who's your nanny?

Hologram of Liberty: Chapter 8-The Hard Truth

This is the ninth essay in my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce. You can also read my summary of the Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, Chapter 7.

In this chapter Royce spends several pages discussing how Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority influenced his thinking on the Constitution and the US system of government. According to Royce, Spooner's argument devastated the notion that America is governed by lawful with a simple observation:

The Constitution is supposed to be a compact between "the people" and their agents, yet I never signed it. Well, if I never signed an agreement giving government agents power over me, then how can they allege my "consent" and lawfully act as my authorized "agents"? How can men (especially those long since dead) presume to bind my nonviolent actions via a document which I not only never signed, but was not even alive during its creation?

Royce cites Spooner to make this point:

Where would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring into court a written instrument, without any signature, and claim to have it enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to sign?...Yet that is the most that could even be said of the Constitution. The very judges, who profess to derive all their authority from the Constitution--from an instrument that nobody ever signed--would spurn any other instrument, not signed, that should be brought before them for adjudication...

Moreover, this supposed contract, which would not be received in any court of justice...is one by which...all men, women and children throughout the country, and through all time, surrender not only their property, but also their liberties, and even lives, into the hands of men who by this supposed contract, are expressly made wholly irresponsible for their disposal of them. And we are so insane, or so wicked, as to destroy property and lives without limit, in fighting to compel men to fulfill a supposed contract, which inasmuch as it has never been signed by anybody,...

Spooner's point, says Royce, is that Spooner "merely demanded that consent of the governed be honest and open through individual signature of contract between the people and their agents." Royce cites Spooner's famous Highwayman passage which describes the payment of taxes as a robbery, but only worse because at least the highwayman leaves you alone after robbing you. The government, on the other hand, assumes to be your rightful "sovereign", on account of the "protection" he provides. He also quotes Spooner's attack on democracy at length.

Spooner's influence on Royce's thinking becomes apparent when Royce examines the myth of "the people". According to this myth under our democracy, "everybody ('the people') is the State, the State is nobody in particular." "Without individual political responsibility," comments Royce, "there is no incentive to diligently supervise political agents and their actions." Royce continues

"The people" are simultaneously everybody and, and nobody. That's why lecturing an uppity bureaucrat with the "I-pay-your-salary" speech achieves only a smirk. The bureaucrat understands: he's responsible only to "the people"--not you.

Royce also makes a trenchant observation about taxation I wish more people would also recognize:

The cold truth is this: There is no purpose of government so vital as to justify theft from, injury to or death to peaceable Americans for mere nonpayment of taxes or nonviolent civil disobedience. Nothing that our government does or claims to provide is so important that passive, hard-working folks should be evicted from their homes, have their businesses shut down, and imprisoned for mere nonpayment of taxes. It is that simple!

Royce is dead-on here. Every service for which there is a demand can be provided through the free exchange of goods and services. This includes the very services which the government monopolizes. And no one should have to worry about being imprisoned just because he wishes to opt out of government-provided services and seek similar services on the market. Peaceful people, says Royce, "should have nothing to fear from their government and its laws."

D.C. Police Faulted on Response to Burglaries

D.C. residents living just south of the Potomac Ave Metro stop have been victimized by a rash of burglaries over the last two months. The Post reports:

The bad guys have them worried, but what really irks the residents, they say, is that the officers who handle the calls come with a nonchalant attitude about "property crime."

Some say the muted response has left them wondering: In a city that saw more than 180 people slain last year, what does it take to get the police focused on curbing a rash of break-ins?

The neighbors have written a letter to the mayor, arranged a meeting with their D.C. Council member and complained loudly at community events. Still, they say, the burglaries continue.

If the citizens of Washington, D.C. would read this blog more often, they would know that the police in general, and the Nation's Capital in particular, have no incentive to solve any crimes at all. Since the State is a territorial monopolist of security which receives its income through taxation, it has no incentive to do any thing it says it will do, namely protect its subjects and their property. Its subjects cannot purchase security services from anyone else. And since the State can charge its subjects whatever price it wishes, it will charge as much money in taxes as it can. This is what we would expect from any monopolist: charge as high a price as it can and do as little as it can get away with.

If its subjects object to this treatment and sue the State for failing to protect them or their property, they can only turn to the State for resolution. And the State, being a judge in its own case, will rule in its own favor. This is exactly what the District Supreme Court did in the 1981 Warren v. District of Columbia. In this case, the court ruled that the police had no obligation to protect three women who were sexually assaulted for fourteen hours. Do any of the citizens of Washington, D.C. really think that the police which did not protect the physical bodies of three women from being assaulted, but will use all of their resources to protect residents' laptops, televisions, and X-Boxes?

Also unfortunate is the mindset of the residents in the article. Not one resident suggests purchasing a gun to protect his property. Not one resident suggests that the neighbors get together to watch over each others property. Not one suggests any sort of personal responsibility to protect his own life and property. This omission reflects The Servile Mindset of many Americans. They have been made helpless through the public education system and easily give up their right of self-protection for the fraudulent claims of the State-provided security. They have forsaken the option of self-protection and can only think about compelling the police to defend them although the police have no incentive at all to to this. Unless the people are awakened from their dogmatic slumber, they will continue to be victimized by the private criminals who rob them and State-provided police who do nothing to protect them.

 

Hologram of Liberty: Chapter 7-Hamilton...Covert Bankster Agent?

This is the eighth essay in my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce. You can also read my summary of the Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, and Chapter 6.

In this chapter Royce argues that Hamilton was most likely a covert agent for the bankers who had an interest in shaping the new Constitution to protect and advance their interests. He admits that he has found no direct evidence of this, however he does argue that enough circumstantial evidence exits to suggest some kind of covert plan. The circumstantial evidence he marshals is as follows:

• At age 23 Hamilton submitted his plan for a national bank to the Confederation's superintendent of finance.
• Hamilton was "oddly restrained" during the convention. "He was a veritable dynamo of brilliance before and after the Convention, so why was he a dud during?" asks Royce. Royce suspects that Hamilton had been instructed to keep quiet.
• Hamilton was the first Secretary of the Treasury with 500 employees (70 of whom were in his own building) compared to less than 20 of the State and War Departments combined. "No other delegate could have so quickly and successfully monetized the public debt through a monopolistic bank."
• Hamilton used the "necessary and proper" clause to allow federal taxes to usurp the state's revenue base.

This chapter is Royce's weakest and one wonders why he included it with so little evidence. Fortunately, Thomas DiLorenzo has written Hamilton's Curse which presents the historical evidence to show the relationship between Hamilton and the bankers.

Hologram of Liberty: Chapter 6-Trickery's Origin

This is the seventh essay in my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce. You can also read my Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and Chapter 5.

This chapter is the most challenging to follow Royce argues that there is a hidden constitution within the official constitution. The official constitution was created for the people, but the hidden constitution was created for the Federalists. Royce's argument is based on circumstantial evidence and he acknowledges this:

Folks, there is something to this second constitution. To be honest, I believe it more than I know it, however, my belief is in good faith and rests on years of legal research and nonfiction writing. While I don't claim to have utterly proven my point, my circumstantial evidence seems at least worth further study, so I'll leave it at that. I offer this theory largely as an historical enigma which deserves investigation.

This chapter is the most speculative of the book; those who are already open to conspiracy theories may find his argument plausible and those who think conspiracy theorists are fools and cranks will find his argument ridiculous and tedious.

He begins his argument by pointing out that there are three distinct meanings of the term United States within the Constitution:

The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It (1) may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. it (2) may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the [federal] United States extends, or it (3) may be the collective name of the States,...united by and under the Constitution.--Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 652, at 672 (1945)

For example, IV:3:2, IV:4 and VI:3 of the Constitution all use "United States" in the federal sense:

...and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government,...

...and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution...

Conversely, III:3:1 refers to the "United States" in the plural:

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies,...

Royce asks

Why use one highly ambiguous term as the common name of three different things? Why not simply call the nation the "United States of America" ("U.S.A.")--the states the "States"--and the Federal Government the "Federal Government"?...Was such clarity beyond [the drafters of the Constitution]? Of course not (6/4).

Royce argues that this ambiguity was intentional; the Federalists used confused language so that they could create two constitutions: one for the United States and another for the United States of America. "United States" refers to the federal government. "United States of America" refers to the States and their citizens.

A Repost of The Miseducation of the Negro

The recent arrest of Henry Louis Gates and the subsequent cries of racial profiling has compelled me to repost this essay. The Gates' arrest is not even remotely as tragic the murder of Oscar Grant by Officer Johannes Mehserle. Nevertheless, most people will focus only on the question of race and will be deceived into believing that if we somehow solve racism, police brutality and abuse will end. 

According to the police report, Gates was arrested "after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on the behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while being surprised and alarmed." Yes, it is possible that this report is masking racism, but it need not. As I wrote in the original essay:

Certainly some police officers are racist and abuse people for this reason. But they could also abuse us because they simply did not like how we looked at them; they did not appreciate our tone when we replied to a question they asked; we did not get out of the car fast enough when asked; we got out of the car too fast when asked; we did not get on the ground when commanded; we did not stand up when commanded; we protested a ticket; we filed a grievance against them with their supervisor; they were just in a bad mood; they wanted to abuse us and knew that they could get away with it.

It is quite possible that Gates was arrested because he was acting like a jerk and embarrassing the police officer on the scene. Police have the power to arrest anyone for any reason. If the charges are dropped, nothing will happen to police officer. In fact, the officer will probably be supported by his police union making prosecution of any sort almost impossible. Unless people realize that the very nature of the State encourages and protects police from their abusive actions, the police will continue to commit blatant and heinous crimes with impunity.

Hologram of Liberty: Chapter 5-Concerns Then...Nightmares Today

This is the sixth essay in my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce. You can also read my Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, and Chapter 4.

Does it not insult your judgment to tell you, Adopt first, and then amend!...Is your rage for novelty so great, that you are first to sign and seal, and then retract?...agree to bind yourself hand and foot--for the sake of what? of being unbound?...to go into a dungeon--for what? To get out? Is there no danger, when you go in, that the boils of federal authority shall shut you in? I look upon [the constitution] as the most fatal plan that could be possibly conceived to enslave a free people.--Patrick Henry, to the Virginia ratifying assembly (1788)

In Chapter 5, Royce gives historical evidence to prove that the concerns of the anti-Federalists writers were all justified. He concentrates on ten anti-Federalist objections to the Constitution.

