Skip to content

Month: August 2010

China vs. India, and the West vs. Itself

Eric Margolis: China and India: A War of Giants

Chris Floyd: Innocent Executioners: An Illustration of the Principles of Western Civilization in the Modern World

When I saw in the Eric Margolis article (linked above) the line about the British drawing the India-Tibet border (which apparently was in 1914), I’m thinking, “Oh, no, not that ‘British Mandate’ stuff again!” Those damn British really have been responsible for so much crap over the last century, particularly throughout that entire hemisphere, and I’m still learning one new item of information after another that continually confirms that.

There’s the British Mandate (I guess “mandate” means they date men.) expropriating lands and fortunes from Arabs/Palestinians in Israel, displacing indigenous Middle-Easterners to make way for European (not Middle-Eastern) Jews (and later the UN doing the same thing), there’s the Brits enslaving Iranians and more or less stealing their natural oil resources, as Stephen Kinzer has noted, and now I learn this about this current tension between India and China has its roots in Britain’s meddling into the affairs of all these other countries. If it’s true that Fate engages in retribution, then I’m not surprised to hear of predicted Islamization of Europe, particularly the U.K., as Mark Steyn has noted.

Speaking of Britain, last night I only heard a few minutes of the out-of-control, overly emotional Michael Savage (a real friend to the British, these days), responding hysterically to the news of the two guys who allegedly engaged in a “dry run” terrorist attempt. Savage is typical of our generation of short-term thinking, immediate-gratification oriented Americans, who can’t see very far into the past to understand the true origins of our current troubles.

The terrorists themselves have constantly been telling us what motivates their terrorist intentions, and it’s not because they hate us for our freedom and values (see the above linked article by Chris Floyd on modern Western values), or to spread their Islamic religion. Their primary motivation has been political: they don’t like the U.S. occupying and trespassing on their territories, for many, many decades — really since World War II. They don’t like the U.S. government planting military bases and other governmental apparatus on their lands. It’s no wonder that the neocons who support such socialist land grabs don’t understand these basic points, given their Trotskyist roots.

Such expansionism was never intended by the Founders, and neoconservatives should stop claiming to be advocates of “original intent.” Unfortunately, like many others who worship our federal Leviathan government, Michael Savage is too self-centered to understand that the principled, moral and practical solution to the problem is to remove all U.S. military bases and government agency offices from all foreign lands — they don’t belong there — and get the hell out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other Middle-Eastern and Asian territories, and Europe as well! Their presence abroad has no benefit to the United States, only drawbacks.

And, regarding the British as well, it looks like the dysfunctional U.S.-British co-dependence really wasn’t ended with the American Revolution — or since then.

The Chicken Little Kleptocrats

Yesterday on his radio show Jason Lewis was talking about how the government is taking away our liberty and property, and discussing the 9th Circus Court’s approving of the government having the power to trespass onto private property and stuff GPS intrusions onto or underneath people’s cars, in order to unconstitutionally track their every move, and discussing the 2nd Amendment that protects (or was intended to protect) our right to bear arms and self-defense. And Robert Wenzel gave his analysis of Fed chairman Clueless Ben Burnbanker’s speech in Wyoming yesterday, describing Burnbanker as a “mad scientist.” Gary North has his own translation of the speech. And many local talk hosts here in the Boston area were talking about Sarah Palin’s dissing of Scott Brown (Ooooo, Sarah said nasty things — albeit true — about Scott Brown…Oooo…).

Like all central government bureaucrats and monopolists, Ben Burnbanker has a God Complex — delusions of grandeur. Meanwhile, their precise manipulating and tweaking of America’s money or monetary system, in the name of preventing recessions, depressions and crashes, has been the actual cause of the recessions, depressions and crashes. But if these high-and-mighties would just leave things alone, stop intruding and trespassing their grubby paws into private economic activities where they don’t belong, and let people be free to use competing currencies and engage in voluntary exchange without external intrusions, financial, banking and monetary irregularities will naturally adjust themselves. We know that as an historical fact, from the levels of freedom vs. levels of government intrusions and the effects more or less government intrusions had on American economic matters in the 19th Century and during the 1920s.

But these fat cats of Big Government have their selfish God Complex and they like to have the power to intrude and violate private financial matters and exchanges and private wealth and property, so they don’t like freedom. More freedom means less power for them — that’s the bottom line.

