Remember Our Forefathers

George Washington

Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.

…

The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.

…

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion [sic] as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

…

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest… There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

“Turkish PM furious over leaked US cable” – Washington Post
“Putin criticizes US over Wikileaks revelations” – Politics Daily

“Leaks spark concern in Beijing” – Radio Free Asia

“Uruguay demands clarification of Wikileaks reports” – Terra Peru (translated from Spanish)

“Tempers rise over Wikileaks revelations” – AFP

“Diplomatic furor grows over Wikileaks revelations” – NewsMax.com

“Wikileaks disclosures are leading to diplomatic cracks for US” – Chicago Tribune

Does anyone not see the contradiction above? Or rather, not so much a contradiction as much as an abject failure to heed the advice of the past; advice which was dictated by a wealth of knowledge gained through the experience of the ages. The old adage of ‘you reap what you sow’ has rung clearly. We have sown the seeds of dysfunction and enmity with our diplomacy, and our embassies are now so littered with the political entanglements bred by our failure to adhere to the sound political advice regarding foreign policy. What we see playing out now is the reaping of this bitter harvest.

But the most disturbing facet of our society brought to light by this situation is the response given by the general masses to the “leak” of all those classified documents. From calls of treason, to revisiting of the espionage act, to advocation of the assassination of Julian Assange, this pitiful display by the American people – obviously just repetition of the hysteria promulgated by big government media – simply highlights the complete misunderstanding of the true nature and function of government. As a result of over a century of state run education, the proper character of government has been so obfuscated that people truly believe that information should be classified and withheld from public knowledge. The purposeful withholding of anything from one person by another is nothing more than an act of totalitarianism, and completely inconsistent with perfect Liberty. Let us contemplate and then shatter the two common justifications for such despotic behavior: hysteria and national security.

The first, hysteria, is probably the one chosen most often as a supposedly obvious and logical reason for withholding specific information from public consumption. The line goes that if the general public suddenly was made aware of information which has been deemed beyond their scope, mass hysteria and pandemonium would surely ensue. Where to even begin. The proposition is so laughable, yet it is so tacitly accepted that it becomes scary. Realistically, what possible knowledge could exist within the inner circles of government that would cause people to behave in a frenzy? Aliens? Doomsday? The whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa? Who killed JFK? Give me a break. The rationale is so ludicrous that it boggles my mind how readily people accept this premise without even so much as a second thought.

But let us for one minute assume that there is something being held behind closed doors which could potentially have an earth-shattering effect upon our reality. As unrealistic and preposterous a suggestion as it is, it is even more outlandish to assume that 1, a select group of people should be privy to that information thereby elevating those select few to a status over and above the rest of mankind, and 2, that we underlings are so irrational and unstable that we cannot and should not make decisions for ourselves. On 1, how can anyone find it acceptable that in a republic, where the decision makers are nothing more than representatives elected from among the general public, those same representatives can decide for themselves and anoint themselves to positions and statuses which make them one step below divine? The mere suggestion is not only insulting to the dignity of any free person, but also tyrannical and suggesting of a despotism which no human being should be subject to. And on 2, how can anyone so easily accept that they should not be able to judge a situation or event for themselves? That acceptance is what is irrational.

The second justification for withholding information from the general public is the specious straw man, national security; that line being if certain information were made public it could potentially compromise our national security and jeopardize the lives of innocent Americans. Blah, blah, blah. The same arguments against the hysteria justification are sufficient enough to debunk this one as well, however an even more serious argument exists. When we speak of the true nature and character of government, we must consider the notion that if our government or its representatives behave in a manner which could potentially incite violence against the people of the nation, then they are acting in contrast to good government and in actuality are committing treason against the people. Let me state that again: if the government as an entity, or a representative of government commits any act which has the potential to incite violence and/or possibly bring death upon even one citizen, let alone thousands or millions, then the government has committed an act of treason against its citizens. The question should not be one of whether or not the general public should have access to knowledge which could jeopardize “national security,” but whether or not government should act in such a manner as to jeopardize the security of its citizens.