• Federal statute is "the supreme law of the land" which displaces state/local law.
• Congress is virtually unlimited in legislative possibilities under the "necessary and proper" clause.
• Congress is virtually unlimited in scope of direct taxation under the "for general welfare" clause.
• Treaties give the feds municipal police power, usurping the States.
• The Senate impeaches its own members.
• Judiciary has no check or balance by the States or the people.
• Judiciary decides if Federal actions are unconstitutional.
• Judiciary interprets "spirit" of Constitution through "equity" clause.
• States helpless against federal tyranny--militia is in federal hands.
• Amendments basically in the hands of Congress.

This is a pretty long chapter so I will focus on the three anti-Federalist objections.

Federal "supreme" law gutted state authority.

Royce argues that it only took three clauses to gradually end the authority of the States and liberty in general.

1. Article VI, Section 2 makes the Constitution and U.S. law paramount to the States' laws and constitutions.
2. Article I, Section 8:1 gives Congress taxing powers directly over the people, bypassing the States.
3. Article I, Section 8:18 gives Congress powers for implementation.

The anti-Federalist writers understood the threat and wrote valiantly to show others. Royce cites an essay from "Brutus" which reads in part,

[The Congress are] vested with the great and uncontrollable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers. And are  by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will....Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase ir, and to acquire a superiority over everything that stands in their way. -- "Brutus;" Essay I, October 18, 1787

The "supreme law of the land" clause established the legislative hierarchy. The general welfare clause has been contorted to include anything. And "necessary" has been construed as merely convenient. Thus, there is nothing conceivably outside the scope of Congressional interest (5/5-6). Royce cites the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 as evidence of federal law superceding State and local law.

Having Eyes but Never Seeing

I heard a pastor once say that truth is out in the open for anyone to see; they only have to look. One truth I try to impress upon people is that the State by its very nature creates two sets of laws. There is one set of laws for the agents inside the State (public law) and another set of laws for those outside the State (private law). This evidence is everywhere and people completely ignore it because they have been indoctrinated in the myth of the rule of law. Police officers in Montgomery County, Maryland, are providing yet another example of how the duality of law works.

Four Montgomery County police officers are refusing to pay speeding tickets they received from speeding cameras. I'm sure these officers were shocked when they received the tickets. Before these cameras arrived, my guess is that police officers rarely received tickets. No police officer would pull over a fellow officer for speeding in his police cruiser. Perhaps he may get pulled over for speeding in his private car. But even then, he will probably be let go as soon as he flashes his badge. In fact, the only situation I can imagine a police officer receiving a ticket before cameras is an officer speeding in his private vehicle in another jurisdiction and the cop who pulls him over decides not to extend the speeding officer a courtesy. 

The Examiner reported that a "Montgomery County judged tossed tickets of four on-duty police officers who were caught by speed cameras. Two of them were driving twice the speed limit, driving 50 and 51 mph in 25 mph residential zones." This should be no surprise. The judge and the police officers are paid by the same institution, the State. The State is judging its own case. As long as the judge harbors no personal animosities toward the officers, why would anyone expect otherwise?

These officers have posed a problem to the local government of Montgomery County because it exposes the truth that there are two sets of law. In an effort to spin this truth, Council President Phil Andrews stated, "The public is resentful when public employees are treated different than private citizens, unless there is a valid reason for the action," (emphasis added). The council president is saying as clear as day that there exists two sets of laws. The added phrase "unless there is a valid reason" disarms the masses. Rather than ask why there are two sets of laws in the first place, the masses will ask, "is this exception reasonable?"

The judge in the case stated that the county lacked a written policy regarding speed camera tickets violated the officers' right to due process. County Executive spokesman Patrick Lacefield replied, "Police department policy is clear: If officers don't have a good reason to be speeding they have to pay tickets, same as everyone else," (emphasis added). Yet again a county executive speaks the truth about public law and private law. The legitimacy of this "good reason" will be determined by other State agents. Why would a judge or county executive reject a "good reason" which they themselves could possibly use in the future should they receive a speeding ticket?

That there exists two sets of law is obvious and open to all. Yet the education of the masses precludes them from putting together the pieces of the puzzle. They think that this puzzle forms a picture of protection and safety rather than robbery and oppression.

The Remnant, however, is not fooled by these mock judicial proceedings. We know what the puzzle should look like. We know that the State is a criminal gang writ large but its power rests on consent from the masses. As long as the masses view the State as legitimate, it can continue to steal with little resistance. The real threat these officers pose is that their actions may persuade some of the masses to wake up from their dogmatic slumber. They will then realize that there is no rule of law as long as there is exists a territorial monopolist of law and ultimate judge of this law. If enough do so and withdraw their consent, the State will collapse like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away. It will fall of its own weight and break into pieces.

 

Celebrating Evil

Today I will be celebrating friendships at the Fourth of July party I'll be attending. Unlike the vast majority of people, however, I will not be celebrating the decision to shed one criminal enterprise for the formation of another, nor will I delude myself into thinking that the United States is in any capacity a free country in terms of libertarian values.

We live in a state that sanctions the theft, assault, and murder of innocent citizens on a daily basis. That, my friends, is nothing to raise a glass to.

Recommended Weekend Reading

I have already warned readers to beware of Constitutionalists this weekend. In addition to my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty, I would highly recommend Jeffrey Hummel's Constitution as Counter Revolution. This short article demolishes the myth that the drafters of the Constitution sought a limited government with enumerated powers.

Download Hummel constitution as counter revolution FL-5-4-3

Conservative Worship of the Constitution Continues

July 4 is nearing and I know that conservatives are itching to write about how Barack Obama is ruining our country and destroying the legacy of 1776 when America seceded from Great Britain. They probably will not use the word "secede" because such is a four-letter word in conservative vernacular. Nevertheless, they love Independence Day as it encourages Americans to worship their idol, the State.

But independence from Great Britain was not enough according to this conservative writer:

What followed the Revolution were the Articles of Confederation that proved a dismal failure. On May 25, 1787, in great secrecy, a group of delegates from seven States, gathered to revise them. Eventually twelve of the thirteen States were represented.

The Constitution they devised was intended to ensure the process of passing legislation was a slow, laborious one, and that the federal government would have only a few, clearly enumerated powers, with all others reserved to the States and the People.

The men who wrote the Constitution feared both the mob and the concentration of too much power in the federal government. The States were and are independent, sovereign republics.

The U.S. Constitution officially became the law of the land when New Hampshire ratified it on June 21, 1788, being the ninth State to do so. The vote was 57 Yeas, 47 Nays.

Nonsense like this is why I chose to take the time to live blog Hologram of Liberty. Mr. Caruba provides no details regarding how the US Constitution came into existence. The reason the Articles were a "dismal failure" was because the central government was not strong enough for a certain group of men. That was the complaint and the federalists admitted such. The founding lawyers met in secret because they knew that the American public would not approve of this new government, so they had to move quickly. The Bill of Rights was added two years after the Constitution was ratified. Thus, it makes no sense to argue that the founding lawyers wanted a federal government with "only a few, clearly enumerated powers, with all others reserved to the States and the People." That amendment was not part of the original Constitution and the founding lawyers compromised only after the Constitution had been ratified. Read Hologram of Liberty or read my live-blog or the anti-Federalists writers for a more detailed refutation of this drivel.

I also find it interesting that Mr. Caruba acknowledges that the drafters met in secret to create the Constitution but glosses over that point completely. Why should Americans think that the purpose of the Constitution was to limit the government or protect our freedoms when the drafters did not have the audacity to be open about what they were doing? I wonder if Mr. Caruba complains about the lack of transparency in the Federal Government given he has no qualms about the Founders meeting in secret to draft the Constitution. (Oh, wait a minute, no need to wonder.)

But the reason I detest conservative worship of the Constitution most is because they constantly proclaim that the Founders feared a strong central government when the Constitution created a centralized government with more power than that under the Articles of Confederation. How the hell can you argue that the Founders were terrified of a strong central government and wanted to preserve freedom when they intentionally created a government that was stronger than the original government? Even if you are ignorant of the Federalists' and Anti-Federalists' arguments, simply contrast the Articles with the Constitution. It is very clear that the Constitution gave the central government more power than the Articles did. The Constitution permits Congress to collect taxes without consent. The Articles did not allow Congress to collect taxes at all. Congress could request money from the States, but it could not compel the people to pay up. That is all you need to know. Clearly a government that can pay soldiers to kill people who disobey its edicts is exponentially more powerful than a government that cannot. Yet I know this weekend there will be numerous encomia from conservatives praising the Founders for drafting the Constitution and protecting our freedoms. This foolish and puerile myth must end if true liberty is to have any chance in this country.

Hologram of Liberty: Chapter 4-Feds Are On-Line

This is the fifth essay in my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce. You can also read my Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and Chapter 3.

On April 30, 1789, George Washington became president. North Carolina and Rhode Island still had not ratified the Constitution. Royce suggests that one reason the Federalists wanted a much more powerful government was because they would be in charge. Of the 49 living delegates, 39 of them (80%) would hold an office under the Constitution (including 2 Presidents, 1 Vice President, 5 Justices, 11 Senators, and 8 Representatives). Only ten refused or were not appointed. Yet American myth suggests that the drafters of the Constitution wanted a limited government with expressly delegated responsibilities because they feared centralized power.

I should point out that the Bill of Rights was not added to the Constitution when Washington took office. This is important. When modern Constitutionalists extol the benefits of the Constitution they are wont to point out the Bill of Rights as a protection against the Federal government. Furthermore, they use the Bill of Rights as evidence that the drafters really did fear a strong government. But this story is not accurate. The Bill of Rights was added two years later on December 15, 1791.

After the Constitution was ratified there was still restlessness among the people. They did not trust this new government and the Federalists had to do something to quiet the discontent. Thus, the Bill of Rights was added to give the impression that the Federal Government would have some explicit limits. But the Bill of Rights was written in "alarmingly equivocal language." Royce points out, for example, that the second amendment contains "an unnecessary subordinate clause" which has caused confusion even to this day. The fourth amendment bans "unreasonable" search and seizures, but if the definition of "unreasonable" is left to the federal government, nothing is truly "unreasonable." As we all know today, the Supreme Court consistently interprets the Bill of Rights as broadly as possible. The Bill of Rights, comments Royce, were "ten speed bumps in the road to Tyranny."