And these central bank manipulators and intruders actually are criminals, in my opinion. I calls it like I sees it. Like George W. Bush’s Chicken Little (and Chicken Hawk) hysteria to invade Iraq, in the central banksters’ Chicken Little hysteria of September 2008, they engaged in acts of terrorism and extortion: terrorizing the population by threatening economic collapse and civil unrest, as well as looting and martial law, if the Congress didn’t comply with their demands of extorting “public” wealth for their private interests in their dreaded and ghastly Wall Street Bailout redistribution scheme.

It is those Chicken Littles and Chicken Hawks who have been ruining America. The leftist Al Gore environmentalist wacko Chicken Littles are also extortionists and terrorists, with their warning us that if we exhale, we are destroying the planet. They want to outlaw exhaling.

I say we outlaw the Al Gore environmentalist wacko Chicken Littles as well as the central bank Chicken Littles.

The real answers to the problems that these totalitarians have been causing would have been to repeal congressional mandates that forced private lenders to lend irresponsibly, repeal each and every restrictive regulation, tax, mandate that prevents those at the bottom from climbing up the ladder of success and prosperity.

But nooooo, the Chicken Little terrorists and extortionists, in their selfish wallowing in the public trough out of greed to take other people’s stuff, had to do their bailouts and “reforms,” all of which will have only exacerbated the problems and contribute even more to any future possible economic collapse, looting and civil unrest, and martial law. I hope that the doom-and-gloomers such as Gerald Celente are wrong about the extremely negative future for America, because, quite frankly, I don’t know how I personally will be capable of getting through such a situation.

Throughout the course of this blog here, I have been critical of government, particularly the federal government, and some people think that’s “unpatriotic.” However, some people just have a misunderstanding of what “patriotism” means. It is supposed to mean “love for one’s country,” but some people seem to think that means “love for one’s government.” Those are two entirely separate beings: the country and the government. If you actually step back and observe the history of America, you will see how every action committed by the U.S. government has done nothing but destroy America, little by little, from economic policy to foreign policy. That is because the federal government had long ago abandoned the principles upon which America was founded: individual liberty, private property, freedom of association and voluntary exchange.

We have learned that Major Chicken Little – Chicken Hawk George W. Bush took the U.S. into war with Iraq based on lies and propaganda, and we are learning that the Wall Street Bailout and other gimmicks by Bush, Ben Burnbanker and Henry “Hank” (or is it Pat?) Paulsen were based on lies and propaganda. The sole purpose of both those actions was not to protect Americans from terrorism or from financial disaster, but to expand the size and power of the federal government — for special interests like Goldman Sachs and defense contractors (but mostly for Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street parasites, including the military actions). I am hopeful that Americans are starting to wake up to what these criminals have been doing, and will stop being the sheeple who allowed the criminals to have the power that they have had.

I think that we must insist that Ben Burnbanker, Hank (or is it Pat?) Paulson and Bush be charged with “high crimes and misdemeanors” and tried for extortion and terrorism, as mentioned above. And if Bush took the country to war in Iraq, totally unnecessarily, based on lies and propaganda and that resulted in the deaths of thousands of his own fellow Americans and thousands of Iraqis, he should be treated as a war criminal.

With all that said, and seeing how the federal government has done nothing good for America and has done nothing but destroy America, I will reiterate what I’ve already mentioned several times here and elsewhere, that this November’s elections will be another rearranging of deck chairs on the titanic, and what needs to be done is completely changing the system, and dismissing the federal government (As Col. Klink would say, “Dis….missed!”), allow the states to have the independence and sovereignty that they were originally intended to have by the great people who founded America.

More Spying, More War

Philip Giraldi has this article in American Conservative, on how the Israeli government is continually spying on America. It is particularly disturbing that Israeli intelligence officers are portraying themselves as American intelligence officers to members of the American Muslim community. The Israeli government must be a very paranoid one (as is inherent in the nature of monopolistic government bureaucrats), to feel it’s necessary to spy on the United States.

And as part of their paranoia, the Israeli government and its military probably will strike Iran, or pressure the U.S. government to do it for them. Even if the Israeli government starts a war against Iran, it will pull the U.S. military into it, and it will all be as unnecessary and counter-productive as were the U.S. government’s two wars against Iraq. Typical of State territorial monopolists. Those who initiate acts of aggression as a means of “defense” will find such acts of aggression backfire against them.

If Israel strikes Iran, that will make Israel the aggressor. Aggression is immoral, except in self-defense. And for those who will rationalize a strike on Iran as “self-defense,” no, that is not self-defense. Self-defense is when you use aggression in response to an actual act of aggression that has been initiated against you. If one is the aggressor, the initiator of the aggression, then that is not self-defense. Claiming that one’s initiation of aggression is justified because one predicts that the object of one’s aggression might aggress against you is not self-defense. For aggression to be morally justified, it needs to be in response to an actual initiation of actual aggression. Thus, the ones who start wars are the aggressors.

