Skip to content

Author: scott lazarowitz

Totalitarianism: From the Local Nazi Neighbors to the Federal Gestapo

It just seems that there is one item after another in the news that continuously reinforces the assertions that, not only do we live in a police state but the government is directly attempting to make us less healthy, and our own neighbors seem to get off on helping the totalitarians in government inflict their intrusiveness into our private lives. These anti-freedom statists seem to do everything they can to make life as miserable as possible for everyone.

Karen De Coster has this post at the LewRockwell.com blog on how the FDA has been cracking down on food producers (as well as the non-pharmaceutical supplement industry). Harassing a winery for its elderberry wine, and harassing Diamond Foods for its walnut products that the FDA asserts are “drugs” because of the company’s claims that the walnuts are good for prevention, and “may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.” And harassing the cherry industry for its claims of cherries containing “anti-oxidants,” that we need for prevention as well.

So what the FDA is doing is they are making it difficult for consumers to get healthy food products that are good for the prevention of health problems. When the FDA makes it difficult for us to have access to healthy foods, that means they are actively posing a danger to our health, pure and simple. It’s not just a matter of “incompetent, ignorant bureaucrats,” because we know that incompetence and ignorance are inherently part of being a government bureaucrat. This is a matter of bureaucrats criminally acting against the interests of the people, and against our health. The actual bureaucrats who are willfully acting criminally, who are engaging in these cases of harassment of private food producing companies, need to be criminally charged with harassment and reckless endangerment of the people’s lives and health. The American people need to fight back and seek justice against criminally reckless bureaucrats.

And it isn’t just a matter of the State acting against various industries, but the State has been going after private citizens, adults and children — everyone — for every little minor “infraction” that the State has an issue with. The bottom line is, the agents of the State just like to order people around, and as I have written in the past, the agents of the State, and those citizen brownshirts who follow their lead, are little dictators.

In fact, just yesterday, the End of the American Dream blog had this post on how police are cracking down on little kids’ lemonade stands and little kids selling girl scout cookies on their yard. The writer notes,

We no longer have the freedom to grow food or make something to drink and sell it to our neighbors.

To the control freaks in government, that is way too “dangerous”.

And, regarding the police who banned the kids from selling  girl scouts cookies on their lawn, they were “ratted out” by a neighbor. A little dictator neighbor. Obviously, the kids were not interfering with the neighbor’s life or trespassing on the neighbor’s property, and probably weren’t even any kind of a nuisance to the neighbor. No, it was the neighbor who acted like a nuisance against the kids, and got the police to act on the prick little dictator neighbor’s behalf. This is why, with situations like these, what people need to do is “crack down” on these nosy, harassing neighbors, by criminally charging the neighbor for harassment, child abuse, and causing distress for the kids and their families. The American police state is alive and well, with the active participation of citizens who want to pester and bother and harass innocent people who are minding their own business.

The End of the American Dream blog writer observes,

Unfortunately, this is just part of a larger trend.  The more that government expands, the less liberty and freedom we are left with.  Yes, there will always be a need for government, but our founding fathers intended for government to be much, much more limited than it is currently.

In Amerika today, if you want to do almost anything you must get the permission of the government to do it first.  And usually you have to pay a fee for that permission…

The entire globe is being transformed into a police state.  Governments all over the planet are constantly figuring out new ways to more tightly control their populations.  Everywhere you look, liberty and freedom are on the retreat.  We are being told that it is for “our own good” and that more control will mean more “safety and security” for humanity.

But every totalitarian regime in history has ended badly.  With all of the sophisticated technology that we have today, the ability to control people is potentially greater than ever before in history.  As the world becomes a little bit more like a prison grid every single day, the potential for abuse grows.  If someday all of this power gets into the wrong hands, it is going to be a nightmare unlike anything we have ever seen before.

This is exactly what I’ve been saying for a while. But when you give these control freaks, these criminals, these barbarians the apparatus to provide the means of such bureaucratic police state totalitarianism, they will use it and for evil purposes, as we are seeing.

Government monopolization and government centralization are the apparatus that have led to our modern police state, with all the little dictators and Nazis they have now, who abuse their power and authority, so the apparatus’ existence is inevitably entirely self-serving. It’s a power trip, including for the Nazi neighbors who “rat” on innocent people minding their own business.

Government’s monopolizing various functions, and compelling the citizenry to use those government monopolies, is inherently corrupting. Just one big example is how local governments monopolize community policing and security. The monopolized “crime-preventers” have become the criminals.

And centralization of government is inherently fixed to only grow in power and intrusiveness, and criminality. We need to remove the centralization and the actual apparatus of that centralization (in America’s case, the federal government that sits in Washington sucking away at the life of the people). What would be preferable would be a territory consisting of 50 sovereign states, or maybe even hundreds or thousands of independent cities and towns, or boroughs and wards, and neighborhoods, with competing and/or voluntary policing and security agencies. Such a way of life supports freedom and independence, as well as peace and prosperity, whereas with the current apparatus in place we get nothing but institutionalized aggression and tyranny — a prison society.

(For those who find these ideas something worthy of considering, but are concerned about “national security,” and feel that we need central planners to protect a huge territory of thousands of square miles and 300 million people, despite the central planners’ incompetence, their deliberately provoking foreigners and their criminality, then read this.)