Dumbest Phrase Ever?

I was driving home from work last night behind a van belonging to an animal shelter. On the rear door was lettering advocating the spaying/neutering of dogs and cats, followed by the phrase, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

Can't you be neither?

What if I don't even have a pet? Clearly if I don't own a dog or cat I can't be accused of propagating the species, so therefore I can't be part of any perceived problem and I likewise have no obligation to be part of any so-called solution to overpopulation.

Note to everyone from animal activists to warmongers: There's such a thing as neutrality. If you don't cause problems in the first place, there's no need for solutions. But I'm guessing this sort of logic falls on deaf ears for anyone who needs an "enemy" to scapegoat in order to legitimize their own special interests.

Hologram of Liberty: Chapter 3-The Slam Dunk

This is the fourth essay in my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce. You can also read my Introduction, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2.

In Chapter 3 Royce tells the story of how the Federalists got the Constitution ratified. The first clever idea was the method of ratification itself. Since all but two of the 13 States had a bicameral house, there would have been 24 separate house debates to win a majority. The Founders circumvented this by sending the proposed constitution to one ratifying convention in each State. This simplified their work greatly. In no State except Rhode Island was the constitution actually put directly to the citizenry-at-large. This is a very important point. The Founders not only cut their work in half by having one convention, but they also kept the document from the people from approval. If the point of the Constitution was to provide for a limited government for the people of the US, why not let them vote on it directly?

The Federalists understood that the Constitution would not be ratified if the people actually read it. Gouverneur Morris told the Convention on August 31, 1787, that given time "the state officers and those interested in the state governments will intrigue and turn the popular current against it." Conventioneer Luther Martin observed that the people would not ratify the Constitution "unless they are hurried into it by surprise." Royce writes,

"According to the haughty federalists, it was to be "this [Constitution], of nothing" and Americans had a duty to cultivate "a spirit of submission to the counsels of the great patriot band" of Conventioneers. Madison gravely warned, "Either we grant these powers or let the Union be dissolved" (3/3).

The anti-Federalists, however, were quite alarmed at this urgency and advised caution.

It is natural for men, who wish to hasten the adoption of a measure, to tell us, now is the crisis...This has been the custom of tyrants and their dependents in all ages--Letter from "Federal Farmer": October 8, 1787

But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority.--"Brutus": October 18, 1787

The conspirators, aware of the danger of delay, that allowing the time for a rational investigation would prove fatal to their designs, precipitated the establishment of the new constitution with all possible celerity:...--"Centinel"; January 23, 1788

Royce also cites an October 22, 1788, letter by "John DeWitt" and a June 5, 1788, speech by Patrick Henry to the Virginia Ratifying Convention.

The Constitution was ratified easily in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, George, and Connecticut. In the other eight States, however, the question of ratification was deeply divided, especially in Massachusetts, Virgina, and New York. In response to the anti-constitution essays, the Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote The Federalists Papers to convince New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution. Royce calls The Federalists  "a fantastic propaganda effort."

The Federalist appealed primarily to contrived fears and "dangers" while blasting all who held even the slightest reservation of the new constitution. To Hamilton, there were no mere sincere differences of opinions on this crucial subject but rather (in #1) "errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears" or a "torrent of angry and malignant passions" or " an over scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people" or "enthusiasm of liberty...infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust" (3/8).

Royce points out that the open-ended nature of the Constitution was of great concern to many delegates. The Federalists scoffed at this fear, arguing that the government would have no authority unless the Constitution expressly delegated it. The anti-Federalist "Federal Farmer" was not deceived:

The first point urged (by federalist James Wilson) is that all power is reserved not expressly given: that particular enumerated powers only are given, that all others are not given. But the Constitution does not appear to even respect it even in any view. To prove this, I might cite several clauses in it (I:9 states) 'No Title of Nobility shall be granted by Congress.' Were this omitted, what power would Congress have to make titles of nobility? In what part of the Constitution would they find it? The answer must be [according to Wilson's reasoning] that Congress would have no such power, that the people, by adopting the Constitution, will not part with it. Why then by a negative clause restrain Congress from doing what it would have no [expressly delegated] power to do?

This clause, then, must have no meaning, or imply that were it omitted Congress would have the power in question, either upon the principle that some general words in the Constitution may be so construed as to give it, or the principle that Congress [does indeed] possess the powers not expressly reserved.

Apparently the Wealthy Are Unemployed

I love the first paragraph of this Bloomberg story discussing hypersocialist Barack Obama's plan to tax the "wealthy" to overhaul health care in the U.S.

President Barack Obama wants Congress to consider taxing the wealthy instead of workers to pay for a health-care overhaul, as House Democrats discuss a plan to require health insurance for most Americans.

It truly is remarkable how effortlessly the communists are able to shape their class warfare debates. It's always "the wealthy" against "the workers," as if people who don't wish to rely on the state for their own well-being don't work for a living. And if "the wealthy" aren't workers, how in the world did they become wealthy in the first place?

This is not a profound idea. You'd figure some reporter would think to ask someone like the president to explain exactly what more affluent Americans have done to deserve to be robbed so politicians can continue to perpetrate this myth.

And as far as this whole health care business is concerned, it's only a matter of time before Obama and the Democratic Congress completely socialize health insurance. Less than 20 percent of Americans are uninsured. So since Obama always talks about providing health care for those who don't already have it, be sure to ask yourself why those who already do will nevertheless be forced to partake in federally-managed programs too.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the state seeks to control every waking minute of our lives.

Hologram of Liberty-Chapter 2-"What Have Ye Wrought?"

This is the third essay of my live-blog for Hologram of Liberty. Here are my introduction and Chapter 1.

In Chapter 2 of Hologram of Liberty, Kenneth Royce describes the events leading up to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The first constitution of the US was the Articles of Confederation, created to deal with the souring relationship with Great Britain. Amendments could be added, but only if all the States agreed. The Congress lacked the power to tax and to regulate commerce. It was limited to expressly delegated powers: to declare war, conduct foreign relations, request revenue and soldiers from the states, borrow and coin money, build a navy, settle disputes between the states, establish a postal system, regulate weights and measures, create courts for limited purposes, and appoint committees.

From the perspective of the Nationalists the major defect of the Articles was that Congress did not have the power to tax. That is, following Robert Higgs' first rule of political science, the central government did not have the power to pay soldiers to kill people who resisted its rule. Congress depended on the good will of the States which may or may not cooperate. Since Congress required the unanimous agreement among the States to act, the States often ignored Congress. For the nationalists who desired a government of more energy, this was unacceptable:

We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power.

Many are of the opinion, that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant, humble tone of requisition in applications to the States, when they had a right to assert their imperial dignity and command obedience....If you tell the [State] legislatures they have...invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy, they will laugh in your face. George Washington to John Jay, August 1, 1786 (2/5).

Royce paraphrases Washington's quotation thusly:

People refuse to accept what we say is best for them unless we can force them to submit. Even though we have through Congressde jure power, we're ignoredde facto. We're tired of placating these unruly States, only to be laughed in our face! (2/5)

The Massachusetts Congressional delegates even refused to introduce a resolution calling for a convention to reconsider the Articles in 1785:

"More power in Congress" has been the cry from all quarters, but especially of those whose views, not being confined to a government that will best promote the happiness of the people, are extended to one that will afford lucrative employments, civil and military. Such a government is an aristocracy, which would require a standing army and a numerous train of pensioners and (bureaucrats) to prop and support its exalted administration.

This type of insolence infuriate the Nationalists. In a letter dated June 27, 1786, John Jay wrote to Washington, "Private rage for property suppresses public considerations, and personal rather than national interests have become great objects of attention...." Madison wrote to Washington in April 1787 saying, "...the right of coercion should be expressly declared. With the resources of Commerce in hand, the National administration might always find means of exerting it either by sea or land."

The Bread and Circuses Continue

The Holy One continues his faux campaign for transparency in government in his ongoing effort to provide enough bread and circuses for the masses, they will completely ignore the criminal activity of the State. The watchdog media is on the case, however. The AP issued this scathing criticism of Obama's transparency scam:

The tone of the memo suggested Obama thought a government-wide effort would be a good idea. Obama also directed this group to study the procedures for handling sensitive but unclassified data to be sure that "information is not restricted unless there is a compelling need."

While Obama didn't order any changes in government secrecy Wednesday, his memo contained language and set agendas for the two studies that hinted strongly at moves he might take. It was greeted with cheers from open government advocates who have long argued that government classifies too much information.

With such trenchant analysis, one wonders how on earth the masses continue to believe Obama's claim of transparency.

Really, I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read statements from the Holy One such as:

A democratic government must be as transparent as possible and must not withhold information for self-serving reasons or simply to avoid embarrassment.

Yes, clearly this administration has taken the lead in such openness. Of course, since the State gets to decide just what is a "compelling need," it should be as no surprise that it will censor pretty much all information which could compel the people to see the State as the murderous criminal gang that it is.

All of these cries for openness in government "are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats --- so transparent that they ought to deceive no one"---when uttered as necessary to democracy or to open more government information under the Freedom of Information act "or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want."

 

Why I Don't Like to Discuss Politics with Friends

...[A] man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure. -Lysander Spooner-No Treason.

Clausewitz’s dictum—”War is the continuation of politics by other means”—is generally accepted; but the converse—”Politics is the continuation of war by other means”—also holds. -Gerard Radnitzky-"Is Democracy More Peaceful than Other Forms of Government."

Most of my friends do not know that I am a radical libertarian and they do not know that I am blogger. Frankly, they don't have a clue as to what my political beliefs are. I would guess that they assume I am a Democrat because I am a black male. That's the impression I got during the Holy One's inauguration. No one asked me, "Did you vote for Obama?" For whom else would I vote? No one asked me, "Did you see the inauguration speech?" What else would I have done on January 20, 2009? No one asked me, "Aren't you hopeful now that Bush is gone and Obama is now the first African-American president?" What other expectation ought I to have?