So leave Julian Assange alone. You want to be enraged? Be enraged that your government has pressured Amazon to close its servers to Wikileaks. Be enraged that the government is pressuring students not to read the Wikileaks site. Be enraged that your government is violating the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, and the freedom of the press. Be enraged, but direct it where it should rightfully be directed toward, the government.

John Locke - Father of Classical Liberalism

In my previous article I made mention of our “corrupted system of positive law” and the necessity of its eradication. This would be a good time to expound upon this subject and maybe just talk a little legal theory in general.

The Intro

When you walk down the street and decide to cross the road outside of a crosswalk, you could be cited for an infraction and possibly fined. Who are you hurting by doing that? If you drive your vehicle, even 5 mph, without your seatbelt on, you can be pulled over, ticketed, and receive points on your license which cost untold dollars in mandatory insurance premiums. Who are you hurting by doing that? If while walking to the corner store for a loaf of bread you feel the desire to openly drink an alcoholic beverage, you could be heavily fined and possibly arrested. Who are you hurting by doing that? Suppose you suffer from tremendous pain, or perhaps you just want to relax and feel a little personal enjoyment, so you decide to purchase a bag of marijuana but you are tricked by an undercover police sting and are arrested to face fines and jail time. Who are you hurting by doing that?

When laws are made by people, they are certainly not fool proof, nor are they necessarily just. Therein lies the problem: that over time the human race has accepted the fact that the “law” is anything that a sovereign, whether one person or many, deems as such. As I have stated here, there is a long standing tradition of the nullification of unjust “laws” which exists in this country, but in this case I’d like to examine why we even accept the enactment of such “laws” in the first place. How have we become so complacent in our lives to allow such travesties of our Liberty and property to be perpetrated against us each and every day? Should not a “law” be something that is equitable to all and not just to some of society? Should “laws” even exist if they conflict with natural rights? Our problem begins when we consider and accept legal positivism, which lends credence to such “laws“, as a valid theory of law.

Legal positivism posits that all laws are the creation of people, that they have no necessity to be backed by morals or ethics, and that any rights enjoyed by a society are at the sole pleasure and disposition of the sovereign entity of that society. In fairness to the doctrine, it does not suggest that people accept or obey all laws. What it does, however, is to help define the “law” as any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state. It is this definition which we accept as the true meaning of “law” and so it is this philosophy which leads us to ask each question I did so in the preceding paragraph. It is my position, though, that “laws” are not man-made, as the principles of Liberty and Justice exist without our saying so; that they absolutely must be backed by ethics (but not necessarily morals as morals are a matter of personal preference) or else they violate Liberty and Justice; that the only rights that exist are natural rights which do not need to be conferred upon anyone as they exist without proclamation; and finally that no sovereign entity has the power to confer or grant rights to anyone, as all people have been created equal without any one or group being divine.

The Errors

 To say that a law is anything which a monarch or dictator or even legislature decrees is the first fallacy of legal positivism. Again, mankind is not infallible, and has been evidenced throughout history, the error of our ways are in continuous prominent display as our so-called laws are repealed, disregarded, and nullified. The proper way to define law is as we do in science, invariable principles which govern the action of and interaction between human beings. What exists in the pages in the Federal Register are not laws, they are the edicts and commandments of people. If a person, or group of people issues decrees in contradiction to the natural rights of Life, Liberty, and the ownership of Property, then those decrees hold about as much water has a hole-filled barrel. The Federal Register is littered with such trash. Every “law” which violates the freedom to trade as we choose; every “law” which violates our freedom to contract ourselves in any manner we choose; every “law” which restricts our freedom to purchase or consume what we choose; every one of these “laws” is a violation of our just Liberty and therefore is not law at all. As a matter of fact, they are quite contradictory to what laws truly exist. That all men and women are equals under the heavens is law. That all men and women are free to pursue their own endeavors so long as they do not encroach upon those of another is law. That all men and women have the right to acquire and dispose of property in any manner which does not violate the Liberty or property of another is law. That all men and women have a right to defend themselves from the transgressions of others is law. These are laws, natural and immutable, existing before the first state ever issued its first decree, and anything to the contrary is an affront to humanity.