America Needs Separation of Money and State

Washington’s Blog has this important post on how our current banking and money system is a “debt-creation system.” Whereas long, long ago when money was something of value, or our currency represented something of actual vale, now money = debt. Washington’s Blog provides a link to a video that demonstrates how the process of money-value to money-debt has occurred over the past several centuries. Washington provides many quotes from several economists and past historians, businessmen and statesmen, and notes how the banks have become so big and have bought the politicians and regulators, and how such a system of debt and corruption has caused nations to lose their sovereignty. And there is a problem when “private banks” are permitted to create credit out of thin air, which is the same kind of moral hazard as a central bank such as the Federal reserve creating money out of thin air.

Real wealth and credit are created by the producers, inventors and entrepreneurs of a society. But the “credit” that banks create out of thin air and the “money” that the Fed creates out of thin air are not real, not genuine. Those kinds of credit and “wealth” are fraudulent, counterfeit. That is why our entire system of made-up money and adding zeros to the numbers in the books is destined for collapse and ruin.

Washington states that, “If private banks have the power to create debt, then the biggest banks will always eventually win out over the sovereign nations, especially when the amount of credit which can be created (i.e. the size of the monetary base) is not limited by real assets, but is simply based on a system of fiat currency.” And Washington notes,

The ability for America and the 50 states to create its own credit has largely been lost to private bankers. The lion’s share of new credit creation is done by private banks, so – instead of being able to itself create money without owing interest – the government owes unfathomable trillions in interest to private banks.

America may have won the Revolutionary War, but it has since lost one of the main things it fought for: the freedom to create its own credit instead of having to beg for credit from private banks at a usurious cost.

The problem is, as with just about every other aspect of daily life, the influence of the State and its intrusions into private economic activity. The real moral hazard of society has been allowing an institution — the State — to have any power of compulsion over others, to seize and usurp authority over the people’s private matters of trade and commerce, including their media of exchange, and their savings, credit and investments. The State has no moral right to get itself involved into the affairs of the people’s means of trade amongst themselves.

So many people come from the frame of reference in which having State control over the people’s media of exchange and having a central bank authority is assumed to be an inherent part of a government, or of a federal government. Such an assumption seems to include that, for a society’s economic growth and prosperity to occur, there must be a top-down central planning money and banking authority to direct such growth and prosperity. This very long-ingrained widely-held assumption is why so many otherwise reasonable and intelligent people react so negatively to Ron Paul’s wanting to get rid of the Federal Reserve, repeal legal tender laws, and allow for competing currencies with sound money that would be backed by something of actual value. And privatize banking, not in the current sense of “private banks” as referred to in Washington’s Blog, but hold banks — big and small — accountable for their decisions and actions with their assets, investments and loans. No bailouts for anyone, especially when such bailouts are involuntary, that is, when the banks use the guns of government against their fellow citizens (taxpayers, producers, laborers, etc.) to get bailed out, like in 2008.

When people refer to “private banks,” and their controlling and accumulating (and corrupting) so much of the nation’s wealth, such “private banks” are not really private in the sense of being private businesses without connections to the State, and the special privileges and hand-outs that these banks receive from the State that other businesses don’t have. Many people just don’t seem to realize that these very State connections and privileges — and State-granted authority to act recklessly by taking extreme risks without any accountability — are what have enabled these “private banks” to have so much control over the nation’s wealth.

If we get rid of the central planning authority, the Federal Reserve, and get rid of all the State-granted privileges given to these Big Banks, and make them genuinely private, they would be treated like any other business and made to take responsibility for the consequences of their reckless risk-taking, irresponsible lending practices and engaging in fraudulent “fractional reserve banking.” If that means going bankrupt, so be it. This would require the bankers to act responsibly, and the more responsible the bank, the greater the reputation and the more customers it would attract. The failed ones who lost their customers’ savings would be treated harshly by going bankrupt, or its bankers thrown in jail for committing fraud. The citizens cannot have a 100% guaranteed system (i.e. “FDIC”, etc.) because savers, investors, businesspeople and consumers need to take responsibility for their own decisions as well, and need to be encouraged to do business with the banks (and any other businesses) with the best reputation and trust of the community that has been honestly earned.

I just don’t understand this need of so many people to have a single federal central bank with top-down dictatorial authority. Unfortunately, despite the history of the Fed’s distortions of prices, its devaluing of the currency, and its causing so much unemployment, people still seem to be blind to the extreme moral hazard of this kind of central planning, with such an authority controlling interest rates (rather than the free market controlling interest rates), combined with the Fed’s counterfeiting money-printing privilege and the legal tender laws that force all Americans to use the single government-issued currency.

Besides the inherent inability of central bankers to control inflation and positively affect the employment in a country of 300 million people, like any other government institution — and yes, the Fed is a government institution — the federal government central bank just can’t be trusted with that kind of power and authority. Like the “insider trading” that Congressmen get away with, the current and former government employees of the nation’s central bank have also enriched themselves from their share of “insider trading.” Central banks are inherently corrupt.

