “Um… toothpaste?”
I know the people in the TSA needed jobs after they got fired from McDonald’s. Our compassionate government made sure that they were employed and secured the money (from actual productive people) to make it happen. Now we can all be proud that they are keeping America safe from toothpaste. And grandmothers.
.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Unfortunately, We Still Have A Long Way To Go
.
Seems like the majority of the so-called "Tea Party" is populated with confused or ignorant "conservatives", still drinking the mainstream GOP Kool-Aid:
POLL SHOWS TEA PARTY WOULD RUN BIG BUDGET DEFICITS AND INCREASE THE NATIONAL DEBT
A post about the real Tea Party (of 1773) is coming up. Maybe LiberTea is a better name for the real movement.
.
Seems like the majority of the so-called "Tea Party" is populated with confused or ignorant "conservatives", still drinking the mainstream GOP Kool-Aid:
POLL SHOWS TEA PARTY WOULD RUN BIG BUDGET DEFICITS AND INCREASE THE NATIONAL DEBT
A post about the real Tea Party (of 1773) is coming up. Maybe LiberTea is a better name for the real movement.
.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?) Part 5
.
It is time we began raising our voices in a new way. In the last three years or so, the freedom movement has risen as a Phoenix from the ashes. Millions now believe that their governments, and their political parties, have long ceased looking out for their best interests, and are now riddled straight through with corruption, blood-thirst, and lust for power. But our efforts to date have been mostly defensive--we have rallied against things--new taxes, encroachments on our privacy and property, gun control, socialist health care, etc. We have stood against establishment and neo-con candidates, and have filled our representatives inboxes with our protests.
Meanwhile the runaway train of tyranny continues to careen towards the missing bridge over the chasm. The conductors, the Republican and Democrat puppets of our overlords, although somewhat irritated, are not overly concerned. Sure, they may lose a small battle here and there, but they are confident they are winning the war. Give a little lipservice to these insolent pests. Even back off on one or two of their newest schemes--like cap and trade or goverment health care--for a little while. No worries, they think, we'll slip it in under their noses later.
So far, our cries for justice have been faint and half-hearted. Like the young Oliver Twist, we want what we want, but our courage and our hearts have not yet caught up with the hunger in our bellies:
It isn't good enough. It's too little. Too late. As one, we need to rise up, and proclaim boldly:
We need to tell our "leaders" that the status quo is not acceptable under any circumstances. We refuse to be polite. No more, "Please sir," as if these criminals were our masters. We want our freedom, and we want it now. We will be heard. We demand the original promise of America. We will prevail. We are prepared to do what it takes.
He that dasheth in pieces is come up against thee: keep the fortress, watch the way, make thy loins strong, fortify thy power mightily. Nahum 2:1 American Standard Version
We will no longer be Oliver Twists, but rather William Wallaces:
Lest anyone misunderstand, we are not calling for violence. We do not believe in instigating violence. To become violent is to become THEM. Them, who have perverted liberty for 250 years, leaving trails of blood all along the way. We do not wish to be painted with a brush dipped in blood. We can reclaim our freedom through peaceful means. It starts with putting our foot down. NO MORE.
We should immediately begin demanding the entire geographic area of the United States become, for the first time, the land of the free. The entire United States is of course, our first choice. But if we cannot have it all, if there are too many of those who wish to remain in chains, then we cannot compel them to be free. But we must demand for ourselves a place beyond the control of the present oppresors, a place to be free.
It seems unlikely that the dark ones would willingly cede land to people who will not bow to their authority. So how are we to get our place? Note: I will talk about some criteria and possible places in Part 6.
One option is secession. If enough of us in one geographical area demand our freedom, we could draw our like-minded bretheren from other regions to ours. Through strength in numbers, we could, like the Declaration of Independence proclaims,
"dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
They would be powerless to stop us.
Of course, they might be foolish and try. They could attack, for force is all they know--in which case we would have no choice but to defend ourselves and our loved ones. When, not if, we prevailed, we could negotiate to draw borders for both camps. Our new, armed-to-the-teeth territory would never again face threat of invasion. Switzerland with an American attitude.
So first, peaceful separation. All would be welcome. All races, creeds, colors, and religions. The only requirement is that the rights and property of others are inviolable. Any designs on the liberty or property of others earns a one-way exile back to the "old" country.
However, I do not think secession or self-defense will be necessary. I think the US will collapse upon itself, and in the not-too-distant future. To me, it looks inevitable. What is not inevitable is what happens next. It is up to us.
At that point, and before a military or foreign power can seek to replace the present regime with a new one, we can claim the territory of the free. And it will be as large as the people support, even from sea to shining sea.
.
It is time we began raising our voices in a new way. In the last three years or so, the freedom movement has risen as a Phoenix from the ashes. Millions now believe that their governments, and their political parties, have long ceased looking out for their best interests, and are now riddled straight through with corruption, blood-thirst, and lust for power. But our efforts to date have been mostly defensive--we have rallied against things--new taxes, encroachments on our privacy and property, gun control, socialist health care, etc. We have stood against establishment and neo-con candidates, and have filled our representatives inboxes with our protests.
Meanwhile the runaway train of tyranny continues to careen towards the missing bridge over the chasm. The conductors, the Republican and Democrat puppets of our overlords, although somewhat irritated, are not overly concerned. Sure, they may lose a small battle here and there, but they are confident they are winning the war. Give a little lipservice to these insolent pests. Even back off on one or two of their newest schemes--like cap and trade or goverment health care--for a little while. No worries, they think, we'll slip it in under their noses later.
So far, our cries for justice have been faint and half-hearted. Like the young Oliver Twist, we want what we want, but our courage and our hearts have not yet caught up with the hunger in our bellies:
It isn't good enough. It's too little. Too late. As one, we need to rise up, and proclaim boldly:
WE. WANT. OUR. FREEDOM.
We need to tell our "leaders" that the status quo is not acceptable under any circumstances. We refuse to be polite. No more, "Please sir," as if these criminals were our masters. We want our freedom, and we want it now. We will be heard. We demand the original promise of America. We will prevail. We are prepared to do what it takes.
He that dasheth in pieces is come up against thee: keep the fortress, watch the way, make thy loins strong, fortify thy power mightily. Nahum 2:1 American Standard Version
We will no longer be Oliver Twists, but rather William Wallaces:
Lest anyone misunderstand, we are not calling for violence. We do not believe in instigating violence. To become violent is to become THEM. Them, who have perverted liberty for 250 years, leaving trails of blood all along the way. We do not wish to be painted with a brush dipped in blood. We can reclaim our freedom through peaceful means. It starts with putting our foot down. NO MORE.
We should immediately begin demanding the entire geographic area of the United States become, for the first time, the land of the free. The entire United States is of course, our first choice. But if we cannot have it all, if there are too many of those who wish to remain in chains, then we cannot compel them to be free. But we must demand for ourselves a place beyond the control of the present oppresors, a place to be free.
It seems unlikely that the dark ones would willingly cede land to people who will not bow to their authority. So how are we to get our place? Note: I will talk about some criteria and possible places in Part 6.
One option is secession. If enough of us in one geographical area demand our freedom, we could draw our like-minded bretheren from other regions to ours. Through strength in numbers, we could, like the Declaration of Independence proclaims,
"dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
They would be powerless to stop us.
Of course, they might be foolish and try. They could attack, for force is all they know--in which case we would have no choice but to defend ourselves and our loved ones. When, not if, we prevailed, we could negotiate to draw borders for both camps. Our new, armed-to-the-teeth territory would never again face threat of invasion. Switzerland with an American attitude.
So first, peaceful separation. All would be welcome. All races, creeds, colors, and religions. The only requirement is that the rights and property of others are inviolable. Any designs on the liberty or property of others earns a one-way exile back to the "old" country.
However, I do not think secession or self-defense will be necessary. I think the US will collapse upon itself, and in the not-too-distant future. To me, it looks inevitable. What is not inevitable is what happens next. It is up to us.
At that point, and before a military or foreign power can seek to replace the present regime with a new one, we can claim the territory of the free. And it will be as large as the people support, even from sea to shining sea.
.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Tell-Tale Signs
.
Well, I was supposed to be in Israel by now. Instead, I've been stranded in Minneapolis for two days by two feet of global warming in New York City.
So what do you do when there's three feet of snow on the ground on a winter's day in Minneapolis? All the hotels near the airport have hourly shuttles to the Mall of America. I went over there tonight to grab a bite, and while waiting for the shuttle to return I saw this sign:
So nice to know that you are forbidden by law to defend yourself in the Mall of America. This iconic building, filled with thousands of people, some unarmed security guards and perhaps some police (I didn't see any, but they must be there somewhere) is one of those famous "soft targets" for terrorists and crazies.
But it's OK, because guns are forbidden. Bad guys would certainly read the sign and leave their weapons in the car. Right?
.
Well, I was supposed to be in Israel by now. Instead, I've been stranded in Minneapolis for two days by two feet of global warming in New York City.
So what do you do when there's three feet of snow on the ground on a winter's day in Minneapolis? All the hotels near the airport have hourly shuttles to the Mall of America. I went over there tonight to grab a bite, and while waiting for the shuttle to return I saw this sign:
But it's OK, because guns are forbidden. Bad guys would certainly read the sign and leave their weapons in the car. Right?
.
This Is What I Believe
.
There's a great article on Lew Rockwell today about Jim Rogers predicting the imminent collapse of the British Pound, creating a global chain reaction, pulling down fiat currencies and creating a crisis that makes the last one look tame.
Here's an excerpt, which is actually what I believe, and is what actually gives me hope. By hope, of course, I mean the regional breakup of the Empire and free zones created on American soil. Yes, I know, Part 5 of "Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?) is coming soon (emphasis mine):
Now some of the savvier cynics among us will claim that this is just what has been "planned." That those who are driving the world toward an ever-more perfect union, want to create this sort of crisis, with an eye toward implementing an ever-more centralized solution. We can believe this may have been the plan, but if so, we also believe it's spinning out of control. We don't believe, for instance, the elite wants to lose the European Union or the euro anymore than it wants its painstakingly created global warming promotion to go belly up. We think events are driving the elite for once, rather than the other way round. The combination of bad economic times and the socio-political education available on the Internet itself is proving lethal to many elite promotions, including central banking and fiat money.
It all comes down to what you believe, dear reader. If you believe that the EU and global warming were just way-stations on the road to world government, then you will likely believe that the current chaotic climate is purposeful and that what emerges hews to a long-term plan. If you believe as the Bell does, then you will likely take the position that what is occurring today is out of anyone's control, and that it is a kind of perfect storm, or as Anthony Wile wrote in High Alert in 2003, a financial hurricane – one the power elite never expected. It is, in fact, a confluence of a ruinous global economy and the educative effects of the Internet. The former the elite may have foreseen and advanced. The latter, we believe, was something the elite never imagined.
See you all soon in Montana/Wyoming/Idaho, etc.?
.
There's a great article on Lew Rockwell today about Jim Rogers predicting the imminent collapse of the British Pound, creating a global chain reaction, pulling down fiat currencies and creating a crisis that makes the last one look tame.
Here's an excerpt, which is actually what I believe, and is what actually gives me hope. By hope, of course, I mean the regional breakup of the Empire and free zones created on American soil. Yes, I know, Part 5 of "Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?) is coming soon (emphasis mine):
Now some of the savvier cynics among us will claim that this is just what has been "planned." That those who are driving the world toward an ever-more perfect union, want to create this sort of crisis, with an eye toward implementing an ever-more centralized solution. We can believe this may have been the plan, but if so, we also believe it's spinning out of control. We don't believe, for instance, the elite wants to lose the European Union or the euro anymore than it wants its painstakingly created global warming promotion to go belly up. We think events are driving the elite for once, rather than the other way round. The combination of bad economic times and the socio-political education available on the Internet itself is proving lethal to many elite promotions, including central banking and fiat money.
It all comes down to what you believe, dear reader. If you believe that the EU and global warming were just way-stations on the road to world government, then you will likely believe that the current chaotic climate is purposeful and that what emerges hews to a long-term plan. If you believe as the Bell does, then you will likely take the position that what is occurring today is out of anyone's control, and that it is a kind of perfect storm, or as Anthony Wile wrote in High Alert in 2003, a financial hurricane – one the power elite never expected. It is, in fact, a confluence of a ruinous global economy and the educative effects of the Internet. The former the elite may have foreseen and advanced. The latter, we believe, was something the elite never imagined.
See you all soon in Montana/Wyoming/Idaho, etc.?
.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Mission Accomplished!
.
The Bush/Obama war machine has nearly wiped out Christianity in Iraq:
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35553
.
Keeping up
.
I know I have not posted in a while. I've been getting ready for five weeks of travel, beginning tomorrow with two weeks in Israel. Should be able to blog more regularly while on the road.
But here are a couple of tidbits that interested me:
Seems that John McCain, the "true conservative" who wanted to bring you amnesty and an ever bigger Leviathan, is getting, to quote Tina Fey as Sarah Palin, "all mavericky" again. This bastion of "libbertee" wants more regulation and control on what you put into your own body, further insuring that it is nothing but big-Agri food-like products and officially-sanctioned big-Pharma poison.