So why all this continuing Israeli spying on America? Who knows. But that’s okay — they’re Israel, they can do whatever they damn well please, and get away with it. If you criticize them, you’re an “anti-Semite.”

Speaking of spying, someone said she downloaded Google Chrome, and wasn’t sure if it was okay, so I said if it’s just there in your computer it can’t do anything, like tracking your browsing habits, as long as you’re not using it. But she uninstalled it anyway.

Google Chrome is a relatively new web browser to compete with Micro$oft’s Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, etc. Google’s Chrome browser does keep track of your browsing habits, but that’s not too bad a thing, except they do that by keeping track of your computer’s IP address. Now that’s not good. It is especially disturbing when you know that the people high up the Google chain of command are in cahoots with the Obama Administration, who wants to do even more spying on Americans than did the Bush Administration.

Besides former Google global public policy officer Andrew McLaughlin, who is now White House Internet Policy Director, according to the New York Times,

Mr. McLaughlin is the latest Google executive to take an official role in the Obama administration. Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, has been a close adviser to President Obama’s transition team and is now a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Katie Stanton, a former Google project manager, joined the White House as its director of citizen participation. And Sonal Shah, former head of global development at Google.org, now heads the White House Office of Social Innovation.

Some critics fear that the growing presence of former Google employees in the administration could lead to purchasing and policy decisions that improperly benefit the company at a time when the company’s power is likely to come under increasing scrutiny from regulators. Already the Federal Trade Commission is looking into whether the ties between the boards of Google and Apple amount to a violation of antitrust laws. The Justice Department is inquiring into the antitrust implications of Google’s settlement of a lawsuit with publishers and authors.

Do we really want Google to keep track of our browsing habits via our IP address to act as a specific identifier of our actual individual identity, which may some time down the road be used by government officials (like the SovietObamaCare medical takeover isn’t bad enough already in that regard!)?

And speaking of Apple — and SPYING — the company has applied for a patent for a new technology that will enable Apple to spy (and I mean really spy) on its own users. According to Julie Samuels of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,

More specifically, the technology would allow Apple to record the voice of the device’s user, take a photo of the device’s user’s current location or even detect and record the heartbeat of the device’s user.

Yikes!

One big reason why governments (and their private business helpers) spy on their own people is paranoia. Government bureaucrats don’t want their power checked or questioned. They insist on having access to every detail of what the people are up to, and they insist on total secrecy of what they themselves are up to.

A Stern Yet Fair Criticism of Today’s Conservatives

August 15, 2010

© 2010 LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

Among conservatives in general, I am in the minority in actually opposing Big Government, and think that moral laws are absolute and that no one is above the law – not even agents of the State. Alas, today’s conservatives in general have been supporting a huge growth in centralized, bureaucratic federal government, at home and overseas, and are not actual conservatives. Many conservatives have abandoned traditional moral values that respect life, liberty and property, and have abandoned the principles of the Rule of Law and God-given rights as recognized by the Declaration of Independence, and have for many years embraced the interventionism of socialist central planning and the expanded intrusive State.

For some inexplicable reason, while many conservatives have shown skepticism of much of Washington’s Big Government domestic agenda, such as the recent medical and financial takeovers and other usurpations and power grabs, when it comes to foreign policy they seem to show a dangerously blind faith in the State.

I believe that one main reason why Americans including conservatives are out of touch with traditional values of morality and personal responsibility is the century-long proliferation of collectivism in America. War is a collectivist concept. To be blunt, war has been waged for the sake of war, for the sake of power, and to strengthen the power of the State, regardless of the emotion-filled rhetoric the politicians and other nudniks have spewed upon us to rationalize it.

In the Bush Administration’s and now Obama Administration’s wars and anti-terrorism short-term fixes, conservatives have been supporting an emotion-driven carte blanche unleashing of the federal Leviathan that has enabled so much corruption, usurpation of due process rights, as well as violating the absolute Rule of Law against killing innocent human beings. But this abandonment of American principles and contradiction of the Declaration of Independence is nothing new.

When conservatives opposed U.S. entry into World Wars I and II, they were incorrectly labeled “isolationists,” when in actuality they were “non-interventionists.” In Woodrow Wilson’s taking the U.S. government into World War I to “make the world safe for democracy,” his grandiose plan backfired against the U.S., because it was an abandonment of the Rule of Law and George Washington’s and Thomas Jefferson’s wise anti-”foreign entanglements” doctrine.

Intervention begets further dysfunction: Woodrow Wilson made the world safe for World War II.