There is an inherent moral hazard involved when the State has control over the people’s wealth, money and property. The State itself is an institution of monopoly and compulsion, in which agents of the State have the artificial authority to be above the law, that is, when its agents are given any kind of monopolistic authority that non-State agents are not allowed to have, are permitted to act aggressively against others, to take property by force, or to compel individuals to do certain things that they otherwise would not do were they not compelled to do so.

For example, where is the State’s moral authority to compel all Americans to use only the one government-issued currency? As part of the people’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, they inherently have a right to use whatever they want as a medium of exchange in their daily trades and commerce. And who are a government and its agents to seize the people’s valuable assets away from them, such as when FDR stole the gold away from the people, and when Nixon “closed the gold window“? (No, we are NOT all Keynesians, now, you imbecile, Nixon!) Besides being incredibly corrupt, like most politicians, Nixon was also incredibly incompetent and ignorant — like most politicians.)

One final note: Among all the various quotes that Washington’s Blog provided in that post was one by Thomas Jefferson, except that Washington uses the word “Government” when the word in that quote is “people.” Washington Blog’s incorrect quoting of Jefferson:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies…The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the Government, to whom it properly belongs.

Whereas, the actual quote is:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies…The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

I hope Washington corrects that. It’s a huge difference.

Be Smart: Refuse the “Smart Meters”

The End of the American Dream Blog has this post on the enviro-fascist Green Nazis’ privacy-invasion government/police-spying devices they want to put in every home in America, the Smart Meters, which are about as “smart” as Anthony Whiner sending porn photos to young ladies and about as “smart” as Michele Bachmann signing a pledge to outlaw said porn.

The End of the American Dream Blog notes,

For law enforcement officials, these surveillance devices are a dream come true. According to the Columbus Dispatch, police in central Ohio have been filing at least 60 subpoenas every single month for the energy-use records of those that they suspect are growing pot in their homes.

Well, it turns out that sometimes police are raiding homes that are using a lot of energy and they don’t find any marijuana at all. Instead, sometimes these raids reveal others kinds of activities….

Sometimes, high electricity use doesn’t lead investigators to drugs. A federal investigation in the Powell area turned into a surprise for detectives.

“We thought it was a major grow operation … but this guy had some kind of business involving computers,” Marotta said. “I don’t know how many computer servers we found in his home.”

So do you want police raiding your home if you start using a little bit too much electricity?

Jerry Day, an electronics and media expert from Burbank California, recently detailed many of the ways that smart meters act as surveillance devices when they are installed in our homes….

And the writer provides this video of Day explaining the usefulness of the “Smart Meters” for police state intrusions. “Smart Meters are no different from wire-tapping devices.”

It is not really just a matter of privacy that we should be concerned about, but security. We are not secure when people are keeping track of us in our homes, or in our cars either, or via our cell phones, emails or Internet usage. I am not a fan of the CONstitution, but it does recognize our inalienable, natural “right to be secure” in our “persons, papers, houses and effects.” We are not secure when someone is keeping track of our private activities, our personal habits, and our daily behaviors, and certainly not when the data of such behaviors are being sold to businesses, or seized by police or criminals (sorry for the redundancy) to be used to commit crimes against us, or to be used as rationales by police to commit crimes against us.

Jerry Day has good advice: If the local electric company comes by to replace your electric meter with a “Smart Meter,” you can refuse that and have them continue to use what they already have in place — it’s good enough. To protect yourself from the criminals of the State, don’t unwittingly give the local Gestapo the “probable cause” they want to harass you with: the “Smart Meter.”

Why Is Calling People “Nazis” Offensive, But Calling People “Commies” Not So Offensive?

A commenter on one of my posts yesterday (that I have since deleted) implied that I used the word “Nazi” too much in that post, and he is correct. I did overuse that word in that one post, and I apologize if anyone was offended by it.

However, for some reason, there seems to be this extra sensitivity to anything that refers to the Nazi Germany Jewish Holocaust, certainly more than to something that might refer to the tens of millions of murdered innocents by Soviets and Chinese during the 20th Century. Am I wrong about that? Or is it just too politically incorrect for me to point that out? Why aren’t as many people offended if I refer to someone as a “commie” as those offended by my referring to someone as a “Nazi”? After all, the Chinese communists murdered far more millions of their own fellow Chinese than the number of Jews murdered by Nazis, and the Soviets murdered far more millions than the Nazis as well. But for some reason, when it’s Jews we’re talking about, there is an extra sensitivity. If I’m wrong about that, or just way off on that, then please correct me.

One of my purposes here on this blog is to point out uncomfortable truths, because I think the truth — regardless of how politically incorrect it is to point it out — is important.

Now, regarding that post about the situation of the lady whose neighbors didn’t like her putting a vegetable garden on her front yard: The intrusive, meddlesome, busybody neighbors are the people I referred to as “Nazis,” as well as the local government officials who are going to force the lady to remove her garden or throw her in jail, yeah, those people, those “zoning Nazis.” Again, I am sorry if people are offended, but, when someone not only doesn’t like the neighbor’s vegetable garden on her own property (which is your opinion but you have a right to your opinion), but one goes and gets the armed force of government to forcibly compel the lady to remove the garden or she must pay a serious penalty, then such people are being little dictators. What the little dictators are doing — by force and compulsion of government and police — is totally contrary to everything that America was originally intended to be: a FREE COUNTRY, in which a property owner’s property rights were respected, not trashed.