Read about this psychopathic monster's latest grab at your rights here. The powers that be deceptively put the word "Safety" into the title of every one of their tyranical bills. Really, do we need the federal governement to tell us what to eat/drink/smoke? This bill is so heavy on regulation it would put many supplement companies right out of business. Those who remained could only produce "FDA-approved" supplements.
Next, it appears the bankrupt city of Los Angeles is trying to ramp up "code enforcement" to raise money. To do so one of the things they're "cracking down" on is unlicensed dogs.
Wouldn't our Founders be proud? Don't you agree their greatest desire was for legions of regulators and enforcers to drive around town in cars or fly around in helicopters just looking for something for which they could fine/fee/tax someone?
Once again from the Declaration of Independence:
They have erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
Doesn't it make you proud to be an Amerikan?
.
I know I have not posted in a while. I've been getting ready for five weeks of travel, beginning tomorrow with two weeks in Israel. Should be able to blog more regularly while on the road.
But here are a couple of tidbits that interested me:
Seems that John McCain, the "true conservative" who wanted to bring you amnesty and an ever bigger Leviathan, is getting, to quote Tina Fey as Sarah Palin, "all mavericky" again. This bastion of "libbertee" wants more regulation and control on what you put into your own body, further insuring that it is nothing but big-Agri food-like products and officially-sanctioned big-Pharma poison.
Read about this psychopathic monster's latest grab at your rights here. The powers that be deceptively put the word "Safety" into the title of every one of their tyranical bills. Really, do we need the federal governement to tell us what to eat/drink/smoke? This bill is so heavy on regulation it would put many supplement companies right out of business. Those who remained could only produce "FDA-approved" supplements.
Next, it appears the bankrupt city of Los Angeles is trying to ramp up "code enforcement" to raise money. To do so one of the things they're "cracking down" on is unlicensed dogs.
Wouldn't our Founders be proud? Don't you agree their greatest desire was for legions of regulators and enforcers to drive around town in cars or fly around in helicopters just looking for something for which they could fine/fee/tax someone?
Once again from the Declaration of Independence:
They have erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
Doesn't it make you proud to be an Amerikan?
.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Stormy March Approaching?
.
I am often asked my opinion on when the economy is going to do its next swan dive. Given persistent, wrong-headed monetary policy, and the extreme unlikelihood that the US will ever have the political will (or even basic intelligence) to perform the necessary emergency amputations of the warfare and welfare states, I believe that the next swan dive may be the last.
Nothing is certain, and our "Three Stooges" overlords may come up with yet one more temporary gimmick to prop up the economy with toothpicks and bubble gum, but it looks like a "perfect storm" may be brewing. And it could come in the next 30-60 days.
First comes word that printing money endlessly may indeed lead to unbearable inflation. Wholesale prices are taking off as unemployment continues to grow at faster than predicted rates, putting the squeeze on more and more lower and middle income families, sending more of us every day to Uncle Sam for food stamp, welfare and health care handouts.
As if spooked by the new inflation numbers, the Fed has begun to gradually increase some key interest rates. In hopes that a gradual approach (which even the Fed governors can't honestly believe will work) will reign in inflation, they quickly approach the proberbial rock and hard place. Or the devil and the deep blue sea (see below).
Finally, it is becoming clear that the rest of the world, and particularly China, is no longer willing to buy our T-bills, which has allowed us to spend like drunken sailors, finance our wars and our welfare, and create an ever larger and larger federal deficit.
These three factors coming together at once are creating a "Perfect Storm," that will sooner or later sink the Andrea Gail... er, I mean the good ship USA. How long they will be able to will keep at bay total collapse is based on 1) the longsuffering but increasingly tenuous public faith in Obama and the Fed, and 2) the ability of Obama and the Fed to apply yet one more band-aid to cancerous fiscal and monetary polices.
Good luck with both of these.
The Fed is finally reaching the self-created, predicted fork in the road, one branch marked "perdition" and the other marked "hell."
On one hand, they can keep the facade of "recovery" going by continuing to inflate the money supply, leading to greater and greater price inflation. This will guarantee the flight of other nations from our treasury bills, at last making Federal Reserve Notes nothing but "paper with ink on it."
On the other hand, they can agressively raise interest rates, which will plunge the country further into the abyss, destroy any illusion of an economic recovery, increase unemployment and even ensure the Obama and Bernanke will start calling this a depression.
What I can almost guarantee the government will not do--heck, forget the almost--is to take its hands off the economy entirely and let it correct itself. Yes, it would be painful. But we would eventually recover, much sooner than if they keep tinkering.
It's what we should have done in 2008. If we had let the market handle the crisis, the pain would have been deep but relatively short. We would be well on the road to real recovery by now. But because of bailouts and "stimulus" spending, the pain will be extended. Every day we wait now, and every additional fiat dollar we spend, extends the pain further and further.
What we really should do now is put an end to the Fed and its "notes," allow the market to decide what money is (most likely gold and/or silver), immediately cut the warfare state to true defense only, and more gradually eliminate the welfare state. This would bring true prosperity back to our land.
(And while we're at it, do away with central government altogether. Oh, to dream...)
But you and I both know we won't do what we should do. I believe the government will choose the road to perdition (priniting more money) because they don't have the political will to cut spending. This will bring about hyperinflation, the collapse of the dollar, and chaos in the land.
When that happens, all bets are off. No one knows what will happen, but it won't be pretty. Worst case is we jump over to the road to hell, with blood in the streets, totalitarian government and global, total war finally yielding an unknown (maybe not so nice) victor.*
Best case, and the one I'm hoping for, is the complete collapse of the United States and the breakup of the country into like-minded regions, at least one of which will be like-minded in the philosophy of true liberty and self-government. I will be talking more about this in part 5 of "Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?)"
At any rate, the fork in the road is here. There is no doubt in my mind the powers that be will be forced to make the no-win decision in the next three or four years. And based on the criteria I outlined above, it could very well come as early as the next 30-60 days.
*The wild card is the Great Tribulation, the return of Christ and the judging of the nations, but no one knows the day nor the hour, nor the year nor the century that will happen, and dark times alone do not mean this is the end. There have been many dark times in the past, and this could very well not be the last one. "Even so, come Lord Jesus!" Revelation 22:12-20
.
I am often asked my opinion on when the economy is going to do its next swan dive. Given persistent, wrong-headed monetary policy, and the extreme unlikelihood that the US will ever have the political will (or even basic intelligence) to perform the necessary emergency amputations of the warfare and welfare states, I believe that the next swan dive may be the last.
Nothing is certain, and our "Three Stooges" overlords may come up with yet one more temporary gimmick to prop up the economy with toothpicks and bubble gum, but it looks like a "perfect storm" may be brewing. And it could come in the next 30-60 days.
First comes word that printing money endlessly may indeed lead to unbearable inflation. Wholesale prices are taking off as unemployment continues to grow at faster than predicted rates, putting the squeeze on more and more lower and middle income families, sending more of us every day to Uncle Sam for food stamp, welfare and health care handouts.
As if spooked by the new inflation numbers, the Fed has begun to gradually increase some key interest rates. In hopes that a gradual approach (which even the Fed governors can't honestly believe will work) will reign in inflation, they quickly approach the proberbial rock and hard place. Or the devil and the deep blue sea (see below).
Finally, it is becoming clear that the rest of the world, and particularly China, is no longer willing to buy our T-bills, which has allowed us to spend like drunken sailors, finance our wars and our welfare, and create an ever larger and larger federal deficit.
These three factors coming together at once are creating a "Perfect Storm," that will sooner or later sink the Andrea Gail... er, I mean the good ship USA. How long they will be able to will keep at bay total collapse is based on 1) the longsuffering but increasingly tenuous public faith in Obama and the Fed, and 2) the ability of Obama and the Fed to apply yet one more band-aid to cancerous fiscal and monetary polices.
Good luck with both of these.
The Fed is finally reaching the self-created, predicted fork in the road, one branch marked "perdition" and the other marked "hell."
On one hand, they can keep the facade of "recovery" going by continuing to inflate the money supply, leading to greater and greater price inflation. This will guarantee the flight of other nations from our treasury bills, at last making Federal Reserve Notes nothing but "paper with ink on it."
On the other hand, they can agressively raise interest rates, which will plunge the country further into the abyss, destroy any illusion of an economic recovery, increase unemployment and even ensure the Obama and Bernanke will start calling this a depression.
What I can almost guarantee the government will not do--heck, forget the almost--is to take its hands off the economy entirely and let it correct itself. Yes, it would be painful. But we would eventually recover, much sooner than if they keep tinkering.
It's what we should have done in 2008. If we had let the market handle the crisis, the pain would have been deep but relatively short. We would be well on the road to real recovery by now. But because of bailouts and "stimulus" spending, the pain will be extended. Every day we wait now, and every additional fiat dollar we spend, extends the pain further and further.
What we really should do now is put an end to the Fed and its "notes," allow the market to decide what money is (most likely gold and/or silver), immediately cut the warfare state to true defense only, and more gradually eliminate the welfare state. This would bring true prosperity back to our land.
(And while we're at it, do away with central government altogether. Oh, to dream...)
But you and I both know we won't do what we should do. I believe the government will choose the road to perdition (priniting more money) because they don't have the political will to cut spending. This will bring about hyperinflation, the collapse of the dollar, and chaos in the land.
When that happens, all bets are off. No one knows what will happen, but it won't be pretty. Worst case is we jump over to the road to hell, with blood in the streets, totalitarian government and global, total war finally yielding an unknown (maybe not so nice) victor.*
Best case, and the one I'm hoping for, is the complete collapse of the United States and the breakup of the country into like-minded regions, at least one of which will be like-minded in the philosophy of true liberty and self-government. I will be talking more about this in part 5 of "Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?)"
At any rate, the fork in the road is here. There is no doubt in my mind the powers that be will be forced to make the no-win decision in the next three or four years. And based on the criteria I outlined above, it could very well come as early as the next 30-60 days.
*The wild card is the Great Tribulation, the return of Christ and the judging of the nations, but no one knows the day nor the hour, nor the year nor the century that will happen, and dark times alone do not mean this is the end. There have been many dark times in the past, and this could very well not be the last one. "Even so, come Lord Jesus!" Revelation 22:12-20
.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Christian Voluntaryist Reading
.
I received a letter from a reader asking about reading recommendations for Christian Voluntaryists. My knowledge of such material is limited, so if anyone knows of sources, please comment. But for now, and for everyone's benefit, here is my reply:
I'm thrilled that you're enjoying the blog. I hope to write much, much more on Christianity and freedom now and in the future. I think you are correct that there aren't many Christians who are voluntaryists these days. I believe in the past there were many more, particularly in the late 18th century.
Unfortunately too many Christians have bought into the neocon propaganda that while killing most people is wrong, the major exception is Muslims. There are too many flags and military-worship "events" in too many churches. Too much approval of and prayer for the Israeli regime, rather than for the Israeli people. I know many Israelis and Muslims personally, and I know God loves them all. This does not mean their leaders are righteous or deserving of our blood and treasure.
It's also too bad that there doesn't appear to be a lot of reading material for Christian voluntaryists. I do recommend "America's God and Country" that I wrote about in the blog. In addition, although I haven't read much of them yet, I recommend William Johnson, Frank Chodorov, and the 1950's magazine "Faith and Freedom," available at the Mises Institute website www.mises.org.
Of course I hope I can help fill the void. I feel very deeply that Christ is indeed the Prince of Peace, and hope to spread the message of God's love to whomever has an ear to hear.
May God bless you and your family,
Publius
.
I received a letter from a reader asking about reading recommendations for Christian Voluntaryists. My knowledge of such material is limited, so if anyone knows of sources, please comment. But for now, and for everyone's benefit, here is my reply:
I'm thrilled that you're enjoying the blog. I hope to write much, much more on Christianity and freedom now and in the future. I think you are correct that there aren't many Christians who are voluntaryists these days. I believe in the past there were many more, particularly in the late 18th century.
Unfortunately too many Christians have bought into the neocon propaganda that while killing most people is wrong, the major exception is Muslims. There are too many flags and military-worship "events" in too many churches. Too much approval of and prayer for the Israeli regime, rather than for the Israeli people. I know many Israelis and Muslims personally, and I know God loves them all. This does not mean their leaders are righteous or deserving of our blood and treasure.
It's also too bad that there doesn't appear to be a lot of reading material for Christian voluntaryists. I do recommend "America's God and Country" that I wrote about in the blog. In addition, although I haven't read much of them yet, I recommend William Johnson, Frank Chodorov, and the 1950's magazine "Faith and Freedom," available at the Mises Institute website www.mises.org.
Of course I hope I can help fill the void. I feel very deeply that Christ is indeed the Prince of Peace, and hope to spread the message of God's love to whomever has an ear to hear.
May God bless you and your family,
Publius
.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Tea Party Danger
.