The second error of legal positivism is the idea that laws have no necessity to at least be based upon ethics (as morals are a matter of personal values and judgments and therefore have no place being held over an entire society). This fallacy goes hand in hand with the one in the prior paragraph. Just because a dictator or legislature issues a commandment does not make it just or right; and if a decree is not just, how can a person be expected to adhere to any ordinance which is ethically repugnant to the immutable and natural laws which exist between human beings? The Fugitive Slave Act was once considered “law”. The Black Codes were once considered “law”. Prohibition was once considered “law”. Ethics, properly defined, is that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions. Were those “laws” mentioned above based upon rightness? If any one individual can claim in good conscience and with whole heart that the rules that we should abide by have no need to be based upon their rightness, then that person’s character must be called into question. Furthermore, to ask any person to abide by an act which contradicts what is just and right is to ask that person to compromise their character and integrity.

The third and fourth errors of legal positivism are tightly intertwined within the third principle of the theory: that all rights enjoyed by the people are conferred upon them by the sovereign entity of the society. The first of the two corrections is that rights exist naturally without ever having to be spoken. The second is that no person or group of people has any power to grant rights upon anyone, as all human beings are created equal without any one or group being from the lineage of deities. The third error is very easily diagnosed and then corrected following the same logic as the refutation of the first error mentioned above. The natural rights of human existence appear even before natural laws do. The best way to sum up the idea of natural right is to say that only one natural right truly exists, and it is this one right from which all of our pleasures are derived: that people are free to act according to their own will without being infringed upon by any other. Free will is the supreme natural right. A person is free to act as they choose, but it is only at the moment they enter into society that they decide to cede a part of their whole freedom for the betterment and cooperation of the society. By this I do not mean that people give up their freedom in the understood sense, as in they allow others to rule over and above them, but that they give up their freedom to act in any manner in which they choose. They allow themselves to be governed by the natural laws of human society as mentioned above in refutation of the first error (i.e. property, consumption, contract, trade, etc.). As the right of free will does not ever have to be confirmed through the spoken word, neither do the natural laws, as they follow pure logic and reason behind human interaction. If a person is to be prosperous and comfortable in society, they need the other members of society to be the same. For a person cannot provide for each and every one of their needs and therefore requires that their neighbors be full and happy participants under the grand scheme of the division of labor within that society. It is this mutual respect which fuels the true progression and advancement of civilization, and it is under the natural laws which govern free will that this mutual respect is fostered.

The fourth error is clearly evident once the magnitude of the idea is fully realized. To say that one person’s rights are enjoyed only at the pleasure of another is truly the idea of a tyrant. Even legislatures cannot confer onto nor remove rights from the people over which they govern. As mentioned above, rights exist without anyone’s saying so. They also exist in the face of their own suppression by the decree of tyrannical dictators or legislatures. For example, though it is unjustly illegal to consume banned substances, the right to do so still exists. The right never disappears nor fades away, however it is the oppressive police state which suppresses a person’s right to do so by enforcement of the unjust edict at the barrel of a gun. To step away from a subject so controversial as banned substances, let us consider another example. Under the natural laws which govern humanity, a person has a right to obtain and possess property. The monetary medium of exchange, money, is nothing more than a form of property that one person receives in exchange for their labor or from the sale of their goods. Again, it is the person’s right to acquire, possess, and dispose of such property, money. The Federal Government extracts a healthy piece of this property from a significant portion of the population on a week to week basis in the form of an income tax. This does not mean that the people have lost their right to acquire, possess, and dispose of their property how they deem fit. It means that the tyrannical Federal Government is suppressing this right by way of fear and intimidation. To put it simply, rights cannot be conferred nor removed, they can only be suppressed. Suppression of rights is oppression, and oppression is the work of tyrants.