Here is the less dictatorial, less selfish and infringing, less intrusive and trespassing, and more honest and aboveboard thing for someone to do if one does not like one’s neighbor’s vegetable garden on her own property: Offer to buy the property. Or get a group of fellow nitpickers to chip in to buy the property. Or, as I noted yesterday, if the garden bothers you so much, then you can always move. That is what mature, honest people do in such situations. They do not act like little dictators.

Remember, when you own a parcel of property, that is your parcel of property. But your owning a parcel of property doesn’t give you some kind of share in ownership of the parcel of property next door. It is too bad, in this day and age of immediate gratification and socialistic covetousness toward others’ property and belongings, that so many people think that they own their neighbors’ property as well as their own. Sorry. Not quite.

Now, regarding the Jewish sensitivity, there have been a lot of references to “Nazis” in recent years, especially with the TSA. (Just Google “TSA Nazi.”) There have been also references to Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City. (Or, as David Kramer of the Lew Rockwell Blog calls it, “Nazi York City.”) There are the “Food Nazis,” the “Salt Nazis” and the “Raw Milk Nazis.”

Again, I am sorry if all that is offensive to anyone, but we really need to lighten up. I’m glad that my Grandma left Warsaw in 1912 with her family and came to the U.S. Fortunately, she and her family arrived early enough, and weren’t amongst the many Jews who were locked out of the U.S. by FDR in the 1930s and ’40s by the U.S. government’s vicious immigration controls at that time.

 

The Continuing War on Liberty by Foolish Government Bureaucrats

Last night on his radio show, Michael Savage was blasting the latest anti-2nd Amendment fiascos being perpetrated by the administration of the “communist tyrant” Barack Obama. This time, it’s the ATF deliberately getting guns in the hands of “low-level” Mexican drug cartel gangsters, as part of operation “Fast and Furious.” Only government bureaucrats could be this incompetent — and crazy.

And now there are charges by two congressional leaders, long-time hack Charles Grassley and Darrell Issa, the “richest member of Congress,” that the situation is being covered up by the DOJ including its head honcho, Eric Holster. Michael Savage seems to think (and he may very well be correct) that it is part of an overall effort by the “communist tyrant” in the White House and his fellow totalitarians to disarm the entire population, by using this gun operation and subsequent violence and deaths (caused, as usual, by government nincompoops) as an example why no one should have guns (except for incompetent government nincompoops).

According to FoxNews:

The operation began in the fall of 2009 as an effort to trace and stop the trafficking of illegal guns on the Southwest border, but instead allowed thousands of guns to get into the hands of Mexican cartel members.The two say they learned about the program after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in December 2010. At the crime scene were two guns linked to the “Fast and Furious” operation.

At an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing last month, three federal firearms investigators testified that they wanted to “intervene and interdict” loads of guns, but were repeatedly ordered to step aside to allow suspected smugglers to carry the weapons over the border.

Issa and Grassley have urged Holder to cooperate and turn over subpoenaed records that would reveal the scope of the government coverup.

The alleged coverup involves three law enforcement agencies: the ATF, FBI and the DEA, or Drug Enforcement Administration.

FoxNews video with more details on the operation:

The real solutions to these problems that only government bureaucrats could cause:

  • End the War on Drugs
  • End the War on Self-Defense
  • End the War on Freedom
  • Decentralize and Give Independence and Sovereignty Back to the States

One very constructive and helpful idea is to allow only the citizenry (or civilians) to be armed, and mandate that all agents of government be disarmed. That way, we would all be safer.

USA Is #1: In Obesity, Pornography, Incarcerations, Divorce, TV-Watching, Drugs, Rapes, Murders, etc.

The Economic Collapse Blog has this post on how the U.S. is #1 in those areas, and lists those and other areas in which America is #1. The writer notes,

We have become a slothful, greedy, decadent nation that is exhibiting signs of advanced decay.  Until we understand just how bad our problems really are, we won’t be able to come up with the solutions that we need.A lot of people that write articles like this have a deep hatred for America.  But that is not the case with me.  I love the United States.  I love the American people.  America is like an aging, bloated rock star that has become addicted to a dozen different drugs.  America is a shadow of its former self and it desperately needs to wake up before it plunges into oblivion.

A couple of things that the USA is #1 in are TV-watching and pornography viewing. This is part of the overall trend of America’s dumbing down and social/emotional disconnect over the past century. Rather than viewing something that keeps the mind active, such as books and articles, so many people instead crave their passively vegging in front of the TV, staring and being mesmerized like zombies, and so many people crave looking and staring at porn.

The porn stuff is an escape that sexualizes one’s unmet emotional needs for love and intimate connection with others. In fact, the Economic Collapse Blog writer does mention how many people don’t even say hello to their neighbors anymore. And the USA is #1 in divorces because couples don’t know how to communicate with one another, or they do know how but don’t want to. Couples tend to not share their feelings, thoughts, and views, especially regarding their very relationship itself, and they become detached. Part of this is, as Economic Collapse Blog notes, so much of the population now has become extremely self-absorbed and self-centered. (The worst of it is located in a place that ends in “DC.”)