I encourage everyone to read Pastor Chuck Baldwin's latest editorial concerning the establishment takeover of the so-called "Tea Party". As I have done here, he warns about establishment candidates being paraded as "mavericks." Here's a taste of his article:
"But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you're in danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994."
The whole article is here.
And to remind you where the modern Tea Party comes from, and what it represents, I take you back to December 16, 2007--the 234th anniversary of the original Tea Party. And did I donate $100 on December 16th? You bet I did.
.
I encourage everyone to read Pastor Chuck Baldwin's latest editorial concerning the establishment takeover of the so-called "Tea Party". As I have done here, he warns about establishment candidates being paraded as "mavericks." Here's a taste of his article:
"But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you're in danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994."
The whole article is here.
And to remind you where the modern Tea Party comes from, and what it represents, I take you back to December 16, 2007--the 234th anniversary of the original Tea Party. And did I donate $100 on December 16th? You bet I did.
.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?) Part 4
.
In the first post in this series I argued that we are no longer in any way truly free. There is literally no part of our lives or interactions with others left to our total discretion. We are regulated and legislated to the nth degree, by federal, state, and local governments. Any way we try to turn, any action we wish to take, is watched, regulated, and constrained.
In part 2, I argued against the incremental approach to regain our freedoms, including the incremental approach of using the electoral process. Instead, I made the following proposition:
Like-minded people who believe in liberty should begin working together to have their objectives realized in their own lifetimes.
In part 3, I delineated many of the "repeated injuries and usurpations" with which the federal government has assailed our liberties and imposed their tyrannies upon us. Having provided ample evidence of such tyranny, the question at hand now is what we should do about it.
Although the historical model of removing tyranny is armed revolution, I do not believe this is the course that must be taken. Voluntaryists by definition do not believe in the application of violence or force to obtain our ends. In general we abhor violence and seek to live in peace with all men.
According to Wikipedia, "voluntaryists seek to dismantle the state by non-political means such as secession, counter-economics, civil disobedience and education..."
Note: It must be understood that although voluntaryists do not believe in the instigation of violence to acheive their objectives, most do indeed believe in self-defense, and firmly believe and support the unalienable, God-given, extra-constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Therefore if violence is instigated against us, we are free (and certain to) defend ourselves.
In the quote above I have said that like-minded people (i.e. voluntaryists, minarchists and even open-minded constitutionalists) should join in efforts to acheive true liberty in our own lifetimes. But how do we do this without incrementally chipping away at tyranny and tyrants, or without armed rebellion?
We do it by openly, vocally demanding our rights, and backing up our demands with non-violent action, including civil disobedience. We want freedom, and we want it NOW.
We do not believe that just because of the fact that we were born in a particular geographical area we are subservient to its national authority, ordained to follow their rules and do their bidding. This is the opposite of freedom. It is slavery.
The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that government's only legitmate authority comes from "the consent of the governed." In order for one to give his or her consent, he or she must be asked for it. Telling is not asking, and we now have a government which only tells, and never asks.
Subservience to national authority is also what we broke from England over. Can anyone truly believe that all we really wanted to accomplish by staging a revolution was a simple switching of masters?
So now the people, as sovereigns, need to rise up en masse and demand our freedom. The people, as sovereigns, need no leaders. We are our own leaders. "Popular" leaders are likely just politicians anyway, and popular leaders can easily be taken down, by threat, bribery, libel, or assassination.
Creating popular leaders is the establishment's preferred way for us to operate. Why, they'll even create the leaders for us (Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, et. al.) if we let them.
Likewise organized groups are easily maligned, infiltrated, scandalized and corrupted. Finally, both popular leaders and organized groups are inadequate at best, and at worst will become tyrannical themselves, poor substitutions for true self-government.
This is not to say that free people cannot organize to bring about public good. For example, in a truly free society communities could still organize courts, militias and hire sheriffs to protect property and individual rights. Voluntaryism is not opposed to organization per se, only to organization that seeks control over, rather than service to, the true sovereigns, the people. In other words, voluntary organizations.
In the case of sheriffs, they would be servants of the people in every sense of the word, not elected to a specified term, but hired, "at will," subject to being fired or even prosecuted by their employers if not performing their duties in the best interests of the people.
These days to "serve and protect" has been twisted into "harass and collect." An "at will" employed sheriff could easily be monitored for the quality of service to the people--the protection of their individual and property rights. Period. No more harassing, no more collecting to fill the city, county or state coffers.
Of course we would like to see the entire territory known as the United States become at least as free as we were under the Articles of Confederation. For that matter we'd like to see everyone, everywhere become free. But that's unlikely to happen, so what can we do?
OK, we need to rise up en masse and demand our rights. But what if most people won't listen? What if most people are still sheep and are allowing fear to prompt them into giving away their liberties to the state? In this sad but likely case, we need to demand a place to go to realize our dream.
But where should that place be?
To be continued...
.
In the first post in this series I argued that we are no longer in any way truly free. There is literally no part of our lives or interactions with others left to our total discretion. We are regulated and legislated to the nth degree, by federal, state, and local governments. Any way we try to turn, any action we wish to take, is watched, regulated, and constrained.
In part 2, I argued against the incremental approach to regain our freedoms, including the incremental approach of using the electoral process. Instead, I made the following proposition:
Like-minded people who believe in liberty should begin working together to have their objectives realized in their own lifetimes.
In part 3, I delineated many of the "repeated injuries and usurpations" with which the federal government has assailed our liberties and imposed their tyrannies upon us. Having provided ample evidence of such tyranny, the question at hand now is what we should do about it.
Although the historical model of removing tyranny is armed revolution, I do not believe this is the course that must be taken. Voluntaryists by definition do not believe in the application of violence or force to obtain our ends. In general we abhor violence and seek to live in peace with all men.
According to Wikipedia, "voluntaryists seek to dismantle the state by non-political means such as secession, counter-economics, civil disobedience and education..."
Note: It must be understood that although voluntaryists do not believe in the instigation of violence to acheive their objectives, most do indeed believe in self-defense, and firmly believe and support the unalienable, God-given, extra-constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Therefore if violence is instigated against us, we are free (and certain to) defend ourselves.
In the quote above I have said that like-minded people (i.e. voluntaryists, minarchists and even open-minded constitutionalists) should join in efforts to acheive true liberty in our own lifetimes. But how do we do this without incrementally chipping away at tyranny and tyrants, or without armed rebellion?
We do it by openly, vocally demanding our rights, and backing up our demands with non-violent action, including civil disobedience. We want freedom, and we want it NOW.
We do not believe that just because of the fact that we were born in a particular geographical area we are subservient to its national authority, ordained to follow their rules and do their bidding. This is the opposite of freedom. It is slavery.
The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that government's only legitmate authority comes from "the consent of the governed." In order for one to give his or her consent, he or she must be asked for it. Telling is not asking, and we now have a government which only tells, and never asks.
Subservience to national authority is also what we broke from England over. Can anyone truly believe that all we really wanted to accomplish by staging a revolution was a simple switching of masters?
So now the people, as sovereigns, need to rise up en masse and demand our freedom. The people, as sovereigns, need no leaders. We are our own leaders. "Popular" leaders are likely just politicians anyway, and popular leaders can easily be taken down, by threat, bribery, libel, or assassination.
Creating popular leaders is the establishment's preferred way for us to operate. Why, they'll even create the leaders for us (Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, et. al.) if we let them.
Likewise organized groups are easily maligned, infiltrated, scandalized and corrupted. Finally, both popular leaders and organized groups are inadequate at best, and at worst will become tyrannical themselves, poor substitutions for true self-government.
This is not to say that free people cannot organize to bring about public good. For example, in a truly free society communities could still organize courts, militias and hire sheriffs to protect property and individual rights. Voluntaryism is not opposed to organization per se, only to organization that seeks control over, rather than service to, the true sovereigns, the people. In other words, voluntary organizations.
In the case of sheriffs, they would be servants of the people in every sense of the word, not elected to a specified term, but hired, "at will," subject to being fired or even prosecuted by their employers if not performing their duties in the best interests of the people.
These days to "serve and protect" has been twisted into "harass and collect." An "at will" employed sheriff could easily be monitored for the quality of service to the people--the protection of their individual and property rights. Period. No more harassing, no more collecting to fill the city, county or state coffers.
Of course we would like to see the entire territory known as the United States become at least as free as we were under the Articles of Confederation. For that matter we'd like to see everyone, everywhere become free. But that's unlikely to happen, so what can we do?
OK, we need to rise up en masse and demand our rights. But what if most people won't listen? What if most people are still sheep and are allowing fear to prompt them into giving away their liberties to the state? In this sad but likely case, we need to demand a place to go to realize our dream.
But where should that place be?
To be continued...
.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Warning - Your Government Wants To Rob You Again
.
"A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight." Proverbs 11:1
"Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable? Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights? For the rich men thereof are full of violence, and the inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth." Micah 6:10-12
***************
For some time I have been saving all nickels and pre-1982 pennies that come into my possession. This is due to the fact that nickels have the same metal content they have always had, and are now worth a bit more than 5 cents. Pre-1982 Lincoln pennies are mostly real copper and are worth about 2 and a half cents each.
Now comes this word that the Treasury department wants authority to alter the metal content of coins one more time:
http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=9420
Notice particularly one sentence in the proposal:
“The Secretary shall prescribe the weight and the composition of the dollar, half-dollar, quarter-dollar, dime, 5-cent, and one-cent coins..."
Now let's compare that with the supposed supreme law of the land, the US Constitution. I say supposed because, well you can read it for yourself from Article 1 Section 8 (emphasis mine):
"The Congress shall have power to... coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures..."
But of course the same "supreme law of the land" also says,
"No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..."
This is more proof that the government totally disregards the Constitution, and does what it dern' well pleases in spite of it. Which is why I'm no longer a constitutionalist.
.
"A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight." Proverbs 11:1
"Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable? Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights? For the rich men thereof are full of violence, and the inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth." Micah 6:10-12
***************
For some time I have been saving all nickels and pre-1982 pennies that come into my possession. This is due to the fact that nickels have the same metal content they have always had, and are now worth a bit more than 5 cents. Pre-1982 Lincoln pennies are mostly real copper and are worth about 2 and a half cents each.
Now comes this word that the Treasury department wants authority to alter the metal content of coins one more time:
http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=9420
Notice particularly one sentence in the proposal:
“The Secretary shall prescribe the weight and the composition of the dollar, half-dollar, quarter-dollar, dime, 5-cent, and one-cent coins..."
Now let's compare that with the supposed supreme law of the land, the US Constitution. I say supposed because, well you can read it for yourself from Article 1 Section 8 (emphasis mine):
"The Congress shall have power to... coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures..."
But of course the same "supreme law of the land" also says,
"No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..."
This is more proof that the government totally disregards the Constitution, and does what it dern' well pleases in spite of it. Which is why I'm no longer a constitutionalist.
.
Nausea For Breakfast
.
And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Genesis 2:16-17
In the future I will talk about God's intended state for man, that man be free and in fellowship with Him. Adam had perfect liberty in the garden, but he sacrificed it by breaking the one and only rule God had given him. The rule was in place to protect the man from a great evil. The serpent wished that evil upon Adam, and persuaded him to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Man did not need to know the nature of evil. His choice doomed him to death, but more than that, to sorrow in life. Now the one more knows about the world, the more sorrow he has. I always check the news in the morning, and usually the mix of good and bad is balanced enough to start my day off reasonably well. Not this morning, however. As I browsed my regular web sites, I ran into the following items. My day is not starting off well. This is your fault, Adam...
1) A two minute video from the National Guard, glorifying war and exalting soliders to saintly, almost divine status.
2) A Palo Alto, California cop, bragging on Facebook on how if he killed law abiding citizens legally demonstrating their second amendment rights he'd get "two weeks off."
Note: The implication of course is police are above the law and will be exonerated for any crime. This was one of the "injuries" Jefferson spoke about in the Declaration of Independence: "For protecting (the King's armed men), by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states..."
3) Attacks on Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina from both the left (Chris Matthews on MSNBC labeled her a racist) and the right (Glenn Beck made her out to be a conspiracy theorist nutcase on his radio show).
Note: Debra Medina has exploded from 4% to 24% in the polls. This has sent the establishment into panic mode. They are scared to death of Medina, and have set their nefarious propaganda machine in motion. This is obvious because 1) the attacks came on the same day, just after the poll was released, 2) the attacks came from both sides of the single Republicrat coin, and 3) both of these charges were made with prevarication--deliberately made with the explicit knowledge that what was being charged was not in fact true. And then both hosts marginalized and laughed about her--this candidate the Houston Chronicle called "the only adult in the room" after the first gubernatorial debate.
There is a war on for the minds and souls of men. This morning I felt we were losing ground. So I'm not feeling so well.
How's your day going?
