Skip to content

Author: scott lazarowitz

Invade Mexico on Behalf of the Futile War on Drugs?

Redstate.com has a post that asserts that in order to deal with the violence and chaos from the drug cartels south of the border that are invading Texas and Arizona, it is a question of not if but when the U.S. government must invade Mexico. Not once throughout the whole post is the idea of ending the war on drugs that’s causing the whole mess, yet that is the only way to solve that problem. Market Ticker’s Karl Denninger agrees with me.

Marine veteran Fred Reed matter-of-factly discussed this proposal of invading Mexico just a few weeks ago.

What the Pentaloons don’t understand, being armed Boy Scouts who believe their own propaganda – “Ooo-rah! Yes sir! Yes sir! Can do, sir!” is that they usually can’t. The chief reason is that people really, really do not like American soldiers invading their countries, wrecking cities and killing their children. The military, which thinks at right angles, cannot wrap its mind around this difficult thought. Thus Americans invariably begin by thinking, “We are right. We are for democracy. We are trying to help these people. Therefore they will love us.”

Must America lose another war, sacrifice more American lives, murder more foreigners, engage in more death and destruction, and put itself into even further bankruptcy because conservatives don’t like the thought of someone else having a good time, and don’t like the thought of personal responsibility? (And I thought it was the Left who were guilty of acting out their death instinct!)

It is mostly the conservatives who want to continue the War on Drugs, despite how futile and counter-productive that fascist scheme is, although most of those among the left who support it know that the government shouldn’t have the power to dictate to people what chemicals they may or may not ingest, but those particular lefties in on the scheme have something to gain by supporting it. But most conservatives don’t want people to have the freedom to choose what chemicals to put into their own bodies, because conservatives don’t believe in personal responsibility. Conservatives believe in this fascist nanny state, unfortunately, and it is this nanny state, anti-personal responsibility policy they support that is causing a black market in drugs, driving up the prices and making it highly profitable for the black market druggists, thus incentivizing those in such a scheme to push the drugs onto others, and engage in trafficking, and turn into savages not afraid to kill those who move in on their turf. Conservatives support this.

Why can’t people of our modern era learn from history, the history of Prohibition, which banned the production, sale and distribution and consumption of alcohol? That was over 80 years ago! Instead of learning from history, and supporting common sense and personal responsibility, conservatives want the nanny state government to have the power to dictate to private individuals what chemicals they may or may not ingest, and conservatives don’t want people to to be expected to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions and actions.

Now, I personally oppose drug usage, as well as alcohol. The only times I ever drank alcohol were during high school and college, but that was many, many years ago. I’ve never even smoked. Why would I deliberately inhale the waste of burning garbage?

Instead of common sense and supporting freedom and personal responsibility, too many people, the statists, the warmongers, and the government expansionists, want to continue the senseless, murderous war on drugs, and want to militarily invade Mexico. Perhaps that’s the true long-term purpose underlying the War on Drugs anyway. Perhaps the statists and expansionists have wanted to invade Mexico all along, and continuing the War on Drugs to deliberately effect in chaos has been their way of getting what they really wanted.

Perhaps the War on Drugs statists really just want to make Mexico another U.S. territory. If that’s the case, then it would be similar to how the statists, warmongers, and government expansionists have for many decades been deliberately radicalizing and provoking the Muslims overseas, and deliberately eliciting their jihad against the West as an excuse for the statists, warmongers and government expansionists to invade and occupy Middle Eastern and Asian countries because ultimately they want to make those oil-rich lands U.S. territories. If so, then why can’t they just openly advocate the U.S. government’s conquest of the people of those countries and the seizures of their territories. At least that would be more aboveboard than what the statists, warmongers and government expansionists have been doing for the past several decades.

