More from Larken Rose. I couldn't resist:
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)