And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Genesis 2:16-17
In the future I will talk about God's intended state for man, that man be free and in fellowship with Him. Adam had perfect liberty in the garden, but he sacrificed it by breaking the one and only rule God had given him. The rule was in place to protect the man from a great evil. The serpent wished that evil upon Adam, and persuaded him to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Man did not need to know the nature of evil. His choice doomed him to death, but more than that, to sorrow in life. Now the one more knows about the world, the more sorrow he has. I always check the news in the morning, and usually the mix of good and bad is balanced enough to start my day off reasonably well. Not this morning, however. As I browsed my regular web sites, I ran into the following items. My day is not starting off well. This is your fault, Adam...
1) A two minute video from the National Guard, glorifying war and exalting soliders to saintly, almost divine status.
2) A Palo Alto, California cop, bragging on Facebook on how if he killed law abiding citizens legally demonstrating their second amendment rights he'd get "two weeks off."
Note: The implication of course is police are above the law and will be exonerated for any crime. This was one of the "injuries" Jefferson spoke about in the Declaration of Independence: "For protecting (the King's armed men), by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states..."
3) Attacks on Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina from both the left (Chris Matthews on MSNBC labeled her a racist) and the right (Glenn Beck made her out to be a conspiracy theorist nutcase on his radio show).
Note: Debra Medina has exploded from 4% to 24% in the polls. This has sent the establishment into panic mode. They are scared to death of Medina, and have set their nefarious propaganda machine in motion. This is obvious because 1) the attacks came on the same day, just after the poll was released, 2) the attacks came from both sides of the single Republicrat coin, and 3) both of these charges were made with prevarication--deliberately made with the explicit knowledge that what was being charged was not in fact true. And then both hosts marginalized and laughed about her--this candidate the Houston Chronicle called "the only adult in the room" after the first gubernatorial debate.
There is a war on for the minds and souls of men. This morning I felt we were losing ground. So I'm not feeling so well.
How's your day going?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
U.S. Abandons NAIS!
*
In what appears to be great news, the USDA has apparently given up on their attempt to implement the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). You can find the official announcement here:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/
Although some people are suspicious of a bait and switch, it really looks like family farms will be safe. Click on the link to Questions and Answers from the above page to learn more.
Thank God for this great victory.
In what appears to be great news, the USDA has apparently given up on their attempt to implement the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). You can find the official announcement here:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/
Although some people are suspicious of a bait and switch, it really looks like family farms will be safe. Click on the link to Questions and Answers from the above page to learn more.
Thank God for this great victory.
The End of Western Civilization
_
Western civilization is at a crossroads. Its very existence is at stake. Our way of life, our freedom of speech, religion, association, self-defense, etc. are threatened permanently. What happens, predominantly in the United States, in the next few years will determine whether liberty will continue or fail at its grand experiment.
To the average person such comments might seem ludicrous. Barack Obama accepts a Nobel Peace Prize and proclaims "a vision of liberty" for the world. Hollywood continues to crank out its blockbusters. The NFL plays their games religiously every Sunday. The sixth generation of the iPod hits the shelves. If anything, Western civilization appears to be stronger than ever.
So why do I contend it's all about to end? Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) was an eminent historian and researcher on the history of civilizations. He was also an insider and proponent of one-world government, who wrote openly of his first hand knowledge of the Round Table groups, Council on Foreign Relations and the "Shadow Government" of elites that pulls the strings behind supposedly free societies (see Tragedy and Hope, 1966).
Quigley may have been on the globalist team, but he appears to have been an excellent historian and honest broker of his knowledge. One of his most important works was his 1961 book, "The Evolution of Civilizations." In the book, after defining exactly what civilizations are and how they ascend to the title, he notes a particular pattern, or set of phases, that all civilizations have empirically passed through in their journey from inception to dissolution.
These phases are:
1) Mixture
2) Gestation
3) Expansion
4) Conflict
5) Universal Empire
6) Decay
7) Invasion
For brevity's sake I will give slight comment on only the last of these phases. The good news, and the purpose of this post, is that the phases do not have to be irreversably consecutive.
In fact, Quigley asserts that Western Civilization has proceeded beyond, and back to, phase 3, or Expansion, three times. The "instrument of expansion" has been feudalism (about 970-1270), commercial capitalism (about 1420-1650) and industrial capitalism (about 1725-1929). However, he then states that industrial capitalism had become institutionalized by 1930 as monopoly capitalism, and Western civilization entered, "for the third time... a major era of crisis."
He then describes the phase of conflict as a period of imperialist wars, encouraged by a public that has lost vested interest in the existing institution of expansion:
"Unable to get ahead by other means (such as economic means), they seek to get ahead by political action, above all by taking wealth from their political neighbors. At the same time they turn to irrationality to compensate for the growing insecurity of life... This is generally a period of gambling, use of narcotics or intoxicants, obsession with sex (frequently as perversion), increasing crime, growing numbers of neurotics and psychotics, growing obsession with death and with the Hereafter." pg 152.
Sounds like a pretty good description of the world from 1930-1990. Yet civilizations can and do "reform" and can pass back to phase 3. But if not, they pass on to phase 5, or Universal Empire. Interestingly, Quigley had this to say (in 1961, remember):
"... we may continue in the Age of Conflict until the whole of our civilization comes to be dominated by a single state (probably the United States)." pg 154.
Quigley describes Universal Empire as having these attributes:
"Little real economic expansion is possible because no real instrument of expansion exists... The vested interests have triumphed and are living off their capital, building unproductive and blantant monuments ... The masses of the people in such an empire live from the waste of these non-productive expenditures. The golden age is really the glow of overripeness, and soon decline begins."
On phase 6, Decay:
"The Stage of Decay is a period of acute economic depression, declining standards of living, civil wars between the various vested interests, and growing illiteracy. The society grows weaker and weaker. Vain efforts are made to stop the wastage by legislation. But the deline continues."
And phase 7, Invasion:
"...the Stage of Invasion, when the civilization, no longer able to defend itself because it is no longer willing to defend itself, lies wide open to 'barbarian invaders.'"
I believe today we have moved into Phase 6 in the evolution of Western civilization. The United States has acheived Universal Empire and is now in decay. The emminence and prosperity of the US-led West is an illusion, the "glow of overripeness." Washington D.C.'s "vision of liberty" is nothing more than newspeak. Slavery is freedom. How could it be anything else when while giving lipservice to liberty he is systematically dismantling the Bill of Rights at home?
Where do we go from here? Unless something dramatic happens, we are destined to move quickly through phase 6 and into phase 7, taking the entire West with us. This may indeed be what Quigley and his ilk, certainly understanding this, want. But it's not what I want.
I began by saying Western civilization was at a crossroads. I say this with dead seriousness. It is certainly harder to go from phase 6 all the way back to phase 3 than from phase 4 to phase 3, but I feel it can, it must be done. If it is not, we will slide into a new Dark Age of slavery and opression.
I feel that with restored liberties, an abandonment of Universal Empire, and as an economic instrument of expansion true, free-market capitalism we can get there. But it will not happen by "adjusting leadership" from Republican to Democrat, the two parties sharing a bucket to hell. Barack Obama is George Bush with a nice tan. It will only happen by a radical, revolutionary change in our direction.
It will only happen if the freedom movement grows and takes back the reigns of our nation, and our civilization.
Western civilization is at a crossroads. Its very existence is at stake. Our way of life, our freedom of speech, religion, association, self-defense, etc. are threatened permanently. What happens, predominantly in the United States, in the next few years will determine whether liberty will continue or fail at its grand experiment.
To the average person such comments might seem ludicrous. Barack Obama accepts a Nobel Peace Prize and proclaims "a vision of liberty" for the world. Hollywood continues to crank out its blockbusters. The NFL plays their games religiously every Sunday. The sixth generation of the iPod hits the shelves. If anything, Western civilization appears to be stronger than ever.
So why do I contend it's all about to end? Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) was an eminent historian and researcher on the history of civilizations. He was also an insider and proponent of one-world government, who wrote openly of his first hand knowledge of the Round Table groups, Council on Foreign Relations and the "Shadow Government" of elites that pulls the strings behind supposedly free societies (see Tragedy and Hope, 1966).
Quigley may have been on the globalist team, but he appears to have been an excellent historian and honest broker of his knowledge. One of his most important works was his 1961 book, "The Evolution of Civilizations." In the book, after defining exactly what civilizations are and how they ascend to the title, he notes a particular pattern, or set of phases, that all civilizations have empirically passed through in their journey from inception to dissolution.
These phases are:
1) Mixture
2) Gestation
3) Expansion
4) Conflict
5) Universal Empire
6) Decay
7) Invasion
For brevity's sake I will give slight comment on only the last of these phases. The good news, and the purpose of this post, is that the phases do not have to be irreversably consecutive.
In fact, Quigley asserts that Western Civilization has proceeded beyond, and back to, phase 3, or Expansion, three times. The "instrument of expansion" has been feudalism (about 970-1270), commercial capitalism (about 1420-1650) and industrial capitalism (about 1725-1929). However, he then states that industrial capitalism had become institutionalized by 1930 as monopoly capitalism, and Western civilization entered, "for the third time... a major era of crisis."
He then describes the phase of conflict as a period of imperialist wars, encouraged by a public that has lost vested interest in the existing institution of expansion:
"Unable to get ahead by other means (such as economic means), they seek to get ahead by political action, above all by taking wealth from their political neighbors. At the same time they turn to irrationality to compensate for the growing insecurity of life... This is generally a period of gambling, use of narcotics or intoxicants, obsession with sex (frequently as perversion), increasing crime, growing numbers of neurotics and psychotics, growing obsession with death and with the Hereafter." pg 152.
Sounds like a pretty good description of the world from 1930-1990. Yet civilizations can and do "reform" and can pass back to phase 3. But if not, they pass on to phase 5, or Universal Empire. Interestingly, Quigley had this to say (in 1961, remember):
"... we may continue in the Age of Conflict until the whole of our civilization comes to be dominated by a single state (probably the United States)." pg 154.
Quigley describes Universal Empire as having these attributes:
"Little real economic expansion is possible because no real instrument of expansion exists... The vested interests have triumphed and are living off their capital, building unproductive and blantant monuments ... The masses of the people in such an empire live from the waste of these non-productive expenditures. The golden age is really the glow of overripeness, and soon decline begins."
On phase 6, Decay:
"The Stage of Decay is a period of acute economic depression, declining standards of living, civil wars between the various vested interests, and growing illiteracy. The society grows weaker and weaker. Vain efforts are made to stop the wastage by legislation. But the deline continues."
And phase 7, Invasion:
"...the Stage of Invasion, when the civilization, no longer able to defend itself because it is no longer willing to defend itself, lies wide open to 'barbarian invaders.'"
I believe today we have moved into Phase 6 in the evolution of Western civilization. The United States has acheived Universal Empire and is now in decay. The emminence and prosperity of the US-led West is an illusion, the "glow of overripeness." Washington D.C.'s "vision of liberty" is nothing more than newspeak. Slavery is freedom. How could it be anything else when while giving lipservice to liberty he is systematically dismantling the Bill of Rights at home?
Where do we go from here? Unless something dramatic happens, we are destined to move quickly through phase 6 and into phase 7, taking the entire West with us. This may indeed be what Quigley and his ilk, certainly understanding this, want. But it's not what I want.
I began by saying Western civilization was at a crossroads. I say this with dead seriousness. It is certainly harder to go from phase 6 all the way back to phase 3 than from phase 4 to phase 3, but I feel it can, it must be done. If it is not, we will slide into a new Dark Age of slavery and opression.
I feel that with restored liberties, an abandonment of Universal Empire, and as an economic instrument of expansion true, free-market capitalism we can get there. But it will not happen by "adjusting leadership" from Republican to Democrat, the two parties sharing a bucket to hell. Barack Obama is George Bush with a nice tan. It will only happen by a radical, revolutionary change in our direction.
It will only happen if the freedom movement grows and takes back the reigns of our nation, and our civilization.
Arrogance, Hypocricy, Reciprocity, and the Golden Rule
_
"Be not deceived. God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7
The war party is asking for trouble.
The verse above from the Bible is far more than just a religious nicety. It reflects an immutable natural law. Evidence of this is that similar expressions appear in other religions, and from secular sources, as well as science itself. No one can deny that if you sow a kernel of corn, the plant that breaks through the soil will absolutely be a corn plant, not a watermelon, nor a hawk nor a handsaw.
One cannot say 'I am planting corn because I want to produce wheat for all.' Yet this is exactly what the war party is saying when it pushes pre-emptive wars in the name of global freedom and peace. They contend that planting a little war today will harvest a lot of peace tomorrow.
But it will not. And it can not. If the authors of pre-emptive war believe they are so righteous and so important they can change the rules of the universe, they are in for a rude, and devastating, awakening.
So the question is, what will the doctrines of the war party harvest? The answers are too bitter to swallow, so the current regime pretends they don't exist. They clasp their hands over their ears, shut their eyes tight, and hum at high volume. However, ignoring the answers will not change them.
If it is acceptable to torture an "enemy combatant" because he might have information that will save American lives, it is acceptable for the enemy to torture American soldiers for information helpful to the enemy cause. The war party today is planting the seeds of the horrifying pain and suffering of American soldiers in the future. Thanks, guys, you really support our troops.
