Remember Our Forefathers

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

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.

“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?

“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.

The simple answer: education, or rather the lack thereof. An unrelated case in point, a couple days ago I finally purchased Thomas DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln. In all fairness, I have never been a Lincoln admirer based upon what I have read prior to DiLorenzo’s work (consisting mainly of attempted positive portrayals of Honest Abe too). I have barely been able to put the book down, so when the situation arose, I spilled all the info that I had absorbed from the first few chapters to some coworkers in my office. Well, amongst the listeners was one person who’s predictable reply was, “There are tons of books on him [Lincoln] to the contrary, you can’t believe that one.” Ahhhh yes, all those books written by the students of government education parroting the Government’s line that good ol’ Abe Lincoln worked tirelessly to free slaves and reign in the out of control South, as well as to bring about the necessary capitalist reforms that this country was long in need of. And then there was reality, the reality long since glazed over by the myth creators who wished nothing more than to hide the true nature of Lincoln’s politics: the consolidation of power in a centralized Federal Government. Revisionist history sure works wonders.

It may appear as though I have digressed from my proposed title, however I have not. My point is that Hitler’s “Big Lie” theory (“[I]n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie…” Mein Kampf) has been proven absolutely true. As with the big Lincoln lies, we also have the big capitalism lies. Beaten into our heads by the likes of government educators and the always honest politicians, is the idea that America is a great capitalist nation. That, yes, we do have some rules governing that wild and crazy free market, and although we do dole out corporate welfare and other subsidies, we are still definitely living under a capitalist economy. Some have even taken the government koolaid to the next level, for instance:

“One of the most common and misleading economic myths in the United States is the idea that the free market is “natural” – that it exists in some natural world, separate from government… Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, a market economy does not exist separate from government – it is very much a product of government rules and regulations… Without these rules, our prized free-market economy would be a stunted and feeble version of what we see today.”

This nonsense is only the beginning of a long love-fest with government, and the sad fact is that this garbage is being perpetrated by a college professor (albeit a professor of politics, which is laughable in its own right).

Our economic system as it exists today, call it whatever you will, is decidedly unfair and deserves every ounce of criticism that it gets. The corporate welfare which our beloved Congressmen so willingly bestow upon their greatest donors is a threefold affront to American citizens: not only are portions of our hard earned incomes robbed from us and given to undeserving corporations, and not only do these welfare payments also serve to stunt development as these corporations have no incentive to significantly improve given that they will receive their unjust rewards either way, but also the myriad regulations that these same corporations lobby on behalf of serve to keep start-up companies from entering the market due to oppressive legal costs thus artificially raising the prices of the products existing on the market. The American people are further injusticed by the over 12,000 tariffs on the books. These protectionist tariffs serve only one purpose: to keep the incomes of those protected American producers artificially higher than they would be under free competition. And all that does for you and I is keep the prices of the protected goods higher by preventing competition, thus reducing our purchasing power. Finally, the existence of labor laws, including the minimum wage and 40 hour work week, does further damage to the pocket books of Americans as they prevent people from their freedom of contract and also by keeping wages artificially higher than they would be in certain circumstances, they prevent employers from hiring even more employees than they currently do. We won’t even get into the havoc wreaked upon the free market by the very existence of a central bank!

So then, how can I say with such surety that education is the issue? Quite easily in fact. The system that I described, which just about everyone will agree with its existence, its most certainly not a capitalist one. The very definition of capitalism should shed some light on this matter: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions. If an entrepenuer is unable to bring a new product to the market because of the unnatural costs associated with doing so, is that person free to operate or manage their property? If an importer is unable to import and sell a product from a foreign country because the tariff associated with doing so makes the venture unprofitable, is that person free to operate or manage their propery? If a business owner is prevented from hiring additional employees due to the high costs involved with doing so, is that person free to operate or manage their property? What about having tens of thousands of laws restricting commercial activity sounds remotely close to people being free in distribution and exchange of their property? Perhaps another definition may fit this economic system a little better, mercantilism: an economic theory which suggests that the ruling government should advance the nations wealth by playing a protectionist role in the economy by encouraging exports and discouraging imports, notably through the use of subsidies and tariffs.

So again, I say that education is the issue. Realistically though, miseducation is the true cause of this disconnect with reality. Our protectionist government has sought to maintain this mercantilist nirvana since Abraham Lincoln was finally able to implement it after decades of it being rejected by Congresses and Presidents alike. In order to foster more and more disdain for the notion of capitalism, the government school systems have deliberately stained its reputation thus allowing themselves more power to intervene in the market. So while the American consumer suffers the hidden pain of higher costs and unnatural unemployment, the American politician lines his pockets with the kickbacks from his happy corporate constituents and pads the comfort of his future with the government pension earned by the re-election guaranteed by his corporate sponsors.

So, do some people hate capitalism? Sure, they’re called government employees. The rest of us hate mercantilism. And rightfully so.