A few years into post-World War II Cold War, conservatives joined the anti-communist crusade, exemplified by National Review Founder William F. Buckley, Jr., writing that “We have to accept Big Government” to prevent communism from spreading to our shores. But it’s the conservatives who have seemed like communists in their supporting a huge federal Leviathan, and supporting the forced, intrusive “spread of democracy” abroad (and the destruction of life, liberty and property abroad that goes with it).

Many conservatives oppose domestic interventionism, but for some reason foreign policy is different. Many just don’t seem to recognize – or want to acknowledge – that the U.S. government’s intrusions and aggression into foreign lands have elicited much anti-American sentiment especially from inhabitants of Middle-Eastern territories.

For example, the 1953 CIA-led coup that replaced Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh with the Shah gave Iranians 25 years of brutal dictatorship, so it should have been no surprise that such U.S. government interventionism would inflame anti-Americanism in Iran and throughout the Middle-East, and would lead to the 1979 taking of American hostages in Iran.

More fuel for anti-Americanism continued with the U.S. government’s providing Iraq with weapons and intelligence during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war. From the mentality of socialist central planning bureaucrats in Washington, the U.S. government aided Iraq in a “strategic planning” effort to counter the Iranian Revolutionaries, when it would have served America better in the long run to stop interfering in Iran’s, Iraq’s and other countries’ affairs.

Such socialist interventionism backfired much more intensely against the United States after the U.S. government’s invasion and destruction of Iraq beginning in 1990. The U.S. government’s non-retaliatory1990-’91 invasion of Iraq and subsequent destruction of water and sewage treatment facilities, and blocking the means necessary for rebuilding through sanctions throughout the 1990s, led to widespread disease, increased cancer and child mortality rates in Iraq, and further inflamed anti-Americanism. Sometimes I wonder if today’s conservatives, especially the younger ones, even know about those U.S. government actions during the 1990s. It seems that many people are now eager to do the same things to Iran, rather than learn the lessons of history.

After the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, conservatives abandoned their otherwise intuitive distrust for the State and fell prey to George W. Bush’s emotionalism and fear mongering, leading to a blind acceptance of what has now been one intrusion after another of domestic spying and unnecessary airport searches, a policy of randomly rounding up totally innocent people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, and remote-controlled drone bombings and killings of innocents, especially non-combatants, women and children. How can someone claiming to be a “conservative” and to believe in moral values support these kinds of immoral State-executed actions? And how can any conservative rationally support the Big Government Leviathan that has been shown to be nothing but counter-productive against America?

Despite repeatedly hearing from terrorists themselves the terrorists’ actual reasons for their terrorism – the U.S. government’s constant intrusions into Middle-Eastern territories for six decades – conservatives still fantasize that it’s because the terrorists dislike America’s freedom and values. But the truth is that they don’t like America because our government has been committing the most intrusive, invasive and harmful acts in their territories for many decades, since well before 9/11.

Unfortunately, the internationalists and collectivists, from the Wilson Progressives to the Bush neoconservatives, have considered a “moral” government as one that actively involves itself in the business and lives of others, domestically and internationally, using both government social workers and government soldiers. But that misuse of government has been the source of many problems and conflicts. In practical terms, the desired results of society’s collectivist planners are not actualized in the long term, because government intervention and socialist central planning involve violations of liberty and property, and cause further destruction of society. That applies to both international and domestic interventions.

Let me put it this way: If I hire a bodyguard, his job is to protect me from the aggressive acts of others. I don’t want him to do anything else. I don’t want him to go into the neighbors’ home next door to organize their home for them, and I certainly don’t want him to act aggressively against others. But if he starts a fight with someone, or interferes with someone else’s fight, at that instant he is making me more vulnerable to subsequent aggression by the objects of that bodyguard’s aggression.

Governments that impose intrusions into other territories or start wars make their own populations more vulnerable. Poking Middle-Eastern hornets’ nests has made Americans less safe.

But I believe that the Rule of Law is absolute. Never intrude into the lives, liberty or property of others anywhere. No theft, no trespassing, no killing of innocent human beings, period.

Call me old fashioned.

To the Founders, a moral government does not violate any individual’s right of sovereignty, one’s right to life, liberty and property, in or outside of America. And the denial of due process is not only contrary to the Founders’ original intent, but conservatives may very well have been supporting policies that could be used against them by presidents and their flunkies who do not believe in the idea of inalienable rights. We have already learned that about Elena Kagan.

We really must decide whether or not “all men are created equal,” and “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” To be a truly moral society under absolute Rule of Law, a society must decide in the affirmative.