If it is acceptable to cut off food and essentials through sanctions and account seizures, causing millions of innocents in other countries to suffer, starve, and die from illness and hunger, it is acceptable for future enemies to cut off food and essentials to American children. Sorry, thinking we're the "good guys" so we're immune from natural law doesn't cut it by any measure.
If it is acceptable to launch a pre-emptive war against a country that might do something bad in the future, it is also acceptable to have a pre-emptive war launched against the United States, by say, China, a decade or two from now, because America might do something "bad" to China. The only requirement is military strength, which China is rapidly acquiring.
Unfortunately, if a single kernel of corn is planted, the harvest does not consist of a single kernal of corn. It is multiplied exponentially, multiple ears with hundreds of kernels. Therefore one more Bible verse, representing yet another natural law, sheds light on our future, if we do not change our course soon:
"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." Hosea 8:7
The harvest of our present evil will return to us greater evil. (Hands to ears, eyes closed! Start humming now!)
Neither does any claim of God being "on our side" negate the natural law. From the same chapter in Hosea, a claim of "knowing God" is made:
"They cry out to Me, "My God, we (of the war party) know Thee!" (verse 2)
But it simply cannot be. Iif that were true, they would have followed the natural law!
"Though I wrote for him ten thousand precepts of My law, they are regarded as a strange thing." (verse 12)
And so the corn comes up, and the harvest is... corn. In abundance. (Religion helpful, but not required.)
So what should we as a nation be sowing, if we want peace and freedom for ourselves and our neighbors? I have an idea. How about... peace and freedom?
"But... but... but... terrorists are bad!" Yes, and this changes natural law how?
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
"Be not deceived. God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7
The war party is asking for trouble.
The verse above from the Bible is far more than just a religious nicety. It reflects an immutable natural law. Evidence of this is that similar expressions appear in other religions, and from secular sources, as well as science itself. No one can deny that if you sow a kernel of corn, the plant that breaks through the soil will absolutely be a corn plant, not a watermelon, nor a hawk nor a handsaw.
One cannot say 'I am planting corn because I want to produce wheat for all.' Yet this is exactly what the war party is saying when it pushes pre-emptive wars in the name of global freedom and peace. They contend that planting a little war today will harvest a lot of peace tomorrow.
But it will not. And it can not. If the authors of pre-emptive war believe they are so righteous and so important they can change the rules of the universe, they are in for a rude, and devastating, awakening.
So the question is, what will the doctrines of the war party harvest? The answers are too bitter to swallow, so the current regime pretends they don't exist. They clasp their hands over their ears, shut their eyes tight, and hum at high volume. However, ignoring the answers will not change them.
If it is acceptable to torture an "enemy combatant" because he might have information that will save American lives, it is acceptable for the enemy to torture American soldiers for information helpful to the enemy cause. The war party today is planting the seeds of the horrifying pain and suffering of American soldiers in the future. Thanks, guys, you really support our troops.
If it is acceptable to cut off food and essentials through sanctions and account seizures, causing millions of innocents in other countries to suffer, starve, and die from illness and hunger, it is acceptable for future enemies to cut off food and essentials to American children. Sorry, thinking we're the "good guys" so we're immune from natural law doesn't cut it by any measure.
If it is acceptable to launch a pre-emptive war against a country that might do something bad in the future, it is also acceptable to have a pre-emptive war launched against the United States, by say, China, a decade or two from now, because America might do something "bad" to China. The only requirement is military strength, which China is rapidly acquiring.
Unfortunately, if a single kernel of corn is planted, the harvest does not consist of a single kernal of corn. It is multiplied exponentially, multiple ears with hundreds of kernels. Therefore one more Bible verse, representing yet another natural law, sheds light on our future, if we do not change our course soon:
"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." Hosea 8:7
The harvest of our present evil will return to us greater evil. (Hands to ears, eyes closed! Start humming now!)
Neither does any claim of God being "on our side" negate the natural law. From the same chapter in Hosea, a claim of "knowing God" is made:
"They cry out to Me, "My God, we (of the war party) know Thee!" (verse 2)
But it simply cannot be. Iif that were true, they would have followed the natural law!
"Though I wrote for him ten thousand precepts of My law, they are regarded as a strange thing." (verse 12)
And so the corn comes up, and the harvest is... corn. In abundance. (Religion helpful, but not required.)
So what should we as a nation be sowing, if we want peace and freedom for ourselves and our neighbors? I have an idea. How about... peace and freedom?
"But... but... but... terrorists are bad!" Yes, and this changes natural law how?
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
More On Thomas Jefferson
_
Here is an excerpt from an old blog I used to write:
Thomas Jefferson was so adamant about religious freedom that he chose to include his contribution to it on his headstone. I have visited Monticello and have seen it with my own eyes:
“...author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father of the University of Virginia”
Note that he thought little of his 8 years as President. The opening of the Virginia statue begins thus:
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do...
He compared attempts to coerce the human mind into one belief set or another to tyranny. At the same time, after being elected president he attended church services inside the House of Representatives. To many this may be contradictory, but it is not. It is an expression of his true belief in religious freedom.
Jefferson was reviled by the religious right of his day as being a sinner and an infidel. But it was a huge error. They confused his tolerance of other beliefs, or no beliefs, based on the concept that God had created man as a free being, with an endorsement of sin.
Likewise, I've seen atheists quote Jefferson many times in justification of their own attacks on religion. They count him in "their camp" in disparaging Christians. Jefferson would be appalled with such behavior, and based on his words above and in many other of his writings, he was a man of personal faith. But his public tolerance rained judgement upon him in his day, and misinterpretations of his faith in ours.
Here is an excerpt from an old blog I used to write:
Thomas Jefferson was so adamant about religious freedom that he chose to include his contribution to it on his headstone. I have visited Monticello and have seen it with my own eyes:
“...author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father of the University of Virginia”
Note that he thought little of his 8 years as President. The opening of the Virginia statue begins thus:
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do...
He compared attempts to coerce the human mind into one belief set or another to tyranny. At the same time, after being elected president he attended church services inside the House of Representatives. To many this may be contradictory, but it is not. It is an expression of his true belief in religious freedom.
Jefferson was reviled by the religious right of his day as being a sinner and an infidel. But it was a huge error. They confused his tolerance of other beliefs, or no beliefs, based on the concept that God had created man as a free being, with an endorsement of sin.
Likewise, I've seen atheists quote Jefferson many times in justification of their own attacks on religion. They count him in "their camp" in disparaging Christians. Jefferson would be appalled with such behavior, and based on his words above and in many other of his writings, he was a man of personal faith. But his public tolerance rained judgement upon him in his day, and misinterpretations of his faith in ours.
Gold Mine
I was at the birthday party of an old friend last night, who showed me an amazing book that I want to recommend to everyone who feels some affinity with the subjects presented here. The name and subtitle of the book are:
America's God And Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations
Highlighting America's Noble Heritage - Profound Quotes From Founding Fathers, Presidents, Statesmen, Scientists, Court Decisions - For Use In Speeches, Papers, Debates, Essays
I opened the book to a random page and found the following quote from Thomas Jefferson (Emphasis mine):
“My views...are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others."
Of course you can buy the book yourself, but I've just ordered it, and if you hang around here long enough, I'm pretty sure you'll get some of the best quotations.
Monday, February 1, 2010
29 American Soldiers Died In Afghanistan in January
_
For what?
What is the objective? What is the success criteria? What is the exit strategy?
Hey, hey O-bomb-A, how many kids did you kill today?
For what?
What is the objective? What is the success criteria? What is the exit strategy?
Hey, hey O-bomb-A, how many kids did you kill today?
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Working Within The System?
_
I couldn't have said it better myself, so here's a link to an article titled "Professional Party Pooper." It's a brief article that talks about the futility of trying to change the system through the political/electoral process. Please give it a read:
http://www.larkenrose.com/blogs/tmds-blog/1976.html
I couldn't have said it better myself, so here's a link to an article titled "Professional Party Pooper." It's a brief article that talks about the futility of trying to change the system through the political/electoral process. Please give it a read:
http://www.larkenrose.com/blogs/tmds-blog/1976.html
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama Fights Two Wars, Bombs Two Other Countries, Increases Spending On Nuclear Weapons, and Prepares for War With Iran
_
Rescue me, O Lord, from evil men; protect me from men of violence, who devise evil plans in their hearts and stir up war every day. Psalms 140:1-2
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the Sons of God. Matthew 5:9
Remember in May, 2003, when Deputy Destruction Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair that we could now "remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia," because our "presence there over the last 12 years (now 19 years) has been a source of enormous difficulty" for the Saudi government? Translation: because we're in Saudi Arabia, we are seen as an infidel occupying holy soil, prompting terrorist attacks against both the Saudis and us.
Well, apparently "almost all" meant leaving only 10,000 troops, which Hypocrite in Chief Obama has now announced will be trebled, to 30,000. And he has sent the message he is preparing for war with Iran, and/or with its proxies, Hizballah and Hamas.
Read it here at the Debka file website:
http://www.debka.com/article/8573/
Here's how it works, folks:
1) The U.S. kills thousands (euphemistically called collateral damage) to eliminate tens of terrorists
2) The outrage causes hundreds of terrorists to be recruited and attempt more terrorist acts
3) The U.S. takes away domestic freedoms to insure "security"
4) The U.S. takes your money, or borrows it, or prints it, to build weapons, and takes your sons and daughters to die on foreign soil. So-called "Christians" cheer them on.
5) Defense contractors and private military forces get rich
6) The U.S. kills hundreds of thousands (more collateral damage!) to eliminate hundreds of terrorists
7) The outrage causes thousands of terrorists to be recruited and attempt more terrorist acts
8) The U.S. takes away more domestic freedoms to insure "security"
9) The U.S. takes more of your money, or borrows it, or prints it, to build weapons, and takes more of your sons and daughters to die on foreign soil. So-called "Christians" want more and more blood
10) Defense contractors and private military forces get much richer, kill indisriminately, rape women, foreign and domestic
11) The U.S. kills... oh, you get the picture. Lather, rinse, repeat...
Rescue me, O Lord, from evil men; protect me from men of violence, who devise evil plans in their hearts and stir up war every day. Psalms 140:1-2
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the Sons of God. Matthew 5:9
Remember in May, 2003, when Deputy Destruction Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair that we could now "remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia," because our "presence there over the last 12 years (now 19 years) has been a source of enormous difficulty" for the Saudi government? Translation: because we're in Saudi Arabia, we are seen as an infidel occupying holy soil, prompting terrorist attacks against both the Saudis and us.
Well, apparently "almost all" meant leaving only 10,000 troops, which Hypocrite in Chief Obama has now announced will be trebled, to 30,000. And he has sent the message he is preparing for war with Iran, and/or with its proxies, Hizballah and Hamas.
Read it here at the Debka file website:
http://www.debka.com/article/8573/
Here's how it works, folks:
1) The U.S. kills thousands (euphemistically called collateral damage) to eliminate tens of terrorists
2) The outrage causes hundreds of terrorists to be recruited and attempt more terrorist acts
3) The U.S. takes away domestic freedoms to insure "security"
4) The U.S. takes your money, or borrows it, or prints it, to build weapons, and takes your sons and daughters to die on foreign soil. So-called "Christians" cheer them on.
5) Defense contractors and private military forces get rich
6) The U.S. kills hundreds of thousands (more collateral damage!) to eliminate hundreds of terrorists
7) The outrage causes thousands of terrorists to be recruited and attempt more terrorist acts
8) The U.S. takes away more domestic freedoms to insure "security"
9) The U.S. takes more of your money, or borrows it, or prints it, to build weapons, and takes more of your sons and daughters to die on foreign soil. So-called "Christians" want more and more blood
10) Defense contractors and private military forces get much richer, kill indisriminately, rape women, foreign and domestic
11) The U.S. kills... oh, you get the picture. Lather, rinse, repeat...
Friday, January 29, 2010
Voluntaryism vs. Anarcho-Capitalism, State vs. Government
_
When perusing the internet one quickly finds a lot of labels and definition of terms in the realm of the subjects we discuss here. Some are insistent on precise definitions, almost to a fault, and seem to take semantic discussions to an "us vs. them" level.
One of these semantic controversies exists in and around the terms related to anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler"). There appear to be many flavors of anarchists, including social anarchists, who do not believe in private property. It is this group that most people think about when they hear the word anarchy, along with visions of masked rioters breaking shop windows and lighting fires.
Many social anarchists believe the term anarcho-capitalism borders on blasphemy, and insist that ancaps aren't anarchists at all. One finds many types of anarchists in cyberspace, but I would like to focus on just a few here. Since the orginal Greek word simply means "without ruler," I take the position that social anarchists can't have the word to themselves, and must share it with some of us more "open-minded" folk.