The writer links to an article on pornography that also mentions that 72% of the porn viewers are men. Many of them are married, obviously, so does that mean that married men (and women) would rather look at pornography than at their spouses? Is this because the U.S. is also #1 in obesity, as the writer states? If one’s spouse is a fat slob obese, then who wants to look at him or her? I know I don’t.

Now, if you’re a fat slob obese, and if you have a hard time getting dates, then that might be why, and if you’re married, and your spouse avoids you, then that might be why. So, stop vegging in front of the TV, and get up and do some exercises. Preferably, you ought to exercise in the morning, and make it a regular routine. All you have to do is push-ups and sit-ups, you don’t even need weights or go to the gym. But don’t forget to do stretching before and after your exercises. If you can’t do one push-up or one sit-up, then you have to force yourself to get at least one. When you can do one each morning and then do it easily, then try two, and so on. It’s very important. Going for a long walk once every day is also important.

Another problem with obese people is their diet. You need to control your eating habits. If you can’t control your eating habits, then that is a sign that your life in general is out of control, and you need to fix that. Perhaps psychotherapy can be helpful. If you yourself are a psychotherapist, then you might need to change careers. Regarding diet, eat a balanced breakfast, a lunch and a dinner. Do not eat between meals. Try to reduce the size of your meals. People tend to put too much food on their plate. (In fact, after the economic collapse, people will probably be forced to reduce their daily food intake and ration and stretch their food.) If you still feel hungry after a meal, then that could be a sign that your digestive system isn’t working very well, and you need to increase your fruits and vegetables intake for those important digestive enzymes and fiber, and add an acidophilus supplement to your vitamins every day. If you have poor posture, then that needs to be corrected, as poor posture negatively affects food digestion.

America’s growth in statism and centralism has coincided over the past century with the increasing status of America as an immediate-gratification society. That goes with how so many people and families have become so irresponsible with their credit cards, home purchases and mortgages, and banks and lenders so irresponsible with their policies and foreclosures, and our politicians — the worst of all of us by far — so irresponsible with spending and debts that involve other people’s money, as they put America into the poorhouse and live high off the hog off the rest of us.

The answers to these problems involve decentralizing the society in general, and becoming more self-controlled and responsible as individuals.

The Statists Want to Ban Anonymity on the Internet

This article on HuffPo, Denmark Police Propose Ban on Anonymous Internet Use, shows that there are still people out there, particularly in government, who just do not like the idea of an individual exercising one’s right to question the power of the monopolistic, compulsory State. In many instances, such an endeavor is extremely risky for one who believes in morality and that the actions of the State have been immoral. Sometimes the only real way to protect one’s right to challenge governmental dictates, and challenge the destructive statist doctrines that have been drilled into the heads of the masses, is to express such status-quo challenging with anonymity.

Many anti-Federalists used pseudonyms to protect their identities, because their ideas, the ideas of individual liberty, private property, and freedom of association and contract, go against the wants and desires of the typical government bureaucrat, who wants to use the armed power of the State to take other people’s property, intrude into their homes and businesses, and just plain get off on the wielding of total power over others.

Said government bureaucrats want to use that State power and control to censor any criticisms and exposure of their daily invasive actions, their incompetence and buffoonery, and, especially, their crimes. That is why they want such intrusive control over the average folks’ Internet usage.

Glenn Greenwald on James Risen’s Journalistic Integrity

Glenn Greenwald has this article regarding New York Times investigative journalist James Risen, whose 2006 book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, included revelations of various illegal and unconstitutional Bush “War on Terror” policies, and because of which Risen is now subject to harassment and pressure by the Obama Administration to reveal his sources of information. Risen will not reveal his sources, and is willing to go to jail to protect them.

Thank God for hero journalists like James Risen, who believe in exposing the truth about corrupt politicians who compromise the liberty of their own people. That’s as opposed to the corrupt and cowardly “journalists” who shill and propagandize for these politicians, for the sake of the journalists’ advancing their own careers while aiding and abetting the crimes these politicians commit. The crimes that our “leaders” have been committing against their own people and our liberty and against foreigners have been egregious, and they need to be exposed.

Some Misc. Items for Summer Solstice

Walter Block has this article on LewRockwell.com, “President Ron Paul’s Likely Supreme Court Nominations.” Regardless of whether or not Dr. Paul could actually win the election, the problem with this speculating is the apparent assumption that we should be relying on this Supreme Court for anything.

This is the Supreme Court that constantly upholds expanded and further intrusive police power to break into people’s homes, search people and their property and never be held accountable. But even if we had nine Ron Paul-appointed justices, the problem is that even they will not protect our liberty, especially if the thing upon which they rely for “law” is that Constitution. My main point really is that, given the amount of time that Dr. Block spent on that article, I wish he would spend that much time explaining why a State-monopoly in ultimate judicial decision-making is a bad thing, and why the Supreme Court needs to be abolished.

Given that, in the early years of the United States of America, the states decided to hire a third-party agent to handle foreign conflicts, morally and practically speaking — and in the interests of consistency — each state should have the final say on a legal, “constitutional” (yech) dispute, and should have the right to overrule a Supreme Court decision that the people of whatever state feel violates their liberty and property. The current system of authoritarian rule violates the idea of state sovereignty as well as individual liberty, freedom of association and contract, and private property.