And if I were asked these questions, my answers would have been, "No, I don't vote," "Yes, a little bit," and "What little hope I have is in the Lord only. Man cannot save." If I were to have replied such, I don't know what would have happened next. Given the emotional catharsis of many blacks around the nation who never thought they would live to see the day that a black man became president, my guess is that I would have lost several friends. With slavery and Jim Crow in our history, the rise of a black man to the highest position of power in the world appears to be the apex of African-American history. Since blacks in this country have been severely miseducated about the true nature of the State and the false god Democracy, they simply don't know any better.

However, from my radical point of view, January 20, 2009, was the nadir of our history, for on that day a black man took control of the most dishonest, insane, and intolerable government I have ever experienced. He proved that he was a more efficient liar, thief, and potential murderer than John McCain and has already demonstrated his efficiency in all three areas since taking office. He is a communist and the only real question worth considering is Does he have temerity to murder his opponents as Stalin did? His administration does not even hide its authoritarianism. While blacks resisted chattel slavery as much as they could, today they have embraced political slavery at the hands of the first black president as if it were freedom. The mindsets of chattel slaves and political slaves are radically different. Chattel slaves knew that they were slaves; (most) political slaves think that they are free. Thus, there will be little resistance as Obama relieves us of what little liberty we have left. We will become slaves to the State while singing "We shall overcome."

The Social Security Fraud

Many people were rightly angry at Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme which bilked many people out of millions. Unfortunately there has not been similar outrage directed toward the government Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.

Hologram of Liberty, Chapter 1-Political Magic

That investigation into the nature and construction of the new constitution, which the conspirators have so long and zealously struggled against has,...so far taken place as to ascertain the enormity of their criminality. That system which was pompously displayed as the perfection of government, proves upon examination to be the most odious system of tyranny that was ever projected, a many headed hydra of despotism, whose complicated and various evils would be infinitely more oppressive and afflictive than the scourge of any tyrant:...

No wonder then that such a discovery should excite uneasy apprehensions in the minds of the conspirators, for such an attempt against the public liberties is unprecedented in history, it is a crime of the blackest dye, as it strikes at the happiness of millions and the dignity of human nature, as it was intended to deprive [Americans] of the choicest blessing of life and the oppressed of all nations of an asylum [of liberty].

And with this impassioned quote from anti-Federalist Samuel Bryan ("Centinel") published in January 1788, Kenneth Royce fires the first shot across the bow of the Constitutionalists in Hologram of Liberty,published in 1997. In this chapter Royce limns the Constitution as a straightjacket designed to restrain government. The straightjacket works well as long as it constrains a normal body. "Change the body and escape is now not only possible, but simply a matter of time and effort" (1/3). The body needs only an inch of new movement and it will eventually escape. Harry Houdini was able to escape from straightjackets by dislocating his shoulder. Thus, if the federal government could also "dislocate" one of its appendages, it could also free itself from the Constitutional straightjacket.

Royce describes the federal government as a body; the executive is the hand, Congress is the arm, and the Supreme Court is the shoulder. While the branches are distinct, they are still part of the "same federal torso with a naturally unified goal--to be free" (1/3). It is through the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution that the federal government would eventually free its self from the chains of the Constitution. This was intentional; the Founders could have designed a better straightjacket, but they did not want a restrained government:

Remember, it wasn't the people or the States which agitated for the 1787 Convention-it was a distinct group of men (later called "federalists") who very much desired a strong national government....To them, an "energetic" national government was good and necessary...(1/4).

Later in the chapter Royce cites a quotation from James Wilson explicitly expressing these sentiments:

...[T]he great fault of the existing Confederacy is its inactivity. It has never been a complaint against Congress that they have governed overmuch. The compliant has been that they governed too little. To remedy this defect, we were sent here (1/13).

Are we really to believe the myth that the Founders who crafted the Constitution were terrified of a strong central government, yet met to create a government that was supposed to be stronger than that under the Articles of Confederation and unwanted by the people?

Royce then lists several Supreme Court cases to illustrate his point: Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden, Munn v. Illinois. In each case the Supreme Court increased the power of the federal government at the expense of the people.

Live Blog--Hologram of Liberty

In my essay on the meaningless Constitution, I argued that radicals would be better served learning about the circumstances which led to the creation of the Constitution rather than dwelling on interpretation. I decided to take my own advice and learn more about the origins of this document. I found a gold mine of information in Kenneth Royce's Hologram of Liberty.

While it is clear that the Constitution has failed to limit the central government, Mr. Royce raises some very uncomfortable of questions: What if the Constitution did not restrain the State because it was, in fact, designed to increase the power of the State? What if the Constitution has not "failed" to protect liberty, but has accomplished exactly what the authors wanted it to do? Clearly to even raise such questions is to risk being labeled an unpatriotic traitor. The Constitution is viewed by most Americans as Holy Writ which descended from wise statesmen who attempted to created a government of limited powers to protect individual liberty. Even some libertarians still believe that this was the intention of the drafters of the Constitution and that if we can somehow "get back to the Constitution" we can restore freedom.

I used to believe this as well until I read Hans Hermann Hoppe's essay On the Impossibility of Limited Government. Prof. Hoppe's argument convinced me that a written Constitution could never limit the State. Since the State is the ultimate judge of conflict including conflicts involving itself, it will almost always rule in its own favor. Hence, a Constitution designed to limit the State is destined to fail; the State will continue to grow because ultimately it is the judge of its own powers.

I believe the logic of Prof. Hoppe's argument to be irrefutable, but Prof. Hoppe was not the first to make this observation. There were many people at the time of the Constitution's drafting who were making similar arguments. The anti-Federalists had studied the instrument carefully and argued that the adoption of this Constitution as law of the land would lead to a tyrannical government. So if the astute opponents of the Constitution pointed out that it will eventually lead to the destruction of individual liberty why did the the Founders who, according to American myth also wanted to protect individual liberty, fight so hard for ratification? If liberty were first and foremost on their minds, why pass into law a document whose flaws were clear to everyone?

Royce answers that the Constitution "was never meant to enshrine State autonomy or hold your individual rights over federal interests. And finally, it was never meant to stunt federal growth." This is a quite damning charge. It is one thing to argue that the Constitution failed to protect liberty. This gives people the hope that somehow the US can be restored as a republic if we can just write a better Constitution. However, it is quite another to argue that the Constitution was designed to lead to a strong central government. Such an accusation impugns the character of the Founders. No longer would they be viewed as wise statesmen, but mere politicians. But the mythical story of the Founders is even worse; this indictment means that Founders were statists. If this is true, then the only solution to advance is to reject our (second) Founders' Constitution and withdraw from this tyrannical government..

I believe that Royce has advanced a thesis which will help desanctify both the Constitution and its authors in the minds of many people. A simple book review, however, will not do justice to liberty. Over the coming weeks and months, I will blog this book. At the very least I hope that more people will purchase this book and study Royce's argument carefully. I also hope that other radicals will build upon his work to find out as much as they can about the motivations of the Constitutionalists.

I agree with Robert Higgs that there is no failed policy; the "failures" of policy always benefit someone and that was the intention of the policy in the first place. If a Constitution ostensibly designed to protect liberty has led to a tyrannical central government, perhaps it was not a failure of the document or of the people to limit the government. Perhaps the "failure" was the ratification of the Constitution in the first place.

The Dehumanization of the Patriot

Michael Gaddy has an excellent article up on Lew Rockwell.com about how the State dehumanizes its enemies so that its subjects will have no qualms when the enemies are destroyed. 

Tomorrow Belongs to Me

Karen DeCoster posted this clip...

In response to Lew Rockwell's orignal post...

But we all know that can't happen here.

Stupid or Evil?

I've noticed that some conservatives have been describing the recent flyover photo-op in NYC as "stupid." Michael Barone entitled his editorial on this matter "The NYC plane scare was sheer stupidity from the White House Military Office." Rick Moran at the American Thinker also described the flyover as stupid. A post at Wizbang called the photo-op the "Really Dumb Idea of the Day..." Little Green Footballs called the flyover "ridiculously stupid." Andy McCarthy agrees with former White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend's assessment as "felony stupid." My guess is that this is how most conservatives viewed this incident.

As I wrote a while back, the reason conservatives assess such incidents as stupid or foolish or incompetent rather than evil or malicious or calculating is because they are statists who deeply believe in the myth of the rule of law. They genuinely believe that the State exists to protect them. Since they believe such, they cannot see the truth which is staring them in the face.

A very clear example of this can be inferred from reading Rick Moran's post at the American Thinker. Mr. Moran links to an article by Marcia Kramer which reported:

Federal officials knew that sending two fighter jets and Air Force One to buzz ground zero and Lady Liberty might set off nightmarish fears of a 9/11 replay, but they still ordered the photo-op kept secret from the public. 

Mr. Moran has found incriminating evidence that the government knew that this display would frighten people and yet Mr. Moran's reaction is that this was "stupid." There is nothing in his post to suggest that he even entertained the notion that flyover had ulterior motives,although his citation suggests otherwise.

If one genuinely believes that our government would never intentionally harm American citizens, "stupid" is a logical commentary on government misfeasance, but "evil" is not. If the conservative were to admit the truth that our government would intentionally frightened its citizens to serve its own interests, his entire worldview would be threatened. While the conservative gives lip service to freedom and virtue, in reality he can tolerate neither. Freedom can only be what the conservative deems it to be, which is why he loves the State as enforcer of the freedoms he wants people to have. Virtue is only what he wants it to be and when he wants it to be which is why he rationalizes torture. The conservative is a humanitarian with a guillotine who believes that what he is doing is for the greater good and believes that the State is the tool designed to accomplish this greater good. The idea or even suggestion that the agents of the Federal government would intentionally harm Americans is unfathomable in his mind.

More Adventures with the TSSA

I was away on vacation last weekend and was treated to witness even more production of fear by the TSSA. Before we left for the airport, I had planned to bring two books along: The Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises and Send in the Waco Killers by Vin Suprynowicz. My girlfriend, who is not as radical as I am, told me that I should not bring Waco Killers. This would be the one day my bag is searched by hand, she said. A TSSA agent would find the book and then I would be detained and questioned. I do my best to be aware of what provokes the State, but even I did not think up this scenario. So I left Waco Killers home. I told her that she was beginning to think like a radical. She thinks that she won't become as radicial as I am. I told her that this may change after some experiences with our protectors.