I accept the label "Anarcho-capitalist" because of Murray Rothbard and his contemporary followers. But most people don't fit neatly into categories, and that goes for me as well. There are a couple of other very close terms to which I identify as well. Therefore I'd like to take a moment to define a them here. I am reasonably happy being called any and all of them. Since I don't know of any definitive documents on the subject, my selective definitions provided herein are from Wikipedia:
Voluntaryism: a philosophy that opposes anything that it sees as unjustifiably invasive and coercive. Voluntaryism regards government as coercive, and calls for its abolishment, but, unlike a number of other anarchist philosophies, it supports strong property rights which it regards as a natural law that is compatible with non-coercion. The goal of voluntaryism is the supplantation of the state by a voluntary order, in which political authority is reverted to the individual, and association among people occurs only by mutual consent.
Anarcho-capitalism: an individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market... Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based in voluntary trade of private property (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) and services in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity, but also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic.
Minarchism: In civics, minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression. Minarchists defend the existence of the state as a necessary evil, but assert that it may only act to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual.
Of these, voluntaryism and anarcho-capitalism appear to be nearly synonomous. One argument for the preferred use of the term voluntaryism is that it carries with it entirely positive connotations, while the term anarcho-capitalist contains the base word anarchy, and therefore carries with it both positive and negative connotations. This is a valid if not earth-shaking argument, and I'd be happy to be called either.
Minarchism is a little different, as it acknowledges the state as a necessary evil, vs. an unnecessary evil to ancaps and voluntaryists. However, if we could have a true minarchist state, whose ONLY duty was protecting life, liberty and property, I could probably live with it. (As I stated in an earlier entry, compared to today, I would even welcome true constitutionalism and an intermediate step.)
Another semantic argument I have stumbled across is one that says that "state" and "government" are not the same thing. They maintain that the state is nothing more than institutionalized coercion, theft, and force. Surely I agree with this. However, they also claim that government does not have to be coercive, and that an association of people can create a government that truly serves the needs of its citizens. Here I'm not so sure--government implies being governed, and I believe government always tends over time to grow and become coercive, but I am willing to allow the word government to be used on the local level -- at the level of community where essentially everyone knows each other. In larger arenas "confederacy" (an association of sovereign states or communities) is as far as I'm willing to go.
If you want to split hairs, I am a Christian Voluntaryist who advocates the abolition of the State.
What are you?
When perusing the internet one quickly finds a lot of labels and definition of terms in the realm of the subjects we discuss here. Some are insistent on precise definitions, almost to a fault, and seem to take semantic discussions to an "us vs. them" level.
One of these semantic controversies exists in and around the terms related to anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler"). There appear to be many flavors of anarchists, including social anarchists, who do not believe in private property. It is this group that most people think about when they hear the word anarchy, along with visions of masked rioters breaking shop windows and lighting fires.
Many social anarchists believe the term anarcho-capitalism borders on blasphemy, and insist that ancaps aren't anarchists at all. One finds many types of anarchists in cyberspace, but I would like to focus on just a few here. Since the orginal Greek word simply means "without ruler," I take the position that social anarchists can't have the word to themselves, and must share it with some of us more "open-minded" folk.
I accept the label "Anarcho-capitalist" because of Murray Rothbard and his contemporary followers. But most people don't fit neatly into categories, and that goes for me as well. There are a couple of other very close terms to which I identify as well. Therefore I'd like to take a moment to define a them here. I am reasonably happy being called any and all of them. Since I don't know of any definitive documents on the subject, my selective definitions provided herein are from Wikipedia:
Voluntaryism: a philosophy that opposes anything that it sees as unjustifiably invasive and coercive. Voluntaryism regards government as coercive, and calls for its abolishment, but, unlike a number of other anarchist philosophies, it supports strong property rights which it regards as a natural law that is compatible with non-coercion. The goal of voluntaryism is the supplantation of the state by a voluntary order, in which political authority is reverted to the individual, and association among people occurs only by mutual consent.
Anarcho-capitalism: an individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market... Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based in voluntary trade of private property (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) and services in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity, but also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic.
Minarchism: In civics, minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression. Minarchists defend the existence of the state as a necessary evil, but assert that it may only act to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual.
Of these, voluntaryism and anarcho-capitalism appear to be nearly synonomous. One argument for the preferred use of the term voluntaryism is that it carries with it entirely positive connotations, while the term anarcho-capitalist contains the base word anarchy, and therefore carries with it both positive and negative connotations. This is a valid if not earth-shaking argument, and I'd be happy to be called either.
Minarchism is a little different, as it acknowledges the state as a necessary evil, vs. an unnecessary evil to ancaps and voluntaryists. However, if we could have a true minarchist state, whose ONLY duty was protecting life, liberty and property, I could probably live with it. (As I stated in an earlier entry, compared to today, I would even welcome true constitutionalism and an intermediate step.)
Another semantic argument I have stumbled across is one that says that "state" and "government" are not the same thing. They maintain that the state is nothing more than institutionalized coercion, theft, and force. Surely I agree with this. However, they also claim that government does not have to be coercive, and that an association of people can create a government that truly serves the needs of its citizens. Here I'm not so sure--government implies being governed, and I believe government always tends over time to grow and become coercive, but I am willing to allow the word government to be used on the local level -- at the level of community where essentially everyone knows each other. In larger arenas "confederacy" (an association of sovereign states or communities) is as far as I'm willing to go.
If you want to split hairs, I am a Christian Voluntaryist who advocates the abolition of the State.
What are you?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Please sir, may I have some more (freedom)? Part 3
Borrowing liberally from the Declaration of Independence (sometimes using its exact words) I want to make the case that the present US government is tyranical and must be altered or abolished. Therefore its citizens, as is also verbalized in that document, should give serious consideration to the position that...
******************
...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Concerning the executive branch of the federal government: The history of the present and most recent presidents of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states and their citizens. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
They have usurped power not granted by the Constitution and have exalted themselves above the Legislative and Judicial branches of government.
They have, in violation of the Constitution, ignored the legislative exclusivity of Congress, having created law through Executive Orders and Signing Statements.
They have wrongfully, whether through deliberate intent or negligence, allowed departments and agencies of the federal government to create regulation and law.
They have erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
They have created or allowed to exist unelected "Czars" to create despotic policies affecting all aspects of the daily lives of citizens.
They have continued to allow private bankers, acting in secret, to steal from the people the fruits of their labor through devaluation of the currency and increasing the money supply, creating price inflation.
Thus they have allowed the continued devaluation of the currency, creating money out of nothing, and fobidding the free exchange of goods and services between parties with any form of money which is not their fiat creation.
They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdictions foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving their assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For funding a military-industrial complex that profits through undeclared, undefined, and open-ended wars against whatever enemy they wish to designate, even when that entity poses no threat to the security of the United States.
For stripping rights from anyone they desire by ascribing the label "enemy combatant" :
For depriving them, in many cases, the right to habeus corpus:
For depriving them in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting them beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For torturing them to extract information that may or may not have any validity:
For spying on the American people or entering their property without warrants:
For gathering information about Americans illegally:
For allowing the seizure of property without due process of law, often without any charges being filed, and then without returning or providing compensation for that property.
For militarizing and federalizing local police forces to enforce their tyranny and extract revenue from citizens:
For denying freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in many instances:
For continuing the process of making the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution ineffectual:
For dictating to and procsecuting private citizens for how they transact business between themselves:
For dictating to and prosecuting citizens for what they do with their own physical bodies:
For forcing the people to pay for the sins and incompetency of others
Concerning the legislative branch of the federal government: They have colluded with the executive branch to injure the people with all of the above. They have ignored the enumerated consitutional limits on their authority and ability to make laws. They have abdicated their responsibility to declare war. They have abdicated their constitutional responsiblity to coin money from and control the weights and measures of gold and silver only as legal tender. They have become entirely corrupt, enriching themselves and special interests with the plundered treasure of the people.
Concerning the judicial branch of the federal government: They have colluded with the executive and legislative branches to injure the people with all of the above. They have become a political body mirroring the two major political parties, often making decisions based upon their personal political views rather than basing them on the original intent of the constitution.
All three branches have colluded to deny to the States the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government.
******************
And so much more! The situation is intolerable and must change. But sometimes our situation looks hopeless. What is to be done?
To be continued...
******************
...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Concerning the executive branch of the federal government: The history of the present and most recent presidents of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states and their citizens. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
They have usurped power not granted by the Constitution and have exalted themselves above the Legislative and Judicial branches of government.
They have, in violation of the Constitution, ignored the legislative exclusivity of Congress, having created law through Executive Orders and Signing Statements.
They have wrongfully, whether through deliberate intent or negligence, allowed departments and agencies of the federal government to create regulation and law.
They have erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
They have created or allowed to exist unelected "Czars" to create despotic policies affecting all aspects of the daily lives of citizens.
They have continued to allow private bankers, acting in secret, to steal from the people the fruits of their labor through devaluation of the currency and increasing the money supply, creating price inflation.
Thus they have allowed the continued devaluation of the currency, creating money out of nothing, and fobidding the free exchange of goods and services between parties with any form of money which is not their fiat creation.
They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdictions foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving their assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For funding a military-industrial complex that profits through undeclared, undefined, and open-ended wars against whatever enemy they wish to designate, even when that entity poses no threat to the security of the United States.
For stripping rights from anyone they desire by ascribing the label "enemy combatant" :
For depriving them, in many cases, the right to habeus corpus:
For depriving them in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting them beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For torturing them to extract information that may or may not have any validity:
For spying on the American people or entering their property without warrants:
For gathering information about Americans illegally:
For allowing the seizure of property without due process of law, often without any charges being filed, and then without returning or providing compensation for that property.
For militarizing and federalizing local police forces to enforce their tyranny and extract revenue from citizens:
For denying freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in many instances:
For continuing the process of making the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution ineffectual:
For dictating to and procsecuting private citizens for how they transact business between themselves:
For dictating to and prosecuting citizens for what they do with their own physical bodies:
For forcing the people to pay for the sins and incompetency of others
Concerning the legislative branch of the federal government: They have colluded with the executive branch to injure the people with all of the above. They have ignored the enumerated consitutional limits on their authority and ability to make laws. They have abdicated their responsibility to declare war. They have abdicated their constitutional responsiblity to coin money from and control the weights and measures of gold and silver only as legal tender. They have become entirely corrupt, enriching themselves and special interests with the plundered treasure of the people.
Concerning the judicial branch of the federal government: They have colluded with the executive and legislative branches to injure the people with all of the above. They have become a political body mirroring the two major political parties, often making decisions based upon their personal political views rather than basing them on the original intent of the constitution.
All three branches have colluded to deny to the States the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government.
******************
And so much more! The situation is intolerable and must change. But sometimes our situation looks hopeless. What is to be done?
To be continued...
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Your Government Is Evil -- Part 1
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights, and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people..." Isaiah 10:1-2
"The scoundrel's methods are wicked, he makes up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just..." Isaiah 32;7
"You trample on the poor, and force him to give you grain." Amos 5:11
*******************
I love the land called America. I love the American people. I would die to defend my neighbors' rights and liberty. But you have to forgive me if I refuse to wrap myself in an American flag and conflate my patriotism for support of a corrupt and evil... yes, evil... United States government.
I came across this item today that clearly illustrates how the US government relates perfectly with the scriptures above. This is yet another great evil forced upon the Iraqi people that almost no one has heard about. Listen to Wafaa' Al-Natheema, and then re-read the verses from Isaiah and Amos. I also urge you to look at the other articles on the Farm Wars webpage.
http://farmwars.info/?p=2296
Would that this be the only instance of such dealings. But they are legion--standard operating procedure of the corporatist/fascist empire the world over, and even at home. From the great movie "Food, Inc.":
And here is another evil--how the government colludes with Archer Daniels Midland to maximize profits and ruin your health:
http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2006/01/24/tariffs_and_subsidies_the_literal_cost_o
My business partner, who is from Jamaica, tells me that the Jamaican sugar industry was decimated and people were thrown into poverty when the sugar tariff went up. It was the same in other countries. But ADM partied like it was 1999!
More examples of the evil of your government in the production of food:
Evil...evil...evil... By the way, this is another example of how there is no free market. The free market gets blamed for many evils, when the blame actually lies at the foot of corporatism, the diametric opposite of free markets. You can't blame free markets because there are none.
Want to join me as an AnCap yet?
NOTE: This post is the first in a non-periodic series that I will continue when I find instances of the US government doing, well, evil. This first post is about food. This is only one area of many.
"The scoundrel's methods are wicked, he makes up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just..." Isaiah 32;7
"You trample on the poor, and force him to give you grain." Amos 5:11
*******************
I love the land called America. I love the American people. I would die to defend my neighbors' rights and liberty. But you have to forgive me if I refuse to wrap myself in an American flag and conflate my patriotism for support of a corrupt and evil... yes, evil... United States government.