I wish that conservatives agreed with me on that.

The Left’s Totalitarianism vs. Liberty

With all the Obama Administration’s power grabs and the media’s manipulations, one can now get a clear picture of the left’s true totalitarianism, while in some ways, the conservatives have become the new liberals. Through the Tea Parties and other renewed activism, the conservatives protest the increasing government intrusions into our daily lives as the leftists build their totalitarian centralized State in Washington.

While the left are true authoritarians in their political agenda of total State power, it is really many conservatives who are “liberal” in the conservatives’ and Tea Party movement’s advocating less State power and authority over our lives and fewer State intrusions into our privacy and businesses. It is the conservatives who want to liberate us from the serfdom of the left’s medical, financial and otherwise State intrusions.

If only the conservatives and Tea Partiers could step back and see that there isn’t really much difference between the growth of the centralized security bureaucracy-military socialism and the growth of the left’s domestic social bureaucracy and usurpation of control over every aspect of our daily lives. If only the Tea Partiers could let go of their worship of the Leviathan State security bureaucracy that has made America less safe.

But here I want to address the deceit and totalitarian intentions of the left. The recent JournoList emails disclosure by the Daily Caller is but one small demonstration of the left’s true intentions. Journalism used to be a profession in which the truth was to be uncovered and told. We are now seeing how the left’s suppression of the truth comes from their mystical worship of the State.

As the Daily Caller has exposed, the JournoLists schemed to manipulate their news coverage in 2008 to deliberately suppress stories about then-candidate Barack Obama, such as his relationship with the hate-emitting Rev. Jeremiah Wright, as part of those reporters’ way to manipulate voters’ opinion of Obama and affect the election, which the reporters did accomplish.

The left can be harshly yet accurately characterized primarily as immature adolescent punks. More specific Freudian analysis could cause people to ponder whether the reason the news and entertainment media trashed Sarah Palin so much in 2008 and afterwards was that those leftists hate their mothers. But we’ll leave that for the psychoanalysts out there to consider.

Also in recent years the left’s being anti-authority has been a misdiagnosis. Like the conservatives, in the left’s love of their god, the State, the left love the authority of the State, they revere the State, and they merge their identities with State power, à la George Orwell’s novel 1984.

They just loathe traditional authority in the context of the family, the church and in communities, or, what economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe has described as “natural” authorities. And frankly, I think that deep down, the conservatives’ rhetoric of favoring family and church authority above the State has been just rhetoric (to get votes). The conservatives, too, revere the State as a god.

The left’s agenda is not one of “love and compassion,” as their rhetoric tends to proclaim. If they were compassionate toward others and loved their neighbors, the left would not support policies of government theft and trespass against their neighbors, policies of intrusions into the private property, homes, businesses and private lives of others. Were the left friends of the poor and disadvantaged, they would not advocate one government mandate, tax and regulation after another that restricts those at the bottom from entering various fields of endeavor.

The left just isn’t a friend of equal opportunity, freedom of association, voluntary exchange, and the sovereignty of the individual. The left consists of collectivists who love the democratic way of majority rule as a means of empowering groups and gangs against the individual. Their philosophy is totally contrary to that of the American Founders.

And the use of deceit exemplified by the JournoList emails is pervasive among the left, not just within the journalism guild but in a whole range of activities in which a leftist agenda is prevalent, including academia, pop culture and government. Only months ago we witnessed how Congress rushed through a massive health care bill without much debate. The mainstream press did not inform the public of what exactly the conniving politicians were up to – the role of informing the masses was taken up by conservative and libertarian talk radio and blogs, and members of the Tea Party movement. The destructive financial regulatory bill was also rushed through Congress deceitfully, and all these acts of legislative shakedowns and swindling are inherent in the left’s agenda.

A few months ago, Hot Air published a lengthy article by former ACORN employee turned whistleblower Anita Moncrief detailing ACORN’s true agenda of “stealth socialism,” and the true tactics of ACORN following the Saul Alinsky method of how the Have-Nots can take power (i.e. wealth and property) away from the Haves. America has already been a socialist society especially since the New Deal.

Communism is State ownership and control of industry, wealth and property. We have seen before our very eyes that once-stealth and now direct and blatant agenda in Obama’s taking over whole industries including much of the auto industry, the medical industry and the banking and financial industries.

And after all the federal takeovers, usurpations and power grabs by the Bush Administration in the name of “national security,” I put them in the same category of implementing State ownership of not just security related industries, but our what had been an otherwise inherent right of self defense. And I am not one to put the Bush bunch on the right, either.