Boycott! Censorship! Joe Lieberman: Ignorance = Strength

Justin Raimondo has this very well done column at Antiwar.com, Defend WikiLeaks – Boycott Amazon, in which he asserts that because Amazon.com caved to Sen. Joe Lieberman’s demand that Amazon end its providing of Internet servers for WikiLeaks, therefore Amazon is an “extension of the state,” and Amazon needs to be boycotted. I have already linked to several good posts by libertarians who mostly oppose boycotting Amazon, and I agree with them. I have some points to make, though, in response to Justin Raimondo.

Regarding the call to boycott Amazon, Raimondo seems to be asserting that it’s a choice between politics or principle (something to which I have referred in the past), “You’re either for liberty, or you’re against it: there is no middle ground,” asserts Raimondo.

Now, if you are going to boycott Amazon.com because they have stopped providing WikiLeaks with servers, then, if you really are principled and consistent, you would have to boycott every other company that offers Internet servers and who isn’t providing WikiLeaks with servers. There are probably hundreds of them. Should we boycott all of them? Are they morally obligated to provide WikiLeaks with servers? Is Amazon.com morally obligated to provide WikiLeaks with servers, just because they, Amazon.com, possess and provide servers?

And also, I would think that we would boycott a company for doing something bad, not because the company isn’t doing something that we want them to do. For example, boycott a company that does business with a racist apartheid State, such as the old South Africa, or the present Israel. That would be a boycott against a company based on the company’s doing something of which we disapprove, or its colluding with a racist State.

But to suggest that we ought to boycott a company because it is isn’t doing something – in this case, not providing WikiLeaks with servers, and I know they were providing servers but then withdrew the support – is suggesting that you are saying to Amazon: “you must provide WikiLeaks with servers, or we’ll boycott you.” (Even though there are many other companies available that provide servers – Amazon isn’t the only one.) Is that really what Raimondo is advocating?

And Paul Craig Roberts has this article on LewRockwell.com, Western Civilization Has Shed Its Values, in which he comments on the WikiLeaks cablegate matter, and notes that the most important revelation was regarding Hillary Clinton Rodham’s secret cables requesting “credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers, frequent-flyer account numbers and biographic and biometric information including DNA information on UN officials from the Secretary General down, including ‘heads of peace operations and political field missions.’”

Now, that order by Clinton Rodham was in July, 2009, which implies that the items requested had already been or are being provided to her. Wouldn’t that mean that Hillary has committed ID theft? I think so. And, given that she’s a government official, and a high government official at that, there shouldn’t be any requirement that the evidence against her was obtained “legally”(and I don’t know whether information provided to WikiLeaks by someone makes WikiLeaks guilty of anything, because they didn’t actively go break into someone’s office and steal it).

On a related note, Michael Rozeff provides on the Lew Rockwell Blog, this quote from Murray Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty:

“In some areas, a radical distinction between private persons and government officials is acknowledged in existing law and opinion. Thus, a private individual’s ‘right to privacy’ or right to keep silent does not and should not apply to government officials, whose records and operations should be open to public knowledge and evaluation. There are two democratic arguments for denying the right to privacy to government officials, which, while not strictly libertarian, are valuable as far as they go: namely (1) that in a democracy, the public can only decide on public issues and vote for public officials if they have complete knowledge of government operations; and (2) that since the taxpayers pay the bill for government, they should have the right to know what government is doing. The libertarian argument would add that, since government is an aggressor organization against the rights and persons of its citizens, then full disclosure of its operations is at least one right that its subjects might wrest from the State, and which they may be able to use to resist or whittle down State power.”

If anyone is dangerous to America, and to our freedom, it’s Joe Lieberman. This nut wants to remove citizenship from people accused of terrorism – not convicted based on a trial with due process and evidence brought forth, but merely suspected of terrorism – and he wants to shut down the Internet, based on panic and fear-mongering, but really for the purpose of suppressing dissent, and he’s a damn warmonger with Iraq and now Iran, both cases being based on emotional propaganda and not facts.