I came across this item today that clearly illustrates how the US government relates perfectly with the scriptures above. This is yet another great evil forced upon the Iraqi people that almost no one has heard about. Listen to Wafaa' Al-Natheema, and then re-read the verses from Isaiah and Amos. I also urge you to look at the other articles on the Farm Wars webpage.
http://farmwars.info/?p=2296
Would that this be the only instance of such dealings. But they are legion--standard operating procedure of the corporatist/fascist empire the world over, and even at home. From the great movie "Food, Inc.":
And here is another evil--how the government colludes with Archer Daniels Midland to maximize profits and ruin your health:
http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2006/01/24/tariffs_and_subsidies_the_literal_cost_o
My business partner, who is from Jamaica, tells me that the Jamaican sugar industry was decimated and people were thrown into poverty when the sugar tariff went up. It was the same in other countries. But ADM partied like it was 1999!
More examples of the evil of your government in the production of food:
Evil...evil...evil... By the way, this is another example of how there is no free market. The free market gets blamed for many evils, when the blame actually lies at the foot of corporatism, the diametric opposite of free markets. You can't blame free markets because there are none.
Want to join me as an AnCap yet?
NOTE: This post is the first in a non-periodic series that I will continue when I find instances of the US government doing, well, evil. This first post is about food. This is only one area of many.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Excuse me while I throw up
I've read this morning several different articles describing how Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, and Democrats in general are becoming more "populist" in public after suffering defeat in Massachusetts. Does anyone other than me see this as anything more than political expediency by amoral politicians?
This is the flip-side of the Republican fascists becoming more populist in hijacking the Tea Parties. Barf.
This is the flip-side of the Republican fascists becoming more populist in hijacking the Tea Parties. Barf.
Please sir, may I have some more (freedom)? Part 2
In this series of posts am going to propose an idea that I believe has a chance to take root and change our circumstances with regard to the established powers and government. The idea is in its infancy, and like an infant, is not fully developed. That's where others come in (like you?) Together we can refine and create the strategy and tactics to get us where we want to go. Please bear with me, because this may take several posts to lay the foundation. But to begin:
Like-minded people who believe in liberty should begin working together to have their objectives realized in their own lifetimes.
This includes me, at the ripe young age of 53. I want liberty in my lifetime. I want to be able to pass liberty on to my children and grandchildren. If you're reading this I assume you want the same things. But right now, it seems an impossible dream, with little chance, short of a miracle, of happening.
As it is, we have many good, and a few great, but all mostly-disjointed groups trying to chip away at the rising tyranny in one way or another. As we have lost our freedom incrementally, we are doing our best to regain it incrementally. I have no quarrel with these efforts. I believe we should fight tyranny and oppression whenever and wherever we can. But I contend that the incremental approach will not bring us to our goal--certainly not in our own lifetimes.
Neither do I have any quarrel with those who want to "Restore the Republic" by returning the United States to its founding constitutional principles. Of course I would welcome that quality of life over the one we have at present any day of the week. I will befriend and support anyone who sets this as their objective. But even if that were possible, I think reality tells you that any constitution is unfortunately, as verbalized in the anecdotal story of George W. Bush, just a "damn piece of paper."
Although I would be much happier than today with a country that returned to honoring its constitution, I see nothing that would prevent the immediate erosion of the compact to begin anew. How long did it take Alexander Hamilton, under our first "constitutional" president, to create a central bank? How long did it take for our new nation, under its second "constitutional" president, to pass the Alien and Sedition Act?
So although I will not work against, and may even lend a hand occasionally, to those who want to "Restore the Republic", personally I am not content to stop there. Along with Patrick Henry, George Clinton and others, I believe the US Constitution gives the central government far too much power. I want decisions to be made at the most local level possible, and I would really appreciate it if even at the local level, my fellow Americans (a term based only on where we live) would be ever-vigilant against the tyranny of the majority and those who have an unwholesome desire for power.
Back to the idea of incremental freedom for a moment. It's a fine thing to want lovers of freedom in public office, as opposed to those who lust for power or are beholden to the banksters and corporate interests. It is certainly better in the context of a central government. But simply electing lovers of freedom to office as a means to our end has several serious drawbacks.
First, it is a very slow process, which, as with all incremental approaches, is subject to defeats as well as victories: two steps forward, one step back, one step forward, two steps back, etc. Let's face it, the majority of people in this country do not want to be free, and likely will never want to be free. They want to have a nanny to one degree or another. This will not change easily. Although the "freedom caucus" could become substantial and have occasionally profound influence, I don't think it would ever acquire the majority and really enact true reform. Therefore I don' think the electoral process can ever get us to where we want to be.
Case in point: even though the commedable "Free State Project" has been in open existence for several years, the overall effect on the political will of the people of New Hampshire has not been much affected. They still voted heavily for Obama (54.3%) and McCain (44.8%) in the 2008 election. Other candidates pulled in a mere 6,120 votes, a mere 0.9%.
That said, I think the Free State Project does have the kernel of a workable idea, which I will elaborate on in later posts.
The incremental electoral process is also open to charlatans and psychopaths masquerading as freedom-lovers. And finally, even if we get many liberty-minded people elected, this does nothing to negate Lord Acton's truism that "power tends to corrupt." Plus, even the idea of central government carries with it the implication that since power is centralized, control over others is centralized as well. Therefore it must be admitted that one who supports the incremental electoral process is giving their implicit consent to the legitimacy of a centralized government with centralized control.
If the incremental approach is highly unlikely to help us secure liberty in our lifetimes, we must look elsewhere.
To be continued...
Like-minded people who believe in liberty should begin working together to have their objectives realized in their own lifetimes.
This includes me, at the ripe young age of 53. I want liberty in my lifetime. I want to be able to pass liberty on to my children and grandchildren. If you're reading this I assume you want the same things. But right now, it seems an impossible dream, with little chance, short of a miracle, of happening.
As it is, we have many good, and a few great, but all mostly-disjointed groups trying to chip away at the rising tyranny in one way or another. As we have lost our freedom incrementally, we are doing our best to regain it incrementally. I have no quarrel with these efforts. I believe we should fight tyranny and oppression whenever and wherever we can. But I contend that the incremental approach will not bring us to our goal--certainly not in our own lifetimes.
Neither do I have any quarrel with those who want to "Restore the Republic" by returning the United States to its founding constitutional principles. Of course I would welcome that quality of life over the one we have at present any day of the week. I will befriend and support anyone who sets this as their objective. But even if that were possible, I think reality tells you that any constitution is unfortunately, as verbalized in the anecdotal story of George W. Bush, just a "damn piece of paper."
Although I would be much happier than today with a country that returned to honoring its constitution, I see nothing that would prevent the immediate erosion of the compact to begin anew. How long did it take Alexander Hamilton, under our first "constitutional" president, to create a central bank? How long did it take for our new nation, under its second "constitutional" president, to pass the Alien and Sedition Act?
So although I will not work against, and may even lend a hand occasionally, to those who want to "Restore the Republic", personally I am not content to stop there. Along with Patrick Henry, George Clinton and others, I believe the US Constitution gives the central government far too much power. I want decisions to be made at the most local level possible, and I would really appreciate it if even at the local level, my fellow Americans (a term based only on where we live) would be ever-vigilant against the tyranny of the majority and those who have an unwholesome desire for power.
Back to the idea of incremental freedom for a moment. It's a fine thing to want lovers of freedom in public office, as opposed to those who lust for power or are beholden to the banksters and corporate interests. It is certainly better in the context of a central government. But simply electing lovers of freedom to office as a means to our end has several serious drawbacks.
First, it is a very slow process, which, as with all incremental approaches, is subject to defeats as well as victories: two steps forward, one step back, one step forward, two steps back, etc. Let's face it, the majority of people in this country do not want to be free, and likely will never want to be free. They want to have a nanny to one degree or another. This will not change easily. Although the "freedom caucus" could become substantial and have occasionally profound influence, I don't think it would ever acquire the majority and really enact true reform. Therefore I don' think the electoral process can ever get us to where we want to be.
Case in point: even though the commedable "Free State Project" has been in open existence for several years, the overall effect on the political will of the people of New Hampshire has not been much affected. They still voted heavily for Obama (54.3%) and McCain (44.8%) in the 2008 election. Other candidates pulled in a mere 6,120 votes, a mere 0.9%.
That said, I think the Free State Project does have the kernel of a workable idea, which I will elaborate on in later posts.
The incremental electoral process is also open to charlatans and psychopaths masquerading as freedom-lovers. And finally, even if we get many liberty-minded people elected, this does nothing to negate Lord Acton's truism that "power tends to corrupt." Plus, even the idea of central government carries with it the implication that since power is centralized, control over others is centralized as well. Therefore it must be admitted that one who supports the incremental electoral process is giving their implicit consent to the legitimacy of a centralized government with centralized control.
If the incremental approach is highly unlikely to help us secure liberty in our lifetimes, we must look elsewhere.
To be continued...
Friday, January 22, 2010
Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?) Part 1
I cringe everytime I hear some Joe Sixpack or soccer mom say something like "we all have to thank our armed services for defending our freedom." Putting aside for the moment the fact that bombing or occupying countries that pose no threat to the United States is not defending freedom, but rather carrying out some political/corporate agenda, I contend that we have precious little freedom left to defend.
Americans are no longer free. We have lost the last vestiges of anything resembling freedom in the 21st century, and lost most of what we did have in the 20th. For those who would disagree, I ask, "In exactly what areas of our lives are we not taxed, regulated, watched, or otherwise coerced ? I love this quote from Pierre Joseph Proudhon:
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place(d) under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored."
Every single area of our lives is regulated. Think you are free even to go to the bathroom? By federal edict we can have no more than 1.6 gallons of water in our toilets. You are not "free" to do anything. Even something you supposely own, like your house and the land that is on it, is subject to myriad regulations, taxes and fees. Just try not paying your property taxes and see if "your" property is really yours.
Some may say we are free to vote, and create clever arguments for how failing to vote leads to our current predicament. But this is an absurdity when it is quite obvious the same establishment offers you two preselected "choices" from their own ranks, and makes it nearly impossible for anyone not in these two parties to be elected. Elections, especially federal elections, are nothing more than cynical diversions designed to create the illusion of choice, while ensuring the status quo will not be threatened.
(Note: I remember reading in 1999 that our choices in the 2000 election would be George W. Bush and Al Gore. The article said it was already a foregone conclusion, before even a single vote had been cast).
In the past couple of years many in America have been waking up. People are realizing that the government is not their servant, but rather seeks ownership and control over everything they do and everything they are. It reminds me of a story in Jewish folklore about an entity called the 'golem.' The golem is a creation of man, a statue molded from earth, which comes to life and can speak. In one version of the story, on the first day it calls its creator "My master;" on the second "My friend;" and on the third, "My servant."
Our creation called government has long since ceased calling us Master. By the simple act of being born, we are required to be numbered, taxed, conscripted and controlled. The fruits of our labor are stolen at the threat of imprisonment. Resistance in any form is met with violence. We are not free. And we are dilusional if we think we are.
Next time I will begin to talk about what we should do about it. Until then, be free within!
Americans are no longer free. We have lost the last vestiges of anything resembling freedom in the 21st century, and lost most of what we did have in the 20th. For those who would disagree, I ask, "In exactly what areas of our lives are we not taxed, regulated, watched, or otherwise coerced ? I love this quote from Pierre Joseph Proudhon:
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place(d) under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored."
Every single area of our lives is regulated. Think you are free even to go to the bathroom? By federal edict we can have no more than 1.6 gallons of water in our toilets. You are not "free" to do anything. Even something you supposely own, like your house and the land that is on it, is subject to myriad regulations, taxes and fees. Just try not paying your property taxes and see if "your" property is really yours.
Some may say we are free to vote, and create clever arguments for how failing to vote leads to our current predicament. But this is an absurdity when it is quite obvious the same establishment offers you two preselected "choices" from their own ranks, and makes it nearly impossible for anyone not in these two parties to be elected. Elections, especially federal elections, are nothing more than cynical diversions designed to create the illusion of choice, while ensuring the status quo will not be threatened.
(Note: I remember reading in 1999 that our choices in the 2000 election would be George W. Bush and Al Gore. The article said it was already a foregone conclusion, before even a single vote had been cast).
In the past couple of years many in America have been waking up. People are realizing that the government is not their servant, but rather seeks ownership and control over everything they do and everything they are. It reminds me of a story in Jewish folklore about an entity called the 'golem.' The golem is a creation of man, a statue molded from earth, which comes to life and can speak. In one version of the story, on the first day it calls its creator "My master;" on the second "My friend;" and on the third, "My servant."
Our creation called government has long since ceased calling us Master. By the simple act of being born, we are required to be numbered, taxed, conscripted and controlled. The fruits of our labor are stolen at the threat of imprisonment. Resistance in any form is met with violence. We are not free. And we are dilusional if we think we are.
Next time I will begin to talk about what we should do about it. Until then, be free within!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
One quarter of the way through "Change We Can Believe In"
On the one-year anniversary of Obama's "historic" inaguration, let's take stock... Perpetual war, bailouts, crony corporatism, the rise of the police state. Yep, that's real change from the Bush 43 administration, no? Oh, no, it's not. Nothing's changed at all.
Related to this and my earlier post about the Tea Party, I notice that CFR member Newt Gingrich has a new book out titled "Real Change." Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ight. Is the American public as stupid as they think we are? I sure hope not.