The Conclusion

Somewhere in the course of human history we have allowed ourselves to fall prey and consequently victim to the gross ambitions of power-starved megalomaniacs. The sad reality is that it is not the fault of such people that our world has become one of suppression and oppression, but the fault of the obsequious masses of the past and present so willing to allow their rights and Liberty to be bought and sold by the duplicitous masters of empty promises and false hope. The law must be recognized for what it truly is, not the simple proclamations of mere mortals. The law is the perpetual axiom of pacific human interaction. The law is the incontrovertible origination of what we call the “golden rule,” coming into existence long before the words ever needed to be spoken. The sooner this self-evident truth becomes fixated within the minds of not just Americans, but of people throughout the entire world, the sooner the world will be rid of such iniquities as institutionalized inequality and utter destitution. The sooner, the better.

“Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.”

 (The more numerous the laws, the more currupt the State.)

Cornelius Tacitus, Ab excessu divi Augusti (Annals), c 117 AD

Amongst other things, and not all good, John Adams is remembered for his 1780 quote on creating a “government of laws and not of men.” When we think of this maxim we must consider how it was originally intended and why it was of such importance to not only colonial America, but dating all the way back to the Middle Ages and even to Ancient Greece. The men who espoused this principle did so to defend their liberty from overbearing sovereigns who believed that they were the law and not subject to it. Fast forward to modern times, and we suffer from this exact form of oppression.

First and foremost, criminal and civil laws are created by our proxies, elected representatives at all levels of government. This premise is of extreme importance and must be remembered at all times. The laws are written by men (and women) and because they are such they are subject to human error. Throughout history, when laws contrary to liberty have been written there have been two ways to correct such injustice: 1, by demanding repeal of such laws by the representatives who wrote them or by replacing such representatives with those who will, and/or 2, by civil disobedience and nullification (both state and jury). With nullification effectively erased from society’s memory by those seeking to further their own power, and until the day it is rightfully reclaimed by the populous, the only forum for correcting the law is through the election process – the pinnacle of power in a free republic. When those who we have chosen as our representatives choose to stray from the just reasons of their election, they can always be tossed out after their term, and in rare cases of egregious wrongdoing by a representative, there exists the option of impeachment. Thus we can exercise authority over and hold accountable our representatives for their deeds while acting as our proxies, from the local town council all the way up to the highest seats of government.

But who holds to account the police officer who operates his/her cruiser with a cell phone glued to his/her ear? What about the officer who endangers the lives of other drivers on the highway so that he/she may get to the left lane and fly down the road at speeds that would have our vehicles impounded? How about the myriad officers who violate the liberties of individuals with unwarranted searchs and seizures? Who holds the police who murder innocent civilians accountable for their deeds? Who punishes the police? Internal Affairs departments you say? That’s like saying that a group of politicians within the larger body should wield the power to be judge of their colleagues’ performance. If we have the means to hold politicians accountable for their actions in writing the law, why should we not have those same means to hold the enforcers of the law accountable for their actions in upholding the law? And if accountability for their actions is not enough of a reason to have the same veto power over law enforcement officials as we do over politicians, then perhaps the fact that their salaries are extracted from us without our consent gives us the right to demand governance over their performance.

That is right, I am asking why it is that we do not have the elective power to keep in check those in charge of upholding the laws. I could ascertain the prime criticism for such a suggestion as it being burdensome to the election process, making it entirely too long to elect an entire police force, especially in larger cities. To this I say the following: perhaps then that means that there are too many police officers and their ranks should be cut down, and if certain large cities require larger forces then perhaps those forces should be broken down into smaller precincts electible as smaller units by the smaller boroughs of the larger whole. There is no legitimate reason as to why law enforcement officials should be exempt from the same accountability that their fellow public servants operate under. The laws are meant to protect and serve the people of the community who reside under said laws, and seeing as how public officials are our servants rather than our masters, it makes perfect sense that the populace should have firm control over them. As a matter of fact, we already do have an elected head of law enforcement, the county sheriff. So let us begin from there.