So we arrive at the airport, check our bags, and then proceed to the submission security checkpoint. Wea pproach the agent and my girlfriend hands her ID and boarding pass to him. I then step up and hand him my ID and boarding pass. He asks, "Are you together?" My girlfriend replies, "Yes." He replies, "Then you should have stepped up together. It would make things easier on me and on you." My girlfriend walks away, visibly irked. "Why did he say that?", she asked. "Why would it matter if we came up together? He still had to check the IDs separately." Since I've taken the red pill, I smiled and said, "His remark had nothing to do with what he said. The point was to condition us to obey our rulers. That's what the entire process of the TSA security checkpoint is." She then said, "Well, next time we might both come up together and then the agent will say 'You should come up separately.'" I said, "Yes, again that's the point. Obedience is what this process is supposed to produce. Perhaps you will become a radical sooner than you think." I can imagine that such arbitrary commands would provoke someone fed up with getting different rules at different airports to becom upset and complain. Such resistance would be crushed immediately and allow the State to flex its muscles, thus scaring more passengers and compeling them to obey.

The TSSA gives the sheep the illusion of safety and as H.L. Mencken pointed out in Notes on Democracy, the masses want safety and will give up anything to get it. The reason why the State took over airline security after 9-11, although 9-11 was clearly a failure of the State, was that it would be a very easy way to condition the masses to obey. Many people will choose flying because it is the fastest method of transportation available. Since they only want to get to their destinations, the people are a lot less likely to resist. Karen DeCoster expounds this point in her latest article:

So why airports? Since airplanes have become flying Greyhound buses, and airports have become ground zerofor the dumbed-down lumpen proletariat, the listenership at airports is ripe for inane propaganda. In a place where people are herded like cattle and searched like criminals, it’s not hard to break down their already unenlightened state and further melt their mindset toward a helpless condition. Similar to the military recipe for breaking down individuality, Homeland Security’s TSA aims to break down any resistance they may face from any individual. Because you have to be somewhere and have little or no alternative to flying on a quasi-governmental Greyhound bus, and because you must pass Go before you collect your $200, you have no choice but to enter through the TSA’s turnstiles of terror. At this point, people are intimidated and uncertain, which leads them to look for something that provides comfort. So the TSA goons ensure you they are working to help you, protect you, and keep you safe. They scare you, make small talk with you, and then pretend to secure you. So suddenly, people feel better and the feelings move from being intimidated to granting approval and thanks. The psychology of the process is quite simple and rather perverted, but it works on the majority of the herd.

After placing her bag in the x-ray machine, she was patted down by the TSSA agent who waves the people through the metal detector because she had wide-leg jeans. She was really heated then. "Why did she do that?" Again, I just smiled.

Conservatives Are Hopeless

Writes Lawrence Vance

While on an errand a short time ago, I turned on the radio in my gas-eating SUV and listened to about 1 minute of Rush Limbaugh (that was all I could take). He was whining about Obama gutting the military. Conservatives have a military fetish from which I fear they will never depart. But not only is Obama not gutting the military (Is there any doubt that the U.S. empire of troops and bases that encircles the globe will still be there at the end of Obama's first term?), it would be a great thing if he did. Conservatives are hopeless--hopelessly in love with war, empire, and the military.

I thought of this while reading the latest apology of the American State from the Examiner editorial. It begins

President Barack Obama’s willingness to criticize his own country, and unwillingness to defend it against vitriolic attacks from abroad, is starting to be more than a little worrisome. Americans have a right to have their president put our best face forward to the world. Instead, he has already traveled all over the world sending a message – an utterly false message – that we are to blame for many of the world’s ills. For that message to emanate from an American president is, frankly, outrageous.

I am giving up on trying to figure out why conservatives cannot separate "country" and "government." Perhaps they lack the intellectual and emotional IQ requisite to do so or perhaps they simply idolize the State. They are enamored with power and its application around the world as if threats of violence are necessary to gain cooperation among the peoples of the world. They act as if the US government is the hand of God and that anything it does (as long as a Republican is in office) is divine right. To criticize it is blasphemy.

The truth is that our government is to blame for many of the ills of the world, especially the ills under which all Americans live.  In the name of "protection" this dishonest, insane, and intolerable government expropriates some 40 percent of the incomes of private producers. It uses the money to provoke and bully foreign nations and also wage war on its own citizens, e.g., the war on drugs and the Patriot Act. This is the same government which believes that if its subjects move to another country and renouce their American citizenship, they still should pay taxes to the US government. And this abomination was passed under a Republican-controlled Congress in 2004. How can anyone who claims to love liberty excuse such tyranny?

As much as I dislike liberals, I have lately found myself truly loathing the conservative movement right now.

A Fellow K.O.O.K. Speaks

Gary D. Barnett, fellow K.O.O.K., comments on the recent DHS report. He connects the dots of the actions of our government and does not like the completed picture. He writes in part

All the federal government’s offensive and defensive mechanisms are being put in place while the lowly sheep await the slaughter. More economic tensions with more unemployment along with over-zealous police thugs bent on revenue creation; what will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back? What will it take before civil unrest is not just discussed on talk shows, but is evident in the streets of America? How much unrest will be tolerated by the now fully armed military-type police before they become physical?

I honestly don't think most Americans will believe that their own government will kill them until they have been shot by one of their protectors. For most Americans, the State is their god and they simply can't imagine that their god who claims to be their protector will harm them. They have been deceived on a massive scale in part because the democratic process blurs the line between rulers and ruled. Clearly there are rulers and ruled, but because the people meet their potential masters who tell them sweet lies to get their votes, they then think that these cretins have the public welfare in mind. They can't imagine that the people running for office might be murderous psychopaths. 

USAToday recently carried a story about the real story behind the Columbine massacre. The piece includes a chilling comment by Dave Cullen who recently wrote a new book on Columbine:

[Eric] Harris, who conceived the attacks, was more than just troubled. He was, psychologists now say, a cold-blooded, predatory psychopath — a smart, charming liar with "a preposterously grand superiority complex, a revulsion for authority and an excruciating need for control," Cullen writes.

If these psychologists' assessment of Eric Harris is true, then an 18 year-old high school student fooled all of the adults who were concerned with his well-being including his own parents. Do you really think that our democratic process can winnow out such people? Our democracy is a competition among liars, demagogues and potential murderers to crown the best liar, demagogue and potential murderer. The advantage goes to smart, evil people, e.g., psychopaths.

I don't want people to think that I wish for a violent end to this empire. I wish for no such thing and pray that such does not happen. As I have written many times in this space, the empire can end peacefully if a majority of people view the State as illegitimate and withdraw their consent. And indeed I could very well be wrong about the majority of the people. Ideology can change instantaneously and the majority could suddenly say, "Our government is evil." Michael Gaddy wrote to Lew Rockwell with an encouraging sign in this direction:

I am receiving an increasing number of responses from military personnel who tell me many in the military are beginning to awaken to the coming chaos, and are voicing their support for the citizens as opposed to the state. Perhaps having Obama rather than the previous office holder - who had a direct line to God - is indeed beginning to awaken some folks out there.

So there are pockets of hope. But I think the best advice is to hope for the best and prepare for the worse.

The Myth of the "Conscience Clause"

An Examiner editorial criticized the Obama administration's decision to eliminate the conscience clause in federal regulation in medical decisions. Such was no surprise to me. The only freedom liberals care about is the freedom to have sex with whomever they want and be free from the repercussions of such behavior. For the liberal, doctors who find abortion morally objectionable should be forced to perform the operation anyway, thereby freeing the liberal to engage in whatever libertine behavior he wishes and be spared the consequences. But enough about liberal morals. The better question to address is that of conservative morals.

The editorial reads in part:

This decision came only weeks after Obama overturned the Bush policy barring U.S. tax dollars being used to pay for abortions overseas. The result is that now Americans opposed to abortion are forced to pay for them abroad andhere at home in hundreds of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics that benefit from federal funds. Forcing medical caregivers to violate personal religious and moral values is of the same coercive cloth. Dr. John Bruchalski, who runs a no-abortion OB/GYN practice in Fairfax County, summed it up: “If conscience is compromised, freedom becomes a farce.”

I remember in Spring 2003 that many Americans were quite angry about their tax dollars being used to pay soldiers to fight a war in Iraq. I don't remember much respect for conscience coming from the right. I remember a lot of jingoism and patriotism. I remember some conservatives arguing that opponents of the war should be jailed. Michelle Malkin argued such in an 2004 interview using the tyrant Lincoln as justification: "Historically, civil rights have often yielded to security in times of crisis. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, which enabled him to detain thousands of rebels and subversives without access to judges."

One could argue that this law pertains to "medical conscience" and since the Iraq war was not an issue of medical law, then medical conscience does not pertain. True, but so what? If through taxation we are compelled to support wars we believe are immoral, how does that differ from supporting abortion if we find it immoral? And here is where the conservative and liberal agree philosophically. Neither the conservative nor the liberal is really interested in absolute moral laws or conscience. Both is concerned about his own definition of morality and wishes to force everyone else to live as such. The liberal wants everyone else to foot the bill for a mother wishing to terminate her pregnancy. The conservative wants everyone else to foot the bill for the American military to go around the world "defending the country." The common denominator is power. As long as the liberal has the power to achieve his ends everything he does is by definition "moral." As long as the conservative has the power to achieve his ends everything he does is by definition "moral."

If we are to have any hope of freedom in the future, we must realize that the power itself is immoral and that no one has a right to aggress against anyone else. Until a majority of Americans come to this moral conclusion, peace among the people in this country has no chance.

Are You a Member of the K.O.O.K.S?

Michael Gaddy has a very interesting article up on LewRockwell.com. He writes

Lately, I have become increasingly skeptical of the timing and circumstances surrounding mass shootings. Any investigator worth his/her salt would question how, within a short time of the state indicating its intention of prohibiting the sale of a certain type firearm, a mass murder occurs in which that type weapon is used.

A prudent individual, unencumbered with emotional or financial connections to the state, cannot logically ignore the similarities in many of these mass shootings.