If a state overruled a Supreme Court decision, and there were some people within that state who didn’t like their state’s overruling, then, in an actual free society, they would have the freedom to move to a better state. (“Better” according to them, that is.) They would “vote with their feet,” which is something that most of us Americans are not really able to do, to escape the tyranny of the federal dictatorship. So obviously, this system of choice and freedom is better than the current dictatorial, police-state system.

As I have suggested earlier, even Ron Paul-appointed Supreme Court Justices would still be State employees. When the conflict before them is between an individual or business and some arm of the State or its hired guns, the police, the nine justices will still tend to side with their brethren within the various State compulsory monopolies.

I believe that Walter Block is with me on these ideas, given the previous articles I’ve read by him and his frequent collaboration with Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Speaking of Hoppe, here is Hans Hoppe’s solution to the problem of the State’s monopoly of ultimate judicial decision-making, a monopoly that goes against the people and only strengthens the power of the State and its hired guns, the police (particularly the centralized federal State): Private Law.

If the state, and especially the democratic state, is demonstrably incapable of creating and maintaining social order; if, instead of helping avoid conflict, the state is the source of permanent conflict; and if, rather than assuring legal security and predictability, the state itself continuously generates insecurity and unpredictability through its legislation and replaces constant law with “flexible” and arbitrary whim, then inescapably the question as to the correct – obviously: non-statist – solution to the problem of social order arises.

The solution is a private law society, i.e., a society in which every individual and institution is subject to one and the same set of laws. No public law granting privileges to specific persons of functions (and no public property) exists in this society. There is only private law (and private property), equally applicable to each and everyone. No one is permitted to acquire property by any means other than through original appropriation, production or voluntary exchange, and no one possesses a privilege to tax and expropriate. Moreover, in a private law society no one is permitted to prohibit anyone else from using his property in order to enter any line of production he wishes and compete against whomever he pleases.

Specifically regarding the problem at hand: in a private law society the production of security – of law and order – will be undertaken by freely financed individuals and agencies competing for a voluntarily paying (or not-paying) clientele, just as the production of all other goods and services…

First off, competition among police, insurers and arbitrators for paying clients would bring about a tendency toward a continuous fall in the price of protection (per insured value), thus rendering protection increasingly more affordable, whereas under monopolistic conditions the price of protection will steadily rise and become increasingly un-affordable…

While states, as already noted, are always and everywhere eager to disarm its population and thus rob it of an essential means of self-defense, private law societies are characterized by an unrestricted right to self-defense and hence by widespread private gun and weapon ownership. Just imagine a security producer who demanded of its prospective clients that they would first have to completely disarm themselves before it would be willing to defend the clients’ life and property. Correctly, everyone would think of this as a bad joke and refuse such on offer. Freely financed insurance companies that demanded potential clients first hand over all of their means of self-defense as a prerequisite of protection would immediately arouse the utmost suspicion as to their true motives, and they would quickly go bankrupt. In their own best interest, insurance companies would reward armed clients, in particular those able to certify some level of training in the handling of arms, charging them lower premiums reflecting the lower risk that they represent. Just as insurers charge less if homeowners have an alarm system or a safe installed, so would a trained gun owner represent a lower insurance risk…

The Fascist, Regulatory Police State Continues to Kill America

Eric Peters writes on the latest Fifth Amendment intrusion by our Glorious Leaders Who Want To Protect Us, the forcible drawing of blood without cause for later use against us as a means of forced self-incrimination.

Peters is referring to those random “sobriety checkpoints,” and that a Texas court has upheld the forcible drawing of your blood. So much for that freedom-loving Rick Perry, who wants to be president.

But Peters points out that the real point of this increased police state totalitarianism is not to save us from our own bad choices, or to protect people from drunk drivers, but to reinforce the State’s police power of unquestioned authority and make people submit and be obedient.

People who love freedom must step up their challenges of the statists behind these policies, and must continue to challenge their obedient fellow Americans who support such policies. The statist mentality is of those who oppose the ideas and principles behind the making of America — Presumption of Innocence and the Right to Be Left Alone. The same mentality is behind the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror,” that is also based on presumption of guilt, apprehension, rendition and detention without cause or suspicion, and searches and seizures of private property.

Arthur Silber writes on how the victims of the State’s enslavement and intrusions identify with and obey the State’s aggressors and rapists. There are efforts throughout America to undo the damage of the statists thus far, but most of these efforts are aimed at reforming our unreformable system. Silber concludes,

For the moment, think about those people (which is most people, including almost all “dissenters”) who are so deeply committed to “reforming” and “saving” the system. To allow themselves to believe that the system is capable of being “reformed” and “saved,” they must constantly appeal to what they view as the “kindness” of their captors. This must be true, even if that “kindness” is only the alleged willingness of the captors to change and alter course, if only they “understood” and finally appreciated the truth, or some critical element of the truth. The “dissenters” are, of course, eager and willing to explain that truth to them. They must desperately search for their captors’ “good side” to grant legitimacy to their efforts. Of course, this is precisely what the captors want you to do. But what if you’re wrong about your captors’ willingness to change? And again, I ask: If you fight in the manner permitted by those who hold you hostage, how likely do you think it is that your captors will set you free? As I said: they won’t.