It is high time that people realize, if they haven’t already, that the modern police force serves as nothing more than an extractor of wealth for the State with no compelling reason or obligation to protect the people who pay their salaries (see Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)). Worse even than being merely pickers of our pockets, the police state under which we live is becoming increasingly more violent, and it is not the citizenry fueling the violence. A 2007 article in USA Today citing Justice Department statistics showed a post 9/11 rise in “excessive force or other tactics to violate victims’ civil rights [by] 25%” between 2001 and 2007. What’s more, according to termlifeinsurance.org there were 2,541 reported incidences of police misconduct from January to June of this year alone! 23%, or approximately 592, have been the use of excessive force of which 13%, or roughly 77, have been fatal. Remember those in charge of checking our wonderful police, Internal Affairs? Well, according to that USA Today article, the number of all reported incidences referred for prosecution but were declined was an astonishing 98% in 2005 and 96% in 2006! Who, if not us, will hold these people accountable?

If we are to begin to exercise control over and hold accountable those who enforce our laws, we need to begin the cleansing at the local level. Municipal police departments must be abolished. Those unproductive members of society who have done nothing but serve themselves can then take up occupations within society which will actually benefit society rather than hinder and enslave it. (As a side point, in addition to taking ticket writers off the street, which will save the citizenry precious money, most municipal budgets would shrink tremendously once the subsidized extorters are removed from the books). Once that is accomplished, every locality can add a sheriff to their ballot, and determine whether additional positions are necessary. If deemed necessary, the local government can then decide whether these additional positions are to be elected or appointed. It must be noted that appointed officials are still accountable as they can be removed with the election of a new sheriff.

The problem arises when one begins to consider areas with high crime rates. The question at that point is, are the crime rates high because bad people are violating good laws, or are bad laws making good people bad? Without going into exhaustive detail over the damage it has done, the amount of liberty it has stolen, or the amount of money it has cost, the War on Drugs is a perfect example of how bad laws are making good people bad (and we can ignore person moral beliefs regarding drug use, as they are simply that, personal). That brings us to the second step in our quest to hold the enforcers of the law to account: ridding ourselves of what Tacitus so aptly put nearly two thousand years ago, the numerous laws of our corrupt State. By merely ending the War on Drugs (or through its nullification by state and local officials) and every other Nanny State law that serves no purpose and is truly quite contrary to the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded, nearly all need for additional law enforcement will eradicated like the plague that it has become. Once we rid ourselves of our corrupted system of positive law, we can transform law enforcement from the paramilitary force that it has become to the Conservator of the Peace that it once was. That means that your sheriff and his/her deputies and officials will exist only to: arrest people officially charged with a crime, serve people with subpoenas, operate local prison facilities, and maintain the peace from unlawful aggression.

The movement toward Liberty is just beginning. Given the results of the most recent election, it appears as though average Americans are beginning to wake up to the mess that is surrounding them, but we should not allow this progress to stop at minor reforms of the federal government. If we are to truly be free, we must take back our lives from every form of aggression and oppression leveled against us over the past 150 years. From self aggrandizing politicians at all levels to unruly and vicious police officers, the promises of Liberty and Justice are far from being lived to their fullest. It is only through education and action that we can truly live the real American Dream envisioned by those men who shed their blood to remove tyranny from the this continent over 240 years ago. Will we let them down? Or will we be the first generation in almost two centuries to see their dreams come to fruition?

Who gave you the right to tell citizens of other nations which political system they should have govern them?

Who gave you the right to tell citizens of other nations which of their resources they should and shouldn’t use?

Who gave you the right to tell citizens of other nations how they should or shouldn’t arm their militaries?

Who gave you the right to tell citizens of other nations who they can and cannot trade with?