First, there is the insane and totally explained phenomena of a person becoming angry at someone or something, and then randomly killing people they do not know.

Second, is the almost universal use of mind-altering drugs by the perpetrators of these heinous crimes? Almost all of those involved in school shootings were taking, or had just stopped taking, drugs such as Prozac or Ritalin.

Third, is the fact a great number of the shooters kill themselves after committing their heinous crimes?

Fourth, when the mass shooting does not fit the above profile, the state uses the incident to claim, as they did in the shooting this weekend in Pennsylvania, that the perpetrator feared the state was going to take his guns. This certainly aids the state in its efforts to paint all that are concerned about the possible loss of freedoms and encroachments on the 2A as potential killers and threats to society.

Why would the State provoke such "senseless" tragedies? Mr. Gaddy replies

As so eloquently stated by many of the economists at LRC, the current actions taken by the government to shore up the economy are all destined to fail. The current bailouts will fill the pockets of those who support and control the state and do nothing but lead to continued unemployment and financial chaos in this country and the world. The coming financial chaos will lead to civil unrest on a huge scale. Those who have been living on the producers in this society have been led to believe (by the state) they are entitled to the property of others and will take whatever action they deem necessary to secure it.

When millions are unemployed and businesses are failing in greater numbers than today, the state will be forced to seek other methods of revenue collection. If there were to be enacted a federal property owner’s tax, and seizures of private property were initiated to supplement the lack of collected revenue to run the state and its empire, state representatives sent to seize the property would prefer unarmed victims. The state will take the necessary steps to protect its revenue collection actions. If not, then why do we have armed IRS agents?

Obamadolatry

Gene Healy, author of The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power, admonishes us to beware of the cult of Obama (Don't worry, he criticizes conservatives for their devotion to Bush the Younger as well).

The "Southern Avenger" on Lincoln

Hat tip to Thomas DiLorenzo at the LRC blog.

Don't Believe a Word That Comes out of Obama's Mouth

It's practically impossible for me to actually listen to the drivel that spouts from Obama's lips -- or any president's, for that matter -- so instead of tuning in to Our Holy Savior's speech before Congress, I watched my Sabres blow another important game in their seemingly-futile hunt for an NHL playoff bid.

But I did catch a report on the speech this morning and even googled the transcript, and as I suspected yesterday, it was little more than an exercise in collectivist rhetoric. From promises to "rebuild" and "recover" by providing federal subsidies for irresponsible homeowners and banks to insulting students who decide to drop out of ineffective government schools as he lauded schoolchildren who write letters to the president begging for even more handouts, the Obamessiah surely didn't disappoint all the welfare kings and queens in the crowd.

Overall, the speech was filled with the same pointless jibberish about "national unity" and "revival" that you'd get from just about any president. You either buy into it or you don't, so I don't really feel like there's much point in trying to dissect the tripe.

But sometimes it is fun to point out the blatant falsehoods that tend to riddle these political cheerleading sessions. For instance, Obama said we "should not," "will not" protect American automakers "from their own bad practices." Apparently the billions-laden bailout package was just a mirage.

In defending this protection that really isn't protection, the Profit Prophet then said, "And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it."

First of all, if Obama wants the "nation that invented the automobile" to prop up the auto industry here in America, he might want to approach the French, Swiss, and Germans for some assistance. Germany's Karl Benz is generally regarded as the inventer of the modern automobile -- well after France's Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot built what is believed to be the first self-propelled mechanical vehicle and Switzerland's François Isaac de Rivaz invented the first internal combustion engine.

It's unlikely that one person could reasonably take all the credit for the invention of the automobile given that its creation resulted from a compilation of several imporant technological innovations. But even if a single man could, he most likely didn't live in America. No one in the U.S. arrived on the automobile scene until 1902, when Ransom Olds pioneered production line manufacturing, a concept later perfected by Henry Ford for mass production.

While there is some dispute as to who deserves credit as inventor of the first modern automobile, the fact remains that it was invented by an individual, not "a nation." I realize the 19th century was a little before the halcyon days of today's American welfare state, but if Obama insists on pushing all this nationalistic, collectivist blather, the least he could do is get his history straight.

But that's nothing in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps Obama's most egregious falsehood of the night was spewed when he discussed the economic hardships his policies are imposing on innocent Americans:

My budget does not attempt to solve every problem or address every issue. It reflects the stark reality of what we've inherited -- a trillion-dollar deficit, a financial crisis, and a costly recession.

Given these realities, everyone in this chamber -- Democrats and Republicans -- will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And that includes me.

What fatuous bunk. Nothing is so preposterously misleading as a politician's claim that he's "struggling" right along with the common schlep. Even as the economy is tanking and private companies and families are cutting back, the federal behemoth continues to grow. You can rest assured that tax-eating parasites in the nation's capital will continue to live the lives of luxury to which they've grown accustomed as they increasingly feed on their taxpaying hosts.

There exists no "worthy priority" that can be purchased with money confiscated from its rightful owners. That Obama insists with a straight face that a supposed cutback in spending money stolen from complete strangers constitutes some noble "sacrifice" is proof of his complete smarminess and audacity.

Believe this man at your own peril.

Should You Join the Military?

Great article today on The Rock by Laurence Vance, who shares a letter he wrote to a young Christian acquaintance in the attempt to dissuade others from joining the military. Mr. Vance's letter is largely founded upon a religious opposition to war, but he includes many other practical objections to enlisting one's service to the state.

I know my comments may not go over well with some of my friends and family who have either retired from the military or serve currently. But whereas I once wrote in support of the U.S. military, I can no longer do so now that I finally understand the true nature of the state -- which is to exploit advocates and dissenters alike for its own advancement of power and authority over both foreign and domestic subjects.

I believe the majority of people who enlist in the military do so for what they believe to be noble reasons, whether it be expressing love for their country and wanting to protect it, or even taking advantage of education and health benefits that are paid for with tax dollars that are extracted without consent but nevertheless given to others anyway.

Given that I'm a radical anti-state libertarian, it's easy for me to simply say I oppose all things government. But I should at least attempt to lend some details in explaining my aversion to a standing military.

While I understand why many people think a government military is more practical than private defense forces -- after all, national defense is constitutional, right? -- it is the state's monopoly on coercion that makes a government military (like any other statist entity) impractical if the goal is the protection of liberty.

Thomas Jefferson was generally opposed to a standing army and navy during peacetime, but even where he assented to nationalized service he was adamantly opposed to an interventionist foreign policy and empirialistic wars of conquest. However, this is merely an ideal when the state reserves the legal authority to tax without consent and otherwise establish monopolies on the use of force.

Despite the so-called good intentions of the Constitution, it should be remembered that there were more than a handful of outspoken critics, most prominently Patrick Henry, who warned that it would usher in a return to monarchy, which the country had just fought a war to eliminate. Indeed, the federal government has not devolved to its current state despite the Constitution, but because of it. Whereas the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war, presidents dispatch military forces despite this provision by exploiting a loophole the framers provided. In short, it is the almighty Constitution itself that places such tyrannical privilege in the hands of one man.

Therefore, whenever a country embraces a dictator, no one is safe -- least of all the men and women expected to do the bidding of their totalitarian master. Quite literally, some of the most productive members of society trade their services in the private sector for the opportunity to serve a single commander -- who will not hesitate to sell them out at the earliest opportunity if it provides cover for his own war crimes and immorality.

Moreover, while the U.S. technically retains an all-volunteer military, servicemen and women are at the mercy of the state. Mr. Vance writes to his friend, "Please remember that if you join the military, there is no getting out until your enlistment period is up." Would that this were actually the case. In reality, the Pentagon retains ultimate authority on service obligations and is notorious for manipulating its own contracts, which includes extending deployment periods and suspending discharges during conflicts.

A friend of mine once received deployment orders to Iraq despite satisfying the obligations set forth in his service agreement allowing him to resign his command. And while he was able to overcome this overreach, it still doesn't prevent him and others in his position from being ridiculed by the brainwashed masses in the military and civilian sectors, who like to wrap themselves in the flag as they endorse government without limit.

And this isn't even considering the very scary possibility that the Obama administration will implement a compulsory "national service" requirement for America's youth or even bring back the draft, both of which would amount to a return to legalized slavery of human beings in the "land of the free."

My son is only a year old, but one of my greatest fears is that he'll one day be used as a pawn of the state, shipped off to an unnecessary war and sacrificed at the altar of the American Empire. My biggest fear, however, is that he'll have no choice in matter.

Perhaps if enough people begin to understand the true machinations of the state, more and more brave, proud citizens will refuse to join or consent to the government's war machine.

What then, you ask? Well, maybe then the military would weaken to the point of irrelevance, where old men could not use the young to fight and die on their behalf; where foreign hatred would not be the result of political expediency; where our best warriors would be here at home in the unlikely event of an invasion, where they could join with other defenders of liberty to ensure their country remained free of the parasites for whom they initially refused to deploy.

The Police State Serves the Nanny State

Just because American families are being forced to tighten their belts as the economy hits Barack-bottom, that doesn't necessarily mean the state will be. The wealth destroyers will simply continue to feed their habits at the expense of the wealth creators.

Via Karen De Coster, police departments across the country will be writing more and more speeding and parking tickets in order to generate revenue as deficits increase during the depression.

Motorists in Pensacola, Fla., saw fines for parking in front of a fire hydrant or in a fire lane skyrocket from $10 to $100 — a 900 percent increase — after the city's Downtown Improvement Board reportedly unanimously approved the hike earlier this month. Statewide, speeding fines also increased by $10 this month, along with an increase of an additional $25 for exceeding the speed limit by 15 to 29 miles per hour.

And in the Boston suburb of Malden, Mass., Police Chief Kenneth Coye urged officers to bring in revenue for the cash-strapped suburb by writing at least one parking or traffic ticket per shift.

So many people believe the myth that government police exist to "protect us" when nothing could be further from the truth. Cops are merely employed to enforce the laws foisted upon us by our slavemasters, protecting and serving the state and its parasites by acting as its collection agents and henchmen.

Most People Don't Want Freedom

Robert Higgs dispels the myth that the election of Obama has ushered in a new era of socialism, instead explaining that it merely continues a trend he calls participatory fascism.