I don’t think I’ve seen a government official so obnoxiously against freedom, against Presumption of Innocence, against the Rule of Law, against civil liberties, against Due Process, against private property, against freedom of association, against freedom of movement, against free speech, and against common sense. Joe Lieberman hasn’t a clue as far as what America is really supposed to stand for – you know, freedom? (Yeah, that thing.)

Speaking of Joe Lieberman’s Internet censorship, Glenn Greenwald notes that Lieberman has threatened another Internet software company into removing graphics from the WikiLeaks website. Greenwald writes about the senior imbecile from Connecticut and the State-worshiping news media:

He’s on some kind of warped mission where he’s literally running around single-handedly dictating what political content can and cannot be on the Internet, issuing broad-based threats to “all companies” that — by design — are causing suppression of political information…

What Lieberman is doing is a severe abuse of power, and even for our anemic, power-revering media, it ought to be a major scandal (though it’s not because, as Digby says, all our media stars can process is that “Julian Assange is icky”).

If people — especially journalists — can’t be riled when Joe Lieberman is unilaterally causing the suppression of political content from the Internet, when will they be?

In his subsequent post, The lawless Wild West attacks WikiLeaks, Greenwald highlights the Constitutional brilliance of the senior fascist from Kentucky, Sen. Mitch McConnell who says that WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange has done damage to the country! Can you believe that? Can you see how amazingly ignorant these people are n Washington? McConnell stated that Assange needs to be “prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” And, McConnell the ignorant fascist continues, if there is no particular law that Assange can be found to have broken, McConnell and his fellow totalitarians will just make one up! Just like a true Stalinist. Greenwald continues:

People often have a hard time believing that the terms “authoritarian” and “tyranny” apply to their own government, but that’s because those who meekly stay in line and remain unthreatening are never targeted by such forces.  The face of authoritarianism and tyranny reveals itself with how it responds to those who meaningfully dissent from and effectively challenge its authority:  do they act within the law or solely through the use of unconstrained force?…

…All the oppressive, lawless policies of the last decade — lawless detention, Guantanamo, disappearing people to CIA black sites, rendition, the torture regime, denial of habeas corpus, drones, assassinations, private mercenary forces, etc. — were designed, first and foremost, to instill exactly this fear, to deter any challenge.   Many of these policies continue, and that climate of fear thus endures (see this comment from today as but one of many examples).  As the treatment just thus far of WikiLeaks and Assange demonstrates, that reaction — though paralyzing and counter-productive — is not irrational.  And one thing is for sure:  there is nothing the U.S. Government could do — no matter how lawless or heinous — which (with rare exception) would provoke the objections of the American establishment media.

The State and its unchecked violence always prefers silence rather than information, and, given the slobbering the news media in general have been doing over their Savior, Barack Obomber, it should be of no surprise that the Fourth Estate — now hanging by a thread in its ever-increasing caving to the demands of the State to further curtail its dissemination of information — will not speak up in defense of WikiLeaks, and in defense of the American people’s right to know what their government is up to in their name. Unfortunately, many Americans lap up the propaganda for war, for anti-”terror” policies that are doing nothing but increasing the provocations of the inhabitants of Middle-Eastern and Asian countries and thus increasing the risk of terrorism against Americans.

At the time of the American Revolution, supposedly, 1/3 of the population were for secession from British rule and willing to fight for it, 1/3 were indifferent, and 1/3 supported the status quo. It’s not very much different now, I’m afraid.

The WikiLeaks Critics’ Pathological Obedience to the State

By Scott Lazarowitz
December 6, 2010

(Link to article at Strike the Root)

The most recent example of the sheeple’s State-obedience has been the response among many politicians and news media blabbermouths and scribblers to the latest WikiLeaks release. The documents show the utter ineptness of our government officials who have no idea what they’re doing, and the documents also show the bureaucrats’ crassness and attitude toward foreign leaders.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had written on her Facebook page that WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange has “blood on his hands.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the document release “threatens our national security.” And U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said that Assange should be charged with espionage and that the release “is worse even than a physical attack on Americans; it’s worse than a military attack.”