It just seems that so many on the left hate individual liberty, individual responsibility and independence. We have seen the inherent dishonesty and immorality of communism, combined with the deceit and shenanigans used to promote and implement such a wretched scheme. In contrast, those of us who advocate restoring the sanctity of private property rights and freedom of association call for not “stealth” and indirect, but direct and aboveboard the outright dismantling of all the intrusive laws, regulations and extortionist policies the Big Government leftists have put into place this past century. And this especially includes ending all confiscatory taxation, because it is nothing but theft.

It comes down to this: either the individual has a right to the reward and compensation for one’s labor, as agreed to with mutually consenting traders (employer, contractor, client, buyer, etc.) or one does not. Either the individual has an inalienable right to one’s life, one’s person, one’s labor (initially) or one does not have that right and is therefore obligated to be a servant for others by compulsion, for the collective, the community, the State.

And it really is either/or. There’s no in between, no compromise. You either have Liberty or you have serfdom. Liberty is the right to be free from the aggression of others. Serfdom is a state in which others may use aggression against you to take what they want, particularly the rewards and compensation for your labor.

There is a problem when you allow any institution — in this case the State — and its agents to have the power of compulsion over others. It is immoral to allow someone to have the power of compulsion over someone else. That is what we have had for many decades in America. Because when one does that, one is contradicting the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and one is saying that all men are NOT equal, that some are above the law, and that all individuals do NOT have inalienable rights to life and liberty, and that it is permissible for some people to commit acts of aggression, theft and trespass against others.

When you allow some people to have that power of compulsion over others, the power to commit aggression, theft and trespass against others as we have in America for many decades, then those who are given positions of power will abuse it. And that’s simply because of human nature. Whether they be national security power grabbers or domestic social welfare power grabbers, the power will be abused, and it has and will continue to be abused. That is why the American Founding Fathers were skeptical of the State, and their words of experience and wisdom had stopped being taken seriously (except by only a handful of people per generation) since their time.

People just believe their lying leaders and promisers of better times ahead, because they want to believe them.

Don’t believe them.

Liberty Is the American Way

Well, the gay marriage issue is in the news again, and, the morality ignoramuses are at it again, using solely emotional arguments and not reason. I can’t believe we are still having these discussions in the 21st Century. Some people are stuck in the 11th Century, and believe that the armed power of the State should be used to enforce a particular moral view on others.

First, let me get this out of the way. I personally believe that opposite-sex marriage should be encouraged in society. I happen to be in the category of cultural conservatism, and also believe that parents should discourage their teenage kids from becoming sexually active at too young an age, that schools should not be involved in condoms distribution nor any sex education at all — that’s for families. I actually believe in monogamy and that extra-marital sex is not healthy, and if you want sex outside of your marriage, get a divorce.

I can’t believe some of the things I heard Michael Savage saying on his show last night, given how intelligent, educated and sophisticated he is in his views (when he’s not yelling and screaming, of course). Savage stated that homosexual marriage “mocks real marriage.” He was referring to opposite-sex marriage as a “time-honored” “sacred institution,” which he said the State was “obligated to protect.”

No, the State is not obligated to protect “sacred institutions,” because sacred institutions are subjective. The State is obligated to protect Liberty. That was the intent behind the American Founders’ creating government. (Well intended, but their creation was flawed.) Savage’s views are largely collectivist in nature, as he apparently believes that a community has a right to use the power of the State to force a majority’s views onto the individual. Savage was speaking in praise of the ballot box. The Founders had the opposite view: the State is intended to be there to protect the individual from the majority (which is illogical, and doesn’t work).

The issue here is a matter of contracts. The marital contract is a contract in which certain parties agree on terms and sign the contract. It is the business of those parties involved — it is no one else’s business. It is none of the neighbors’ business, none of the State’s business. The terms of the contract between mutually consenting and agreeable parties are none of anyone else’s business. In America, people have a right to go about their lives and be left alone. That’s the American way.

So, what are you going to do if some homosexuals write up a contract and sign their names to it, committing themselves to a life-long marriage, even though the State has come up with a law that forbids them to do that? Throw them in jail? THAT’s immoral! Talk about morality! Savage was also bringing up the Bible as part of his solely emotional arguments. I believe that God agrees with the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Individuals have a right to live their lives and be free of intrusions by others especially the armed State, as long as individuals themselves are not intrusive on others.

Unfortunately, some people believe that, while homosexuals being married and living their lives peacefully and while not being intrusive on any other actual people, their private relationship is intrusive on the “institution of marriage,” as Savage suggests. The Declaration doesn’t mention that social institutions such as marriage have a right to be free from “intrusions,” only human beings have those rights. These arguments that treat social concepts as actual living beings and with rights are just irrational arguments, based solely on emotion.