Lest you suppose that the masses are getting a raw deal, because their level of living would be so much higher in a genuine free-market system, bear in mind that virtually all of these people despise the free market. If you don’t think so, just give them an opportunity to live in one or even to move in that direction, conditional on their willingness to accept the personal responsibility and bear the risks that attend life in such a system—and you’ll see them flee quicker than a vampire exits at the first light of day.

How do you think we got into our present situation, anyhow? It’s not as though the masses were repeatedly given what they didn’t want. They had plenty of opportunities to say no to dependency on the state, but they turned away; and they do not intend to go back any time soon to what they imagine to be an unbearably harsh style of life. Rugged individualism might have been okay for their great-grandparents, but they want no part of it.

All of which leaves us—by which I mean nearly everybody on earth—converging on the only form of politico-economic system that has a stable equilibrium in our present ideological circumstances: participatory fascism. I am not saying that this system is the only one possible, forever and ever, amen. I am saying, however, that until the world’s people abandon en masse the collectivist ideologies that now determine their social cognition, policy evaluation, political practices, and personal identities, any hope for moving to a freer form of economic order as a stable equilibrium is virtually nil.

Higgs is dead-on. Our employers "owe" us a life of employment, replete with health benefits, life insurance, and a full pension. If they don't offer these, employees petition the government to force unionization. We lobby for continual increases in government-mandated minimum wage rates. When we're laid off, we expect the government to pay the rent and electric until we find a new job; and when a whole bunch of us are let go all at the same time, it's up to the government to "stimulate" the economy by printing money out of thin air to create jobs. If we don't feel like working or we have more kids than we can afford, it's only "humane" for the state to put food in our mouths.

Et cetera.

As evil as the state is, it could not operate as it does without consent from the masses.

(Via Manuel Lora)

No Such Thing As a Government 'Stimulus'

The bankrupting of the country continues apace as Barack Obama attempts to woo starstruck Republican senators into voting for a so-called economic stimulus package that's approaching $900 billion.

The perversity of such a measure should not go unnoticed. Not only can the federal government not afford to fund this package using existing tax revenue -- the national debt currently exceeds $10 trillion -- but just about half of this bill consists of tax cuts and increased subsidies for existing welfare programs. To wit:

The economic stimulus package proposed by Democratic House leaders totals $825 billion and includes three broad pieces: a $365.6 billion spending measure for such brick-and-mortar projects as highways and bridges; a $180 billion measure to boost jobless benefits and Medicaid, among other things; and a $275 billion tax-relief package, which includes a plan to give a $500 payroll tax holiday to all workers, a proposal from Mr. Obama's presidential campaign.

While the tax breaks are little more than sops to lawmakers to ensure the bill's passage, they also indicate that taxation essentially is irrelevant to government spending. Instead of taking tangible measures to raise revenue (which tends to elicit angry emails from taxpayers), politicians instead opt to fund their boondoggles using more discreet methods like borrowing the money or firing up the printing presses. Though borrowed money eventually needs to be repaid and inflation is nothing more than a hidden tax that manifests itself in higher prices, both are very successful in disguising the evil of government spending from those who fail to see or understand their long-term effects.

Under this Keynesian framework, the idea is that spending drives the economy. What one person spends becomes income for another. Therefore, if a recession causes a decrease in consumer demand for goods and labor (and hence spending), it's the government's responsibility to step in and increase spending in order to bolster the economy. This in turn leads to more jobs and overall wealth.

While this theory might sound good, its tragic flaw lies in the fact that the government cannot create wealth. All government spending is the result of taxation (in one form or another), which is to say the forcible extraction of real wealth from productive members of society. Government can merely redistribute this wealth from taxpayers to tax eaters; it is seized from its creators and diverted to less productive ends. As Henry Hazlitt explained in his outstanding book, Economics in One Lesson, subsidies mean that taxpayers must lose presicely as much as other people gain.

The only way the government can pay for its projects and programs is by robbing others of the wealth they've generated. Indeed, the state's very existence is dependent upon wealth destruction. Therefore, it is absurd to believe that the government can create wealth. And if it cannot create wealth, it most certainly cannot "stimulate" the economy. It can only weaken and eventually destroy it.

But, of course, reality is rarely an antidote to the poison of doublespeak. According to one report, Obama defended his non-stimulus plan in a meeting with Republicans by saying, "I would love to not have to spend this money."

Well, thankfully for him he won't.

The Myth of National Defense

I have just started reading The Myth of National Defense, edited by Hans Hermann Hoppe. There is an essay by Walter Block which argues against defense as a public good. His argument that the very idea of State-provided protection is inherently fallacious was truly an eye-opener for me.  As a libertarian/classical liberal, I believe that the greatest threat to life, liberty, and property is the State under which we live. I have approached this argument through philosophy and theology, but Walter Block gives such a simple answer, I can't believe I did not think of this before.

The ostensible purpose of the State is to protect life, liberty, and property from aggression. However, the State is a territorial monopolist of law and order with the power to tax. The very first act of this institution designed to protect our lives, liberty, and property is, in fact, an act of aggression against our lives, liberty, and property. It robs us of our property through taxation, it robs us of our liberty by demanding that we seek protection from no other producer of security (and in some US cities this includes producing our own security), and will rob us of our lives if we do not pay the tax or seek protection from other producers of security. This act occurs before any other threat is realized from domestic criminals or foreign States.

If the first act of the State is to aggress against those it is supposed to protect, it should be clear that the greatest threat to life, liberty, and property is, indeed, the very State which claims to protect us. Criminals and foreign States may attack our lives, liberty, and property, but such attacks will be sporadic and unpredictable. Our own government, on the other hand, is an institutionalized aggressor; it threatens us every year, every month, every week, every day, every hour, every minute, and every second with jail or death if we refuse its protective services or fail to pay taxes. Therefore, our own government is always the greatest threat to our lives, liberty, and property.

The Sky Is Falling!

For all that "change" Obama likes to talk about, he sure sounds a lot like all those Republican guys.

Judging by his latest warnings that the recession will only get worse if we fail to allow the government to continue to pour Monopoly money into the ecnonomy, Our Holy Savior is proving himself to be a Chicken Little we can believe in.

President-elect Barack Obama said Thursday the recession could "linger for years" unless Congress pumps unprecedented sums from Washington into the economy.

"I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible," Obama said in a speech set to be delivered at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., outside Washington. Excerpts from his prepared text were released in advance by his transition team.

Great Depression I was a crisis manufactured and protracted by the federal government and its central bank. Instead of allowing the necessary downturn in the economy to run its course, the state and its New Dealers turned a recession into a depression through the manipulation of the money supply and reliance on anti-market policies -- including but not limited to suffocating price, wage, and productivity controls and regulations, massive inflation, guaranteed credit, bailouts, import tariffs, and vast increases in government spending (eg. jobs programs) while many Americans were struggling or flat-out broke.

Sound familiar?

If there's one lesson the Great Depression taught us, it's don't trust the brain trust. Just like you wouldn't trust a salesman who tells you no one will give you as good a deal as he will, don't ever believe a politician when he warns that catastrophe is inevitable unless you allow him to show you the way. Just the opposite, catastrophe will most likely be guaranteed if you do.

These days we most certainly do face dire consequences when it comes to the economy, but only because it appears we refuse to learn from history. Instead of trusting the market to readjust to all the artificial manipulation imposed by the state, we pathetically continue to rely on the liars and thieves to get us out of a predicament they caused in the first place.

***
For further reading on this subject, see Murray Rothbard's outstanding Panic of 1819. As Lew Rockwell said, "Never heard of it? That's because it came and went, and that's because the government did nothing about it."

Obama's New Cash Cow

Could very well be...well...cows.

Under the guise of regulating greenhouse gases, the federal government -- you know, that entity that's constantly reminding us how much it "protects" us -- wants to increase the prices we'll pay for food and dairy products.

The New York Farm Bureau assigned a price tag to the cost of greenhouse gas regulation by the EPA in a release last month.

“The tax for dairy cows could be $175 per cow, and $87.50 per head of beef cattle. The tax on hogs would upwards of $20 per hog,” the release said. “Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits.”

Kate Galbraith, correspondent for The New York Times, noted on the Times’ “Green Inc.” blog that such a “proposal is far from being enacted” and that the “hysteria may be premature.”

But Rick Krause, senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau, warned it’s certainly feasible – especially based on the rhetoric of President-elect Barack Obama and the use of the EPA to combat global warming. Such action by an Obama administration would take an act of Congress for livestock to be exempt.

Such a tax would be a further act of violence against small farms in general and consumers in particular.

Re: The Meaningless Constitution

I originally intended this to be a comment on Trevor's post last week, but it got too long for a comment and decided to post it as an essay...

I think radicals would better use their time studying the debates on the Constitution and the situation that led to its creation rather than dwelling on interpretation. As Hans Hermann Hoppe has pointed out many times, the State is the ultimate judge of Constitutional interpretation and will always interpret laws in its own favor. There may have been a time when some judges genuinely wanted to limit the State, but those times are over and many opponents of the Constitution predicted such. Since the State has the weapons and will to kill, it really doesn't matter if the court misinterprets the document or not.

The idea of placing judges on the bench who will obey the Constitution is misguided. In order for a judge to be placed on the Court, he or she must be nominated by the president and confirmed by Congress. It is simply not in the interest of the president nor Congress to nominate a judge who truly believes in original intent or who believes that actions not explicitly granted to the federal government are unconstitutional. No president will nominate a judge who would act to restrict the power of the presidency. No Congress would vote for a judge who would act to restrict the power of Congress. Moreover, the Court itself has little incentive to rule against Congress or the president because as the powers of Congress and the presidency are strengthened, so is the power of the Court for all three are part of the same federalized State.

 

But even if by some miracle the majority of the Court comprises judges who would restrict the powers of the presidency and Congress, there still exists the question of how the Court could enforce its rulings. What most people do not realize is that the federal government is in a state of anarchy. That is, the Constitution does not specify what to do with disagreements among the three branches. There is no explicit ultimate ruler and there really does not need to be because all branches have the same motivation: increase our power at the expense of the people.

Stay Healthy: Abolish the State

Wal-Mart has announced plans to institute its own quality standards for products manufactured in China, going above and beyond the largely worthless federal regulations currently in place.