We need to start shouting that the Old Emperor, the Present Emperor, and the would-be future emperors of "Change" are all running around buck naked. How about we chuck all the Emperors, and let the people rule themselves for a CHANGE?
Come Into My Parlor, Said The Spider to the Fly
So Scott Brown wins Ted Kennedy's seat, and the press trumpets a new "Republican revolution." Well, I smell a rat.
Brown talks about his mentor, John McCain, and a Drudge Report headline asks, "Now, will he run for president?" He credits his win on (note the order) "talking about terror, taxes, and health care." What is exactly new and different about Scott Brown? He's more of the same, apparently being groomed for the national stage, deceptively being called an "outsider." People, please don't take the bait.
The so-called "Tea Party", a term stolen in broad daylight from the genuinely revolutionary Ron Paul campaign, now won't even let Paul's Campaign for Liberty put up booths at their "convention." Both Brown's "Republican revolution" and the Tea Party are a giant cons, aimed at diverting the anger of voters who might opt for true liberty to instead funnel it into supporting Republican Party 1, the old GOP, or Republican Party 2, the Tea Party. This is a blatant and cynical attempt to kill the liberty movement.
Now the same coin has 3 sides! Don't drink the Republicrat Tea. It's laced with cyanide.
Brown talks about his mentor, John McCain, and a Drudge Report headline asks, "Now, will he run for president?" He credits his win on (note the order) "talking about terror, taxes, and health care." What is exactly new and different about Scott Brown? He's more of the same, apparently being groomed for the national stage, deceptively being called an "outsider." People, please don't take the bait.
The so-called "Tea Party", a term stolen in broad daylight from the genuinely revolutionary Ron Paul campaign, now won't even let Paul's Campaign for Liberty put up booths at their "convention." Both Brown's "Republican revolution" and the Tea Party are a giant cons, aimed at diverting the anger of voters who might opt for true liberty to instead funnel it into supporting Republican Party 1, the old GOP, or Republican Party 2, the Tea Party. This is a blatant and cynical attempt to kill the liberty movement.
Now the same coin has 3 sides! Don't drink the Republicrat Tea. It's laced with cyanide.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Government? I don't need no stinking government!
I'll try to make this first post as brief as I can. My personal journey is of minimal importance, but I wanted to share a bit of it so you know where I'm coming from.
For the longest time, I couldn't figure out who I was -- politically, I mean. I was emboiled in a constant conflict, sometimes agreeing with points from the left, and often agreeing with points from the right. I would vote for politicians of both major parties, and proudly considered myself an Independent. It wasn't very satisfying, but it was the best I could do at the time.
As I grew older, I tended toward the conservative side, yet was still uncomfortable enough with the Bushes, Doles, and McCains to not identify with the Republicans. I had a really bad feeling about the events leading into the Iraq War, and never bought into the idea that if I didn't side 100% with the War Party, I was unpatriotic at best, and "with the terrorists" at worst.
Although I have been a lifelong believer in Jesus Christ, I have also been uncomfortable with the so-called "Christian Right" from the beginning. I do not equate Republicans as good and Democrats as evil, or vice versa. (To be honest I think they're both evil). I do not see how worshipping the military and the killing of Muslim civilians aligns with true Christian faith in any way. Neither do I see how being a Christian means that I must believe whatever the Israeli government does is right, or that any criticism of them (or oppostion to foreign aid) is wrong.
Neither do I believe that Islam is a religion of violence, or that all Muslims are terrorists. I have friends in the Middle East who are Muslims, and they are some of the kindest, most generous, most hospitable and funny! people I have ever met.
In 2006 I subscibed to the daily newsletter from the Mises Institute. I felt myself being drawn in that direction. One of their articles was written by a US Congressman by the name of Ron Paul. I couldn't believe what I was reading. Where did this guy come from? Why hadn't I heard of him before? He seemed to me like the first breath of fresh air after being trapped in a garage full of fumes. I Googled him and watched some of his speeches on the House floor. I was staggered. How can a politician be so honest, or so consistently saying the things that deep down in my heart I really believed?
This guy was a constitutionalist, and said we'd all be much better off if we just followed that document. I was totally on board. I gave money and campaigned for Ron Paul in the 2008 presidential election. I also wanted to be a champion of the constitution, and return our government to its constitutional limits. This was the first time I felt good about my personal politics, and I thought I had found the political philosophy that would last me the rest of my life. But even that didn't last.
About a year ago I decided I was no longer a constitutionalist, but in fact I was an anarcho-capitalist. My epiphany came when I read somewhere the proclaimations of someone who had made the transition before me. I'm sorry I can't recall who said this, I'd like to give him credit. When I read them, it was like a floodlight went on in my mind, heart and soul. But here is a paraphrase of (and expansion on) his words:
I don't need a Mayor
I don't need a Director of Parks and Recreation
I don't need a County Executive or County Commissioner
I don't need a state Representative or Senator
I don't need a Governor
I don't need a Federal Congressman or Senator
I don't need a Department of Education
I don't need a Department of Homeland Security
I don't need a Department of Transportation
I don't need a Department of Commerce
I don't need any "Czars" of anything
I especially don't need a President to "run" my country
That did it for me. After more than half a century not knowing who I truly was, I finally had the answer. All I need is my family, my faith, and my property. I will do you no harm if you will do me no harm. We can live together in peace as free persons, regardless of our race, religion or custom. I will call you friend if you embrace and defend my freedom. Likewise I will embrace and defend yours. Any contentions between people or matters of collective importance should be handled at the most local level possible.
I am confident now that I am "home", and there will be no more uncertainty and internal conflict in my political self.
Now an article by syndicated columnist Joe Sobran (find it here) has inspired me to start a new blog to promote the cause of anarcho-capitalism (definition here), delivered from a Christian perspective (see note below).
Please read the article for yourself, but here are a couple of snippets that stood out to me and reflect my feelings exactly:
(Hans-Hermann Hoppe) "argued that no constitution could restrain the state. Once its monopoly of force was granted legitimacy, constitutional limits became mere fictions it could disregard; nobody could have the legal standing to enforce those limits. The state itself would decide, by force, what the constitution "meant," steadily ruling in its own favor and increasing its own power. This was true a priori, and American history bore it out."
and...
"In short, the US Constitution is a dead letter. It was mortally wounded in 1865. The corpse can't be revived. This remained hard for me to admit, and even now it pains me to say it."
I have come to the same conclusion. The US Constitution does not work and can not restrain the Leviathan. So I have followed a similar but more convoluted path to anarcho-capitalism than Joe Sobran.
But we have arrived at the same place. Join me as I comment on these things and more. I hope you enjoy the journey.
Note 1: About the "Christian Perspective": This blog is from a Christian perspective because that's who I am, and I'm confident that's who many of you are as well. But being Christian is not a prerequisite for reading this blog. And I'm not proselytizing here. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, heck, even atheists are welcome. My comments will sometimes conflate with Christian subjects but I think you can handle it. Skip over those if you want, but I think there will be good things in there for you too. Anarcho-capiltalism allows for the free observance (or not) of religion. You don't have to be a Christian to be my friend, and I hope my being a Christian is not a problem for you.
Note 2: I still love Ron Paul , and believe that deep down he is really a Christian anarcho-capitalist like myself. But he is also a very practical person, and seems to have made the right choices to get the ideas of limited government, non-interventionism, and sound money on the national stage. Certainly a political system true to the original intent of the constitution would be far superior to what we have today, and I would trade that system for the current one in a heartbeat. But for me it would be just a starting point. The Constitution still gives the Federal governement too much power, and even if we returned to it the slide toward tyranny would likely begin anew. I much prefer the arrangement under the Articles of Confederation.
For the longest time, I couldn't figure out who I was -- politically, I mean. I was emboiled in a constant conflict, sometimes agreeing with points from the left, and often agreeing with points from the right. I would vote for politicians of both major parties, and proudly considered myself an Independent. It wasn't very satisfying, but it was the best I could do at the time.
As I grew older, I tended toward the conservative side, yet was still uncomfortable enough with the Bushes, Doles, and McCains to not identify with the Republicans. I had a really bad feeling about the events leading into the Iraq War, and never bought into the idea that if I didn't side 100% with the War Party, I was unpatriotic at best, and "with the terrorists" at worst.
Although I have been a lifelong believer in Jesus Christ, I have also been uncomfortable with the so-called "Christian Right" from the beginning. I do not equate Republicans as good and Democrats as evil, or vice versa. (To be honest I think they're both evil). I do not see how worshipping the military and the killing of Muslim civilians aligns with true Christian faith in any way. Neither do I see how being a Christian means that I must believe whatever the Israeli government does is right, or that any criticism of them (or oppostion to foreign aid) is wrong.
Neither do I believe that Islam is a religion of violence, or that all Muslims are terrorists. I have friends in the Middle East who are Muslims, and they are some of the kindest, most generous, most hospitable and funny! people I have ever met.
In 2006 I subscibed to the daily newsletter from the Mises Institute. I felt myself being drawn in that direction. One of their articles was written by a US Congressman by the name of Ron Paul. I couldn't believe what I was reading. Where did this guy come from? Why hadn't I heard of him before? He seemed to me like the first breath of fresh air after being trapped in a garage full of fumes. I Googled him and watched some of his speeches on the House floor. I was staggered. How can a politician be so honest, or so consistently saying the things that deep down in my heart I really believed?
This guy was a constitutionalist, and said we'd all be much better off if we just followed that document. I was totally on board. I gave money and campaigned for Ron Paul in the 2008 presidential election. I also wanted to be a champion of the constitution, and return our government to its constitutional limits. This was the first time I felt good about my personal politics, and I thought I had found the political philosophy that would last me the rest of my life. But even that didn't last.
About a year ago I decided I was no longer a constitutionalist, but in fact I was an anarcho-capitalist. My epiphany came when I read somewhere the proclaimations of someone who had made the transition before me. I'm sorry I can't recall who said this, I'd like to give him credit. When I read them, it was like a floodlight went on in my mind, heart and soul. But here is a paraphrase of (and expansion on) his words:
I don't need a Mayor
I don't need a Director of Parks and Recreation
I don't need a County Executive or County Commissioner
I don't need a state Representative or Senator
I don't need a Governor
I don't need a Federal Congressman or Senator
I don't need a Department of Education
I don't need a Department of Homeland Security
I don't need a Department of Transportation
I don't need a Department of Commerce
I don't need any "Czars" of anything
I especially don't need a President to "run" my country
That did it for me. After more than half a century not knowing who I truly was, I finally had the answer. All I need is my family, my faith, and my property. I will do you no harm if you will do me no harm. We can live together in peace as free persons, regardless of our race, religion or custom. I will call you friend if you embrace and defend my freedom. Likewise I will embrace and defend yours. Any contentions between people or matters of collective importance should be handled at the most local level possible.
I am confident now that I am "home", and there will be no more uncertainty and internal conflict in my political self.
Now an article by syndicated columnist Joe Sobran (find it here) has inspired me to start a new blog to promote the cause of anarcho-capitalism (definition here), delivered from a Christian perspective (see note below).
Please read the article for yourself, but here are a couple of snippets that stood out to me and reflect my feelings exactly:
(Hans-Hermann Hoppe) "argued that no constitution could restrain the state. Once its monopoly of force was granted legitimacy, constitutional limits became mere fictions it could disregard; nobody could have the legal standing to enforce those limits. The state itself would decide, by force, what the constitution "meant," steadily ruling in its own favor and increasing its own power. This was true a priori, and American history bore it out."
and...
"In short, the US Constitution is a dead letter. It was mortally wounded in 1865. The corpse can't be revived. This remained hard for me to admit, and even now it pains me to say it."
I have come to the same conclusion. The US Constitution does not work and can not restrain the Leviathan. So I have followed a similar but more convoluted path to anarcho-capitalism than Joe Sobran.
But we have arrived at the same place. Join me as I comment on these things and more. I hope you enjoy the journey.
Note 1: About the "Christian Perspective": This blog is from a Christian perspective because that's who I am, and I'm confident that's who many of you are as well. But being Christian is not a prerequisite for reading this blog. And I'm not proselytizing here. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, heck, even atheists are welcome. My comments will sometimes conflate with Christian subjects but I think you can handle it. Skip over those if you want, but I think there will be good things in there for you too. Anarcho-capiltalism allows for the free observance (or not) of religion. You don't have to be a Christian to be my friend, and I hope my being a Christian is not a problem for you.
Note 2: I still love Ron Paul , and believe that deep down he is really a Christian anarcho-capitalist like myself. But he is also a very practical person, and seems to have made the right choices to get the ideas of limited government, non-interventionism, and sound money on the national stage. Certainly a political system true to the original intent of the constitution would be far superior to what we have today, and I would trade that system for the current one in a heartbeat. But for me it would be just a starting point. The Constitution still gives the Federal governement too much power, and even if we returned to it the slide toward tyranny would likely begin anew. I much prefer the arrangement under the Articles of Confederation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)