Do we need any more proof that F.A. Hayek was right when he asserted in his book, The Road to Serfdom, that the worst get on top? And by “worst,” I mean morally and especially intellectually.

Now, when I listen to these people – and I try not to, believe me – I can’t help but conclude that it is just imbecilic for Sarah Palin to assert that Assange has “blood on his hands” merely by exposing the incompetence and buffoonery of government officials. One would think that the one with “blood on his hands” would be George W. Bush, who started both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, and both based on either lies or propaganda, or both. Whoever starts wars has blood on his hands, and worse, when starting the wars was clearly based on deception and, even worse than that, for self-serving political reasons – in Bush’s case, to get himself reelected.

It is unfortunate that so many people don’t learn from history, and can’t see into the long term. People just don’t seem to comprehend that the U.S. government’s very policies of interventionism and territorial expansionism are really what have been undermining Americans’ security. Much of what we have been suffering now – an out of control federal government and its intrusions abroad that motivates the inhabitants of those foreign territories to retaliate, and a “War on Terror” police state run amok – is the result of the Elder President Bush’s first Iraq war, also totally unnecessary and based on lies and propaganda, that included the intentional destruction during the 1990s of Iraqi water and sewage treatment facilities that led to surges in cancer and child mortality rates and an even angrier Middle Eastern and Muslim population.

And Julian Assange has blood on his hands?

It is especially unfortunate that the American Fourth Estate – the Press – have abandoned their role and responsibility in challenging the status quo and the assertions put forth by government bureaucrats, whether it’s regarding the government’s assertion of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, or regarding the government’s ramming through Congress a new health care bureaucracy and mandates without debate. The Press have joined Main Street America in what has been an emotional, mystical worship of our centralized federal government as a god that can’t be questioned.

But the American people, in their passively believing the lies of government leaders, and in their allowing policies of institutionalized dependence to be put in place (such as the New Deal’s Social Security system, LBJ’s Medicare, etc.), have unwittingly fostered a system in which they remain children their whole lives, economically, and especially emotionally and intellectually.

Human rights advocate and antiwar writer Arthur Silber has written about the theme of obedience to authority that is instilled in many children who continue their obedience to authority into adulthood, and who merely transfer their internalized parents’ authority onto others later in life (such as political leaders). Silber makes much use of the work of psychologist Alice Miller. Silber notes,

By demanding obedience above all from a child (whether by physical punishment, by psychological means, or through some combination of both), parents forbid the child from fostering an authentic sense of self. Because children are completely dependent on their parents, they dare not question their parents’ goodness, or their “good intentions.” As a result, when children are punished, even if they are punished for no reason or for a reason that makes no sense, they blame themselves and believe that the fault lies within them. In this way, the idealization of the authority figure is allowed to continue. In addition, the child cannot allow himself to experience fully his own pain, because that, too, might lead to questioning of his parents.

In this manner, the child is prevented from developing a genuine, authentic sense of self. As he grows older, this deadening of his soul desensitizes the child to the pain of others. Eventually, the maturing adult will seek to express his repressed anger on external targets, since he has never been allowed to experience and express it in ways that would not be destructive. By such means, the cycle of violence is continued into another generation (using “violence” in the broadest sense). One of the additional consequences is that the adult, who has never developed an authentic self, can easily transfer his idealization of his parents to a new authority figure.

And while such authority figures can often include one’s professor, doctor or boss, as the size, power and influence of the State have grown dramatically over the past century, so have the phenomena of the dependence on, idealization of and obedience toward the authority figures of the State, such as police, soldiers, elected officials and especially presidents.

Contrary to that self-destructive idiocy, the Founding Fathers believed that always questioning the State’s authority is vital to preserve our liberty. But 200 years after the American Revolution, Americans have developed a dangerous blind obedience to the State. Unfortunately, many Americans are very childlike in their idealization of and blind faith in our agents of the State, no matter how much the State continues to lie to them and abuse them.