Incidentally, a similar emotional argument is being made in opposition to the so-called mosque proposed for New York City. Many people opposed are saying that such a center would “offend” survivors and family members of 9/11 victims, and “hurt their feelings.” I feel for the victims and families who would be upset about something like the proposed mosque, but there have been plenty of times in America in which the armed power of the State was used to stop certain projects from being built on private property because neighbors were offended. But the neighbors don’t own the property — that’s the bottom line. People who want to prevent something from going up in a certain area would really have to put their funds together and buy the property. That’s the American way.

That Reckless Protection Racket of Military Socialism and Fascism

August 3, 2010

© 2010 LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

In previous articles, I have referred to military socialism while others have referred to the military industrial complex, and some of these descriptions need to be clarified for a better understanding of the dysfunctional nature of the U.S. government’s national security monopoly, and an alternative must be presented.

The Washington Post recently published a series of articles with the title, Top Secret America, regarding how out of control our federal government’s national security Leviathan has become, and how much the centralized bureaucratic Leviathan depends on private contractors. The series by investigative reporters Dana Priest and William Arkin was in three parts (Part 1, Part 2, and Part3). In the same week, the whistleblower website WikiLeaks released a massive number of documents revealing much of what has already been known about the U.S. government’s failing war in Afghanistan. According to Priest and Arkin of the Post:

  • Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States…
  • In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001…Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

As the Washington Post series notes, “Private firms have become so thoroughly entwined with the government’s most sensitive activities that without them important military and intelligence missions would have to cease or would be jeopardized.” The Post provides a list of the private contractors.

In response to the Post series, economist Robert Higgs noted:

The whole business is akin to sending a blind person to find a needle inside a maze buried somewhere in a hillside. That the massive effort is utterly uncoordinated and scarcely able to communicate one part’s “findings” to another only strengthens the conclusion that the goal is not stopping terrorism, but getting the taxpayers’ money and putting it into privileged pockets….

It’s a rip-off, plain and simple…

Now, socialism can be described as public ownership of property and wealth, and redistribution of wealth, administered by the State. And fascism is State control of private property and industry, and also includes an enmeshment between private businesses and the State. Under either socialism or fascism, the tasks of territorial protection have been monopolized by the State, whereas in an actual capitalist system, which America has never actually experienced, the tasks of territorial protection would be performed by competing agencies and would not be restricted or interfered with by the State.

Prof. Higgs had written an article in 2007 on military-economic fascism, which he claims is worse than military-economic socialism.

In the latter, the people are oppressed, because they are taxed, conscripted, and regimented, but they are not co-opted and corrupted by joining forces with their rapacious rulers; a clear line separates them from the predators on the “dark side.”

With military-economic fascism, however, the line becomes blurred, and a substantial number of people actively hop back and forth across it: advisory committees, such as the Defense Science Board and the Defense Policy Board and university administrators meet regularly with Pentagon officials… and the revolving door spins furiously – according to a September 2002 report, “[t]hirty-two major Bush appointees are former executives, consultants, or major shareholders of top weapons contractors”…and a much greater number cross the line at lower levels.

Moreover, military-economic fascism, by empowering and enriching wealthy, intelligent, and influential members of the public, removes them from the ranks of potential opponents and resisters of the state and thereby helps to perpetuate the state’s existence and its intrinsic class exploitation of people outside the state. Thus, military-economic fascism simultaneously strengthens the state and weakens civil society, even as it creates the illusion of a vibrant private sector patriotically engaged in supplying goods and services to the heroic military establishment (the Boeing Company’s slickly produced television ads, among others, splendidly illustrate this propagandistically encouraged illusion).

Whether it is military socialism or military fascism, or whether these private contractors are pathologically enmeshed with the U.S. government, it is made possible by forced redistribution of wealth, pure and simple, and it is not a productive service of security.

Another aspect of the State’s monopoly of territorial protection is “military Keynesianism,” as Prof. Higgs has also discussed. Keynesian economists and policy makers believe in deficit spending as a means of stimulating the economy. Keynesians love war and Big Military Socialism/Fascism. George W. Bush’s starting two wars sure stimulated the economies of many private defense contractors and government employees. Barack Obama’s policies are Keynesianism on steroids.

Those kinds of policies are named after John Maynard Keynes, whose economic ideas of short-sightedness (“In the long run, we’re all dead…”) and irresponsibility, and selfish disregard for the welfare of future generations, is what got all the world’s economies in the mess we’re currently in.