Who gave you the right to punish citizens of other nations for the choices they have made for themselves?

Who gave you the right to tell people that they cannot exercise their freedom to contract how they choose?

Who gave you the right to tell people that they cannot work for any labor rate that they see fit?

Who gave you the right to tell people who they can or cannot hire for employment?

Who gave you the right to tell people who they must provide goods or service for?

Who gave you the right to tell people how much they can charge for a certain good or service?

Who gave you the right to force people to buy goods made from one person as opposed to another?

Who gave you the right to force people to buy any good or service without their consent?

Who gave you the right to force people to hand over portions of their earned income without their consent?

Who gave you the right to prevent people from buying a good simply because you do not approve of it?

Who gave you the right to dictate to people what they can or cannot do with their own property?

Who gave you the right to dictate what people can or cannot consume if they so choose?

Who gave you the right to determine how much money a person can donate to a cause they support?

Who gave you the right to determine how people voice their opinions and at which times they can do so?

Who gave you the right to mandate to parents how they should educate their children?

Who gave you the right to mandate to parents how they can discipline their children?

Who gave you the right to put the interests of one group of people over and above the interests of another?

Who gave you the right to use a person’s own money to fund something they disagree with?

Who gave you the right to use a person’s own money to fund anything that they did not choose to fund themselves?

Who gave you the right to become the judge of morals?

Who gave you the right to foist your beliefs upon someone else?

Who gave you the right?

“I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison, 1787

On most days, one of my co-workers and I will exchange an email or just verbally make each other aware of any interesting articles that we find. It usually leads to an interesting discussion, more often than not of a monetary nature, but we certainly do not shy away from politics, despite the old adage to the contrary. 

Well, today was no exception.  The order for discussion this Monday, was an interesting article from September 28 on www.MarketWatch.com, entitled America on the brink of a Second Revolution. Now how could I pass that up? With great anticipation and excitement I began to read, and it started out ok, but after a couple paragraphs went south, and in a hurry. So, let me begin. 

The author begins with a pretty weak quote from Newsweek, which right off the bat shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Tea Party and political philosophy in general. To be sure, the Tea Party is not anarchistic. It may have begun as such, and it shows elements of a minarchist tidal wave, however the Tea Party still openly endorses American Empire and military might, so to call it anarchistic is either a misunderstanding of anarchy or a deliberate attempt to stain the reputation of true libertarian reform.

 A little further down, we see the complaints that a “Second American Revolution will extract painful austerity…” and ”for years it’ll be impossible for most of America’s 95 million investors to develop a successful investment or logical retirement strategy.” For one, there is nothing wrong with austerity. After the last few years of pain, pain suffered because of the extreme consumerism brought on by the phony money injected into our economy and the overall lack of ability to handle the debt brought on by it, this country needs a lot more saving. And sorry, sir, but in the case of a revolution I’m sure that “retirement strateg[ies]” and “successful investment” are the last things on peoples’ minds.

 Then comes a convenient timeline. It appears that our author is not only a market writer, but he’s also a clairvoyant. Let’s take a look at the stages:

 Stage 1: The Dems just put the nail in their coffin by…  refusing to force the GOP to filibuster the Bush tax cuts for America’s richest. Ok. That we can accept.

Stage 2: The GOP takes over the House, expanding its war to destroy Obama with its new policy of “complete gridlock,” even “shutting down government.” If the government ever “shut down” we’d all be better off. Gridlock is what we need so that our benevolent oppressors do not continue to bury us in debt. Only a true statist would disagree.

Stage 3: Obama goes lame-duck. That would be fantastic.