The reason our Glorious Leaders in Washington and the slithering state and local bureaucrats (and their hired guns, the police) won’t help us and will only continue to increase their intrusive powers, is because they have all been given a monopoly in a variety of tasks, including national security and local community policing, and, worse, all these government officials have the power to be above the law: They have the power to commit acts of theft and fraud, initiated physical aggression and trespass against others’ persons and property.

This system is unreformable as long as we continue to institutionalize uncivilized behavior. You can’t have a civilized society when TPTB are permitted to act in an uncivilized manner through theft, trespass and physical aggression.

As I wrote in my piece on national security central planning socialism, we need to decentralize the task of national security. Power-hungry bureaucrats in Washington are inherently incompetent, and even the most brilliant amongst them could not  possibly manage the security of 300 million Americans thousands of square miles apart. When we give them that centralized monopolistic power, they will abuse it. Just look at Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Nixon, and the two Bushes especially. They have used their monopolistic powers of national security central planning to deliberately provoke hostilities against us from abroad. They have made us less safe.

And as I wrote in my piece on “Disobeying Dictators,” giving local government bureaucrats an armed monopoly in community policing has given us local tyranny. The level of abuse against innocent Americans by police is constantly on the increase. Many, many more innocents are murdered by police than are police murdered by criminals.

Giving armed agents of the State a monopoly in community policing gives them legal authority over others, which automatically erases accountability under the rule of law. And outlawing competition removes the State’s monopolistic agents’ incentive to achieve and provide actual security, and feeds the State’s agents’ need for power and control. This increasingly dysfunctional monopoly has disarmed and rendered the average citizen impotent toward his own ability to defend oneself from actual criminals. Now, the police are the criminals, as especially reinforced by the irrational and counter-productive War on Drugs and the militarizing of the police.

In fact, Radley Balko writes just today of yet another police adventure ending in the police murdering yet another innocent individual, in yet another no-knock kick-the-door-in raid looking for evidence of non-violent crimes, this time the victim of the police criminals being a sick 69-year man. The combination of irrational drug laws, including prescription drugs, and incompetent, testosterone-overflowing agents of the State’s police monopoly is what gives us these nightmares.

You can’t reform a system that is inherently flawed. A system of compulsion and monopoly is inherently flawed, and that is why our system is doomed. A system of centralization and central planning, State-monopoly, and giving some people the power to trespass and aggress against others, just doesn’t work. It is as much immoral as it is impractical. No reform can possibly make it better. Abolishing this system is the only way to save our liberty, our security and safety (and our prosperity as well).

In a civil and just society, no State-monopoly may be allowed, open competition in all fields must be permitted and protected, and no one may have the right or the power to be above the rule of law, no one may initiate acts of theft or trespass against others’ persons or property.

A system of liberty, protection of presumption of innocence, and equal accountability under the rule of law, should not be too complicated to understand.

Student Loan Debts vs. Independence and Responsibility

Yves Smith has this post on biased studies, one of which the conclusion is that having more debt is helpful to students’ “self-esteem.” Smith is probably correct about the propagandish nature of the study. In actuality, what is probably more helpful to students’ or post-college young adults’ self-esteem is independence and autonomous self-support, with an absence of debt. Absence of debt goes with higher self-esteem and independence because being in debt means that one is beholden to others. Being in debt and beholden to others is more in line with dependence, not independence. But perhaps that is what the propagandists want: mass dependence, especially on the financial elite, TPTB.

Looking at the idea of debt on a larger scale, we can see that the Congressjerks in Washington continuously increase the national debt, for which they have enslaved Americans and future generations, in the name of the Congressjerks’ personal pet projects (i.e. pork), in the name of receiving more campaign contributions from the corporate welfare parasites such as military contractors, Big Pharma, Big Agra, Big Farming, and, of course, the snorting and grunting hogs of Wall Street.

The Congressjerks and their contributors are themselves dependent on the hard labor of the workers and producers of society, from the fruits of whose labor the parasites expropriate and squander with impunity.

Members of the senate and congress are not responsible people. And neither are presidents. The reason these people continually raise the debt ceiling is, because in their obnoxious selfishness, it is not their money nor their debt they need to worry about. These people rarely accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions, and for the consequences of their stupidity, their ill-informed decisions and votes, as well as for their own personal indiscretions. The only reason Anthony Whiner stepped down was not out of ethics or owning up to his lack of judgment in sending photos to young ladies he didn’t know, but to spare his Party further embarrassment — to spare his Party any further tarnishing against its credibility. (Like either Party in Washington has any credibility left whatsoever!)

When we know that George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, costing the lives of 5,000 Americans and causing tens of thousands of wounded young Americans — many disabled for life — as well as hundreds of thousands of murdered innocent Iraqis and a destroyed Iraq, not to mention the trillions Bush had squandered on behalf of military contractors’ fattened bank accounts, when we know that this war was for Bush to finish the job his Dad started and to use toward Junior’s reelection campaign, and that it was all based on lies, fabricated evidence and documentation, but we do not hold this Bush responsible for the consequences of his “high crimes and misdemeanors,” his murderous war crimes, then I suppose that sends a message to America’s youth that you do not have to be responsible for yourself or your bad decisions (or your crimes).