BEIJING (AP) — Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, said Wednesday it will set new quality standards for its suppliers amid a scare over toxic milk products that have sickened tens of thousands of babies across China.

Meanwhile, the United Nations released a report that recommends China increase oversight of its food safety system and hold businesses accountable for their products.

Mike Duke, vice chairman of Wal-Mart's international division, said the company is expecting "greater transparency ... from our supplier partners" beginning next month.

Why would Wal-Mart police itself? After all, aren't private businesses -- to say nothing of global superstores! -- just greedy capitalists out to rip us off?

Wal-Mart has much more to lose than the government does if it sells products that end up killing or sickening its customers. People can simply choose not to shop at Wal-Mart, but they can't so easily remove themselves from the State's clutches.

Don't buy into the myth that the government can keep you safe. Instead, if you value your health, associate as much as possible with those driven by the profit motive. Recall that when Mattel recalled nearly a million toys from China last year that contained lead paint, it didn't need to be forced to do so.

Alex Hamilton: Mercantilist

Contrary to popular opinion, Alexander Hamilton was not the founder of American capitalism. Anything but, explains Tom DiLorenzo.

Your Vote Matters

But not how you think, says Wilt Alston. It merely lends tacit support and approval to the greatest evil ever concocted: the State.

Once a Hack, Always a Hack

Is it just me, or does anyone else get a kick out of watching so-called conservative pundits piss and moan about the monstrous welfare check the federal government is getting ready to write in misguided hope of curtailing the recession?

From Gingrich and Kristol to Malkin and Coulter, the neocons are either railing against the Bush administration subsidies or trying to pin the financial disaster on liberals and the Clinton administration.

For starters, this is hardly a Repuglican vs. Demonrat issue. Both major parties have championed politically-correct, irresponsible monetary policy for decades. Whether it was Clinton's affirmative action-based lending policies or Bush's "ownership society," forcing banks to lend to people who can't pay their bills is financial suicide, to say nothing of the putrid marriage of socialism and fascism this cultivates.

Michelle Malkin says this is a time for "ideological principle" and "ideological courage." Is she serious? There may have been a day when Republicans would have at least refused to continue subsidizing a problem that was caused by their own subsidization policies in the first place, but I can't seem to remember any in the past eight years.

And poor David Limbaugh. He must have been in a coma since 2000. He's blaming liberals alone for "creat[ing] this monster of a financial mess by their incorrigible commitment to the magic of government."

Just today, Ann Coulter complains, "at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats' two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients."

Each of these commentators is right in some respect. We are in a financial crisis; government welfare policies eventually come home to roost; responsible middle-class taxpayers will receive no benefits as they're robbed so the federal government can keep profligate CEOs and homebuyers afloat; and this most certainly is a time for ideological principle and courage.

However, every one of these pundits is more committed to being a Republican shill than an ideological trendsetter. Just a few months ago, Ann Coulter was bashing John McCain. But hey, now that there's an election around the corner, all that matters is that the GOP wins (forget for a moment that it matters not who wins). Let's defend McCain and go back to bashing Bill Clinton.

If these guys really wanted to see a return to even a semblance of ideological purity and restrained government (which they don't), they would start penning columns right now urging everyone in the country who opposes this fleecing of America in order to bail out financial institutions -- which at last count was right around 93 percent of voters -- to write in Ron Paul on election day.

They had their chance to support the only Republican presidential candidate in the past 200 years who actually would have signficantly scaled back the leviathan state; who never would have endorsed the Fed and Treasury's continued bankrupting of the American citizen; and who would have been able to use a national stage to articulate the immorality of fiat currency and government-imposed inflation.

Of course, that would have caused them to fall out of favor with all their conservative and/or Republican readers who have voted for the very policies that are now proving so unsustainable.

So complain all you want. As long as you continue to endorse and vote for the establishment, you're just as much a part of the problem you're hyprocritically railing against right now.

The Great Stone-Thrower

Government, that is.

Given the massive destruction of wealth embodied by federal bailouts and takeovers of insolvent credit giants, it behooves us to revisit Lew Rockwell's brilliant essay earlier this year about how such activity is a reapplication of Bastiat's Broken Window fallacy.

Smashing Economic Myths

Here's an article by David Saied, speaking truth to some of the most deleterious economic myths which, like Jason Vorhees, Freddie Kruger, or Michael Myers, just never die and continue to kill the economic vitality of this country.

The Myth of Owing Taxes

Two-thirds of U.S. corporations have been avoiding the confiscation of their wealth taxes. Of course, some of our elected criminals congressman are distressed that these firms which provide jobs and products we actually want are avoiding to pay their required tribute fair share. Chris Edwards of the Cato Insititute points out "Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," thus the coffers of the State are still being filled, but of course, that's not enough.

The State has been quite effective in its propaganda about taxation. Some even believe that taxation is a patriotic duty, taxes being the dues we pay to belong to the club called the United States. But to paraphrase both Robert Higgs and Walter Block, what sort of club drafts people into the club and then threatens to take their property and their lives if they don't pay their dues? If I had given my consent to this government and asked for the government to provide me with services, then I would owe taxes. But as everyone who reads this blog regularly knows, I hate the State. I believe that taxation without consent is tyranny. The reason I pay taxes is because I know what the State does to people who rebel. If you think that my paying of taxes regardless of the reason is consent, such reasoning is erroneous. To paraphrase David Hume, just because a conscripted sailor does not jump off the ship and commit suicide does not mean he consents to being conscripted. Just because I don't commit suicide by rebelling against the IRS doesn't mean I consent to taxation. The State has better weapons than my friends and I do.

When I owe money to someone, it is because I either borrowed it or I was sold a product or service with the expectation of payment in the future. Notice that this is a voluntary exchange. On the other hand, the State exacts money from any source I have and uses the money for what it wants. Some may argue that we need the State to provide roads, utilities, schools, libraries, security, and other things the market won't. This is also erroneous thinking. First, the fact that consumers want roads, utilities, and schools does not mean that only the State can provide these goods. To quote Hans Herman Hoppe, "Just because monkeys can ride bikes does not mean that only monkeys can ride bikes." The market can provide these goods just fine. In these cases the State creates a monopoly for the providers of such goods; it either declares itself sole provider of the good such as security or it grants a monopoly to a private company and regulates it such as public utilities. It is the State that creates the monopoly; without the State people would find ways to produce these goods because there is money to be made.

Second, the fact that threats of violence are necessary for the State to get the funds to provide these goods means that the people don't want the State to provide these goods. If they wanted the State to provide these goods, taxation would not be necessary. You would just pay a fee for use of state roads or state schools, etc. If the State were to end taxation and just ask for voluntary payment, we all know that the State would receive nothing. I can't imagine anyone voluntarily paying for any good the State provides.

Third, most products and services that the State provides are bads which make our lives worse. The State uses our money to provoke and bully foreign governments; to wage offensive wars to spread "democracy"; to protect its own agents and disarm its subjects so its ruling over them will be easier; to finance failed social programs like the New Deal and the Great Society; to wage a war on drugs which has increased crime, death, and destruction in our inner cities; to control the money supply which bails out capitalist babies who can't stand competition and helps finance the welfare-warfare state; to create departments like the EPA and the SEC which create arbitrary rules at their own caprice that create permanent uncertainty for entrepreneurs who actually contribute to society; to run roughshod over the Constitution; to supervise all of its subjects' financial transactions in any country because it believes that everything we produce already belongs to it and it is just reclaiming what it already possesses; to tap our telephones and read our emails; to prevent drugs which may save lives because some bureaucrat in Washington believes they are unsafe; to harass us as we board airplanes because their original regulation of airline security failed so egregiously on 9-11-2001; to abolish our rights to private property so that local mini-States can confiscate our property at their own discretion; to pay nine people to have the final say on just what freedoms we deserve; and to indoctrinate our children in state schools to worship and love the State above all. And this is just a short list; there are many more bads we pay for, some of which we probably don't even know about. So unless you truly desired all of these bads, you don't owe taxes. You surrender taxes.

*Several of the bads in my list were from a lecture given by Hans Herman Hoppe entitled Private Defense-Now More Than Ever, which can be found here.

Another Example of Political Hubris

John McCain claims that all Americans back Georgia in its struggle to conquer South Ossetia. Really, all 300 million plus? Since most Americans probably don't know where Georgia is, I find this questionable. Nevertheless, McCain has no problem claiming we all support a country that many citizens have probably mistaken for the State of Georgia. Perhaps if he actually took the time to ask some of us, he would have received a different answer.

Given that McCain's favorite president is Teddy Roosevelt, it doesn't surprise me that he is always willing to take the side of the aggressor/empire builder. Here's an article by Justin Raimondo giving some background into the struggle and here's another by Brendan O'Neil. I can't claim any knowledge or understanding of foreign affairs to really comment; however, I do know that both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington discouraged entangling our country in foreign affairs; that the State is a criminal gang; and that if John McCain thinks something is a good idea, especially in foreign affairs, 99,998 times out of 100,000, you'll be correct in opposing him (Why 99,998? Even a broken clock is right twice a day).

World War II: Unnecessary War

Pat Buchanan shares a glimpse into his new book.

"Housing" Didn't Lead Us to Recession

Cyril Moulle-Berteaux writes in today's WSJ that the housing crisis is over.

If Moulle-Berteaux means that market prices are beginning to fall, well yes, he's correct -- that's usually what happens during a market correction like a recession. But he misses the entire cause of this "crisis" in the first place. From his closing sentence:

Nonetheless, housing led us into this credit crisis and this recession. It is likely to lead us out. And that process is underway, right now.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Congress and the Fed, through their inflationary manipulation of the money supply and interest rates, led us to this recession. Period.

Talk about focusing on the symptoms instead of the disease.

The Truth About Earmarks

I'm increasingly frustrated with "conservatives" who attack earmarks by advancing the myth that reducing or eliminating them would bring federal spending into check, all the while endorsing mammoth outlays for defense spending and any number of other government agencies, boondoggles, and entitlement programs that comprise the vast majority of the budget and result in continual government expansion.

I too would like to see lobbyists and bureaucrats cut off from the federal teat or to at least bring more transparency to the earmarking process, but earmarks serve to return taxpayer money whence it came and do not increase federal spending one whit, as Ron Paul recently explained before Congress.