Stage 4: The GOP wins back the White House and Senate in 2012. Health care returns to insurers. Free market financial deregulation returns. Unfortunately probably true. The question will be whether or not the “GOP” has learned their lesson and becomes the “Old Right” or if they continue on with their program of corporate welfare. With regard to “financial deregulation”, that is the big lie of statists. More laws have been put on the books governing commerce, and specifically the financial sector, in the last 20 years than have come off (think Sarbanes-Oxley and Graham-Leach-Bliley). In fact, nothing has been deregulated. If, by “financial deregulation” we mean the loose lending standards of banks, then again, either the author does not understand the definition of deregulation, or he is lying to confuse the reader. The loosening of lending standards was accomplished by government decree; it was the stated mission of HUD per its own press releases. If a government orders that something be done, how can a person, with honesty, argue that action is being taken freely? Deregulation implies total freedom.

Stage 5: Under the new president, Wall Street’s insatiable greed triggers the catastrophic third meltdown of the 21st century Shiller predicted, with defaults on dollar-denominated debt. Wall Street’s “insatiable greed”, as we know it, is fueled by government’s implicit and now explicit guarantees of bailouts. If the poor, poor “95 million investors” were forced to actually perform for the benefit of their customers, as they would in a free market, then any “insatiable greed” that motivated them would actually benefit their clientele. Why would that be a problem?

Stage 6: The Second American Revolution explodes into a brutal full-scale class war rebelling against the out-of-touch, out-of-control greedy conspiracy-of-the-rich now running America. Oh the Marxian fable of “class war”. I wonder if this author understands that the 1st American Revolution was not one of class, and that both the wealthy and the poor contributed mightily to the resistance of the British Empire. (As a matter of fact, the middle and upper middle classes contributed disproportionately more on behalf of the resistance whereas the less well off where somewhat more inclined to support the Tory landowners.) The 2nd Revolution would be more of the same. When social commentators make statements like “the out-of-touch, out-of-control greedy conspiracy-of-the-rich now running America” all they do is confuse the issue even more. The Tea Party “revolution” we see now has been far from one of the poor and destitute rebelling against an all powerful government composed of the rich. The vast majority of Tea-baggers have been middle and upper middle class citizens voicing their displeasure with the government. Revolutions are not class wars; they are wars of the People vs. the State. Always have been, always will be.

Stage 7: Domestic class warfare is compounded by Pentagon’s prediction that by 2020 “an ancient pattern of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies would emerge” worldwide and “warfare is defining human life.” The reason “warfare is defining human life” is because statists, like the Pentagon, perpetuate the war mentality by promoting Empire. It is the State that promotes war. People, left to their own devices, have no need for war. It is the State, and the nationalism that is promoted by the State, which encourages conquest. It is also the State, and its devices, which have created the shortages in food and supplies. Any revolutionary war will not be one of people fighting people over shortages; it will be one of people fighting against the State for their means of survival.

 Now let’s examine the 10 points of the “brilliant” report, “Decadence of Election 2010″ by another obviously statist economist, Peter Morici, formerly of the International Trade Commission (you may have to read the MarketWatch article to get some of my points).

 1. Expect nothing positive from Dems, the GOP or Tea Party. Absolutely correct. The Dems and Repubs are so far gone it’s not even funny. They are completely unsalvageable organizations. Unfortunately, so long as the Tea Party continues to support the American Empire, then you can expect no positive end result from them as well. You will certainly get some libertarian results at the outset, but all that will be offset by the costs incurred by maintaining the empire.

2. Democracy has become too-big-to-govern … by anyone. Democracy absolutely is too big to govern. Republicanism is not. And last time I checked, this country was supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. It has been perverted to become this leviathan of a mercantilist Democracy. However, what the author is referring to as being too big to govern is not Democracy, but the economy. And that much is very true. This entire mess is the result of the attempts to plan the economy. From central banking, to government regulation, the attempted managing of an economy, a complex structure of individuals making individual decisions based upon individual circumstances, is impossible and will always fail, regardless of which political party or ideology is in control. For more, read Ludwig von Mises’ excellent work, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.”

3. Clinton, Bush, Obama policies all feeding revolutionary flames. See #2. When governments attempt to manage economies, they are always doing so with the best interest of their biggest donors in mind. The “revolutionary flames” being fanned are those of the people finally waking up to the fact that they have been robbed blind, and their hard earned dollars are given away to pet projects and pet corporations.