Regarding the students, graduates and their loans and debts, the message used to be that if you defaulted on student loans, then you’ll probably get treated leniently or maybe even be excused from the debt. Now, the feds, going broke and desperate, want the money, and are willing to use police S.W.A.T. teams to break into people’s homes and terrorize families to get that money.

But the culture has encouraged students to get loans for college even if they may not be needing them. And it encouraged the Big Banks to commit mortgage and lending fraud, and foreclosure fraud as well, but lately people are starting to wake up to all this. Americans are finally beginning to question the culture of dependence, debt, and irresponsibility. At least some Americans are.

We need to discourage young people from going into debt, and encourage them to be more responsible and frugal. It is also wise to advise the youngins at age 17-18 to consider working full-time rather then going to college. They can start at age 16 working part-time, and try to turn that into full-time when they graduate from high school.

Of course, for those with the desire to enter fields such as medicine, undergraduate college is probably necessary, what with all the labs for bio and chem that are required. However, ObamaCare is a good disincentive toward entering the field of medicine, unless you desire to be a slave of the State as a government doctor, which is ultimately what ObamaCare will turn the entire medical system into.

Coulter Reveals Her Socialist Love for the State

In her column this week, Get Rid of Government — But First Make Me President!, Ann Coulter is certainly far more critical of Ron Paul than she has been before, such as last year during the CPAC event in which she said she agreed with Ron Paul on everything except foreign policy. Miss Coulter especially bashes Dr. Paul this week for his views on separating marriage and State.

On marriage, Miss Coulter responds to Dr. Paul’s statement that one should not have to get a license by the State to be married. Coulter asks,

If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? How are child support and child custody issues determined if the government doesn’t recognize marriage? How about a private company’s health care plans — whom will those cover? Who has legal authority to issue “do not resuscitate” orders to doctors?…

Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person’s Social Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you’re divorced and able to remarry?…

Miss Coulter seems to think that government officials should decide on who gets to adopt children and who decides on child custody disagreements, and that is why we must “register” our private marriages and marital contracts with the government.

This is the socialists’ argument, the one in favor of the bureaucratization of everyday life, and that insists that the people are owned by the State and therefore must “register” with the State for its high-and-mighty permission so that we may arrange our private contracts and relationships according to the State’s approval in order to live our private lives in “pursuit of happiness.” Socialists like Coulter seem to be terrified of the idea of private contracts and private third-party arbitrators to settle disputes.

Here in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, there is a history of state social workers’ gross incompetence when it comes to overseeing child adoption and foster care. And corruption. (See here, here, and here for examples of the State’s adoption/foster care racket.) Do we really want social workers, agents of the State, to decide on who gets to adopt what children, or who gets to be foster parents? When it comes to who has the allegiance of agents of the State, there is no stronger loyalty than to the State itself, and its pathological hunger for control over the people, especially the children. It’s just like in the government-run schools, only worse.

But the problem is when you give some compulsory State monopoly the power of ultimate decision-making, its decisions will ultimately be bad decisions, and self-serving decisions as well. I wouldn’t trust State-employed social workers with any kids. It is these State social workers, at least here in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, who are best known for repeatedly placing children into abusive families, in which several children have been murdered. And the abusive families tend to be heterosexual couples. (Miss Coulter seems to be worried about gay-married couples adopting children.)

But there would be much less of a need to worry about who gets to adopt or foster-care children when we have a market-based system in place. Private firms that specialized in adoption and foster-care would run on a competitive basis, and based on word-of-mouth, proven competence and so on. To give the State the moral authority as final, ultimate decision-maker to approve or disapprove of these situations is quite totalitarian.

With a compulsory State monopoly, case after case the agents of the State are never accountable and their incompetence and corruption are rewarded, as is the case in any endeavor controlled and managed by the State. In a market-based system, however, private case workers would actually work under scrutiny of the rule of law, and the bad case workers will be weeded out by the free marketplace. (I know, I know, it is a little hard for people so indoctrinated to trust the State’s control over everything to hear “marketplace” combined with “child adoption.” Should we really trust free people to be responsible?)

But if you look at the history of the State’s involvement in these personal family matters, the judgment of the State-employed social workers should never be trusted, because they are… State-employed. Remember, as the old saying goes, “Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach, administrate. Those who can’t administrate, become State-employed social workers.”

As far as marriage per se, it is a private relationship, a private contract, and none of anyone else’s business, and certainly none of the State’s business. Each individual has a right to marry. Yes, it is a right, and it doesn’t matter what the genders are of those involved. Miss Coulter seems to believe that the individual is owned by the State, hence her view that one must “register” with the State and get the State’s permission to marry. However, if you agree with Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, you would agree that the individual owns one’s own life, and has a right to do with one’s own life whatever one wants, as long as one is peaceful, including establishing voluntary contracts with others, in business or pleasure.

Alas, conservative socialists such as Ann Coulter who love the State and believe that the State should have some ultimate authority over the people’s private marriages, child adoption and other private family matters, are in the same camp with the social engineering fanatics of the Left.