Contrary to the American Founders’ blueprint for societal progress and upward mobility through individual liberty, freedom of association and private property, Keynes’s blueprint was for downward mobility and societal deterioration through collective covetous theft of private property and wealth.

The underlying condition that has caused the corruption, ineptness and the State’s ever-expanding collusions with private businesses is the U.S. government’s monopoly in territorial protection, in which the State monopolist has no competitive incentive to actually provide quality of protection services.

Because of being institutionalized monopolists, the bureaucrats in Washington could not recognize or would not acknowledge the terrorists’ actual motivation for their terrorism, as expressed by the terrorists themselves, that motivation being the U.S. government’s intrusions into Middle-Eastern territories for at least six decades.

Those intrusions include the CIA’s overthrowing Iran’s leader and replacing him with a brutal dictatorial regime for 25 years, the U.S. government’s (and private U.S. companies’) involvement in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, and the U.S. government’s war and sanctions against Iraq throughout the 1990s, all of which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings. For decades, the only actual accomplishments of these intrusions by the U.S. government have been to inflame anti-American hatred throughout the Middle East. And all that was before 9/11/01, and before all the death and destruction the U.S. government has caused in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan since 9/11.

But typical of government bureaucrats and monopolists of the protection racket they control, the answer to the problem of the terrorism that was motivated by U.S. government’s intrusions was to commit more intrusions in the Middle East.

Now, regarding the use of private contractors, the Washington Post article uses the phrase, “privatization of national security,” which really isn’t the privatization of national security, because the State is still in control of it all, and the funding of such private interests is not by voluntary contract, but by compulsory taxation.

Only a monopolist of territorial protection would do the stupid things that the socialist/fascist U.S. government officials have been doing for these past many decades. The alternative to such counter-productive policies and redistribution parasitism is to outlaw the State’s protection racket and legalize competitive protection agencies. It is not as far-fetched as it may sound. In their book, The Market for Liberty, ch.13, authors Morris and Linda Tannehill note,

Those who doubt that “the private sector” of the economy could sustain the expense of a free enterprise defense system would do well to consider two facts. First, “the public sector” gets its money from the same source as does “the private sector” – the wealth produced by individuals. The difference is that “the public sector” takes this wealth by force (which is legal robbery) – but it does not thereby have access to a larger pool of resources. On the contrary, by draining the economy by taxation and hobbling it with restrictions, the government actually diminishes the total supply of available resources.

Second, government, because of what it is, makes defense far more expensive than it ought to be. The gross inefficiency and waste common to a coercive monopoly, which gathers its revenues by force and fears no competition, skyrocket costs. Furthermore, the insatiable desire of politicians and bureaucrats to exercise power in every remote corner of the world multiplies expensive armies, whose main effect is to commit aggressions and provoke wars. The question is not whether “the private sector” can afford the cost of defending individuals but how much longer individuals can afford the fearsome and dangerous cost of coerced governmental “defense” (which is, in reality, defense of the government, for the government…by the citizens).

In fact, it is inevitable that the protection racket monopolist will provoke hostilities as a means of expanding the monopolist’s own power, made possible by the monopoly’s compulsory nature on the territory’s inhabitants.

However, you won’t find a private security firm starting a war against Iraq in 1990 as then-President George H.W. Bush did, or deliberately getting one’s clients involved in other people’s conflicts, because that would make one’s protection clients more vulnerable to external hostilities. A private security firm would not have deliberately lured the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, and a private security firm would not have put its employees in harm’s way in Vietnam, or used deceit and emotional rhetoric to get his clients to agree to invade Iraq a second time as the younger George Bush did.

After the federal monopolists of protection have been destroying Iraq for 20 years, and Afghanistan for 8½ years, and Pakistan now, as well as impoverishing America and burning our Liberty to the ground, Iran is next, and for no good reason.

We will soon see if Americans really are masochistic gluttons for punishment and whether they will support yet another unnecessary campaign of wanton aggression, this time against Iran and based on the same emotionalistic propaganda that sucked America into Afghanistan and Iraq, and if Americans will support even more U.S. government murder of innocent human beings and destruction of foreign territories. Remember the old saying: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” (Or 3 or 4 times now. Or is it 6 or 7 – I’ve lost count.)

Not only have the Anti-Federalists been proven right about the dangers of a centralized national State, but, given how ineffective and counter-productive a socialist and fascist State monopoly of territorial protection has been, as the Washington Post series and the WikiLeaks disclosures have shown, we now have good reason to decentralize America and cut the chains of serfdom, dependence and government-institutionalized impoverishment.