4. Bush’s biggest mistake: Goldman CEO Hank Paulson. See #’s 2 and 3.

5. All partisan political leaders are destined to sabotage America. See #3. Ever since the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution was perverted to mean anything that Congress wants it to, politicians have been able to extort your tax dollars to fund whatever they feel is in their best interest. Politicians do not seek to deliberately sabotage anything, they simply seek to keep themselves in power. It is the fault of the American people for allowing this to go on for so long.

6. America’s democratic capitalism trapped in systemic failure. Ahhh, the fallacy I spoke of in Why Some People Hate Capitalism: we do not have it! We live under a mercantilist economic system. This is another one of those situations where one must question whether the author, who should be educated in political economy, honestly does not know the difference or if he is deliberately trying to confuse and misinform his readership. I’m going to think the latter.

7. Wall Street’s insatiable greed is a virus that never sleeps. I’m going to re-state what I wrote above for Stage 5, because it is absolutely applies here:

Wall Street’s “insatiable greed”, as we know it, is fueled by government’s implicit and now explicit guarantees of bailouts. If the poor, poor “95 million investors” were forced to actually perform for the benefit of their customers, as they would in a free market, then any “insatiable greed” that motivated them would actually benefit their clientele. Why would that be a problem?

But then he writes something which begins to make me question the true motive of his article: “[a]nd they’ll keep doing it till the revolution creates a new non-capitalist banking system.” First off, we do not have a capitalist banking system. With the creation of the Federal Reserve, the previous system which existed, a quasi-capitalist system (as money was created by government however still based upon gold holdings), was destroyed and a centralized, ie socialist banking system was established. There can be no confusing the two; this was another deliberate attempt by the author to confuse the reader. Furthermore, if the author’s previous display of a lack of understanding of the Tea Party wasn’t enough, this statement surely proves it. One of the saving graces for the movements libertarian genesis is the very fact that they do indeed subscribe to the Sound Money storm begun by Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. So if, in fact, a 2^nd Revolution brings Tea-baggers to the forefront, I highly doubt that they will “create a new non-capitalist banking system.”

8. New political leaders offer no hope — Wall Street rules America.  The abolition of taxes, absolute deregulation, and the destruction of all Federal spending programs are most certainly what will fix this country. Most people have never even thought of deregulating healthcare because the idea has never sufficiently been proposed by the power-mongers in Congress. And as far as Wall Street is concerned, a complete deregulation is necessary as well as a withdrawal of all guarantees, both explicit and implicit, of Federal bailouts. The brokers are not the issue, the politicians are. Wall Street does not “rule America”; power hungry politicians do. The banksters fund the political campaigns and the politicians help out their bankster allies. You wash my back and I’ll wash yours. End the ability for politicians to help out their pets, and you will end the power and influence that Wall Street exerts over Congress. There is no other way to solve that issue. And as far as “robber barons” are concerned, the author needs to brush up on his history: the “robber barons” could only exist because they used government to further their interests. So like the Wall Street crowd, if you end the politicians’ ability to fund whoever and whatever they like, you end the power and influence.

9. Praying for a messiah, we’re sleepwalking till the revolution. America does not need another politician who will increase the size and scope of the Federal Government. That is exactly what they are rebelling against now! Both Reagan and Truman did exactly that. You want a prophet, then look to Ron Paul and the Austrians.

10. The Second American Revolution coming. This is an absolute joke.  The market works all the time, it is government meddling which causes it to malfunction  (ie his four biggest sectors which happen to be the most heavily regulated!). He is right though, a “new approach to regulating” is absolutely necessary, however that approach is one which views regulation as the harmful and unnecessary toy of government that it is.

 And the coup de grace, the statement which says it all: “[s]ounds radical but running the world has never been a choice between statism and anarchy.” “Running the world.” Therein lies the problem, the root of all evil, the quest for, and lust of power.