As I drove into work yesterday morning, something happened to me that happens every single day on the NJ Turnpike: I was cut off by a MTA Bus. The moron driving the bus did not think twice about the lives he/she put in danger, and only because of the soot covered decal plastered to the rear of the bus: Yield to Bus, it’s the Law. That morning, after having driven this roadway for years and encountering this situation countless times every single work week, it finally aggravated me to no end. Why, in the name of all that is right, should I have to yield to a bus? Does not my job have the same importance as the jobs of the people on the bus? Is my commute not equally as relevant? Does my ability to provide for my family pale in importance simply because I elect to exercise my right to drive my own vehicle and sit in comfort rather than like a packed sardine? Ohhh, because they are carpooling they should receive special dispensation. Got ya. So, not only should public transportation users receive below market fares to entice them to use the system, fares which are below market because they are subsidized by my tax dollars, but they should also receive special preference in road usage at the potential expense of my life and the countless other motorists in their cars, trucks, and motorcycles sharing the same highway.

This Yield to Bus law is simply one amongst a million “laws” which serve no practical purpose, are completely unjust, and serve to benefit the interests of one certain group of people at the expense of others. Zoning laws, drug laws, education laws, professional licensing laws, motor vehicle laws, gun laws, commerce laws, speech laws, so on and so forth, all bog down our society and strip us of our Liberty day in and day out. But what of our obligation to follow such laws? To this I say that there is a long history, not only in this country but also throughout the Western world, of both educated thinking and law precedent (for all you stare decisis fans) which states that no such obligation exists.

The American and British traditions are ones which value highly the idea of Trial by Jury. One key privilege of the jury, one which is never used today due to a complete failure of knowledge by our society due to our dumbed down public education system, is the right of Jury Nullification. That is the right of a jury not only to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused in the matter of the law, but also to judge the law and whether or not it is just. It is enshrined in our legal system that the jury can declare the accused innocent not only by virtue of a lack of evidence to support the case brought against the person, but also because the jury believes that the law is invalid, unjust, and contrary to the Liberty which is supposed to be enjoyed by all Americans. It stands to reason then that any ordinary person has the same power to disobey or simply to avoid observance of unjust laws. Novel concept, or longstanding tradition? You be the judge…

“Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other.” John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1689

“To say that subjects in general are not proper judges when their governors oppress them, and play the tyrant; and when they defend their rights, administer justice impartially, and promote the public welfare, is as great treason as ever man uttered;–’tis treason,–not against one single man, but the state–against the whole body politic;–’tis treason against mankind;–’tis treason against common sense;–’tis treason against God. And this impious principle lays the foundation for justifying all the tyranny and oppression that ever any prince was guilty of.” Jonathan Mayhew, The Discourse, 1750

“If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen’s safeguard of liberty, — For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time.” Theodophilus Parsons, Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice, 1788

“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1790

“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” Samuel Chase, US Supreme Court Justice, 1796

“No duty, however, binds us to these so-called laws, whose corrupting influence menaces what is noblest in our being…” Benjamin Constant, Principles of Politics Applicable to All Governments, 1810

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819

“In dealing with the State, we ought to remember that its institutions are not aboriginal, though they existed before we were born: that they are not superior to the citizen: that every one of them was once the act of a single man: every law and usage was a man’s expedient to meet a particular case: that they all are imitable, all alterable; we may make as good; we may make better.” Ralph Waldo Emerson, Politics, 1844

“For more than six hundred years — that is, since the Magna Carta in 1215 — there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust, oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws.” Lysander Spooner, An Essay on the Trial By Jury, 1852

“The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court Justice, 1902

“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1941

American tradition and the British common law upon which it was founded is rife with evidence which proves this dating all the way back to the 16th century, and maybe even earlier. It has only been the twisted workings of the State, in seeking its own aggrandizement, which has deprived Americans of knowledge of this right. In today’s courtroom, it is common practice for a judge to command the jury to follow his/her instructions as to what the “law” is. On the other hand, the Supreme Court in 1895 (Sparf v United States, 156 U.S. 51) found that a judge has no obligation or responsibility to make a jury aware of its power of nullification. I wonder why that double standard exists? Could it be that if the average American knew of his/her power of nullification that he/she might also become aware of his/her power to void any law which he/she deemed injurious to Liberty? Such a widespread stance in the name of Liberty would be the bane of, and a crushing blow to the authoritarians of the Nanny State.

Now, I know how the opposition to this idea would immediately respond to such a proposition: if the average citizen could avoid observance of any law, then a lawless society would exist. Typical statist argument, and absolutely a farce. People would still be punishable for their crimes. The “law” would still exist, and it would be up to a jury of peers to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused. The only difference would be that a fully informed and knowledgeable jury could indeed validate the nullification of the unjust law rather than simply accept the “law” as an inevitable fact of modern life.

Society and indeed the Government itself is nothing more than a voluntary social compact entered into freely by every citizen. Government exists only insofar as it is consented to by the governed themselves. If “whenever [Government] becomes destructive of [the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it…” then it logically stands to reason that the people are trusted with the capacity to “judge when their governors oppress them.” No human being can be bound by involuntary servitude, and that principle is even more true for future human beings not even born, so it therefore must be so that the people have a right to keep their legislators in check by nullifying unjust laws.