As libertarian author James Bovard pointed out,

We now have the Battered Citizen Syndrome: the more debacles, the more voters cling to faith in their rulers. Like a train engineer bonding with the survivors of a train wreck that happened on his watch, Bush constantly reminded Americans of 9/11 and his wars. The greater the government’s failure to protect, the greater the subsequent mass fear — and the easier it becomes to subjugate the populace. The craving for a protector drops an iron curtain around the mind, preventing a person from accepting evidence that would shred his political security blanket.

Such a phenomenon takes shape early in life. Oftentimes a parent will use emotional manipulation, deception or physical punishment – and, in some cases, sexual abuse – as a means of suppressing the natural expressions and feelings of the child, and to coerce the child into obedience, a scheme that Alice Miller refers to as poisonous pedagogy. And Silber quotes Miller on that:

Poisonous pedagogy is a phrase I use to refer to the kind of parenting and education aimed at breaking a child’s will and making that child into an obedient subject by means of overt or covert coercion, manipulation, and emotional blackmail.

The poisonous pedagogy of statism and collectivism has institutionalized the sacrifice of the individual, one’s rights and one’s liberty to serve the collective needs of the community, and to obey the will of the State, the community’s hired guns. A telling example of such poisonous statism has been the TSA’s totalitarian policies of “security” at America’s airports, in which travelers have two choices: go through the X-ray scan that causes radiation and is a cancer risk, as well as being a virtual strip search that creates literally pornographic nude images of someone, images that can be and have been saved; or be intimately frisked by TSA workers which includes the “groping” of one’s private parts. And to the disappointment of libertarians there have only been a few complaints about such humiliations and violations of the Fourth Amendment. Most of the passive sheeple remain silent and obedient. “It’s for your own good,” some say, including the “liberal” ladies of the TV show, The View, who seem to think that those who are complaining have sexual “hang-ups.”

Many on the left associate a pedagogy of repressive child-rearing, sexual forbiddance and intolerance with conservatism and religion. However, there can also be repressiveness on the part of those who think of themselves as “liberal” and who advocate sexual “openness,” especially with children. But such a pedagogy can be even more repressive toward children, in a well-meaning yet destructive effort to prevent a child’s later denial or repression of sexuality, in ways that involve over-stepping of physical boundaries that are sexually intrusive of the child. Such attitudes and behaviors have been prevalent for many decades and also play a role in the roots of invasive policies by governments.

Apparently, a scientist who was involved in the development of the TSA X-ray scan had in 2006 offered DHS officials a software fix in which images couldn’t possibly violate a passenger’s privacy. But when I read that the scientist’s offer was turned down by officials, I saw red flags everywhere, and heard alarms going off. “Warning! Warning!” as the little robot on Lost in Space would shout. When the federal government wants to keep the technology in place that can save nude images of any citizen, and refuses to put something simple in place to remedy that situation, then one must conclude that sinister motivations underlie the bureaucrats’ intentions.

As Dr. Miller has noted, a parent’s use of physical intimidation as a means to control the child, stifle the child’s natural intellectual questioning of the status quo, and make the child obedient is all too common. Miller has written about Adolph Hitler’s repressive upbringing by a pathologically domineering father, particularly in her book, For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence, and elsewhere. Miller writes:

…by totally denying his pain, his feelings of powerlessness, and his despair–in other words, by denying the truth – Hitler made himself into a master of violence and of contempt for human beings. The result was a very primitive person, incapable of any empathy for other people. He was mercilessly and constantly driven to new destructive acts by his latent feelings of hatred and revenge…

Now, it is not just the neoconservative warmongers who show repressed anger and lack of empathy in their supporting the wars abroad that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis since 1990 and killed many innocent Afghans since 2001, as well as literally have destroyed those two countries. But such destruction and lack of empathy has been exhibited by plenty of people on the left, in their repressive economic policies and intrusions that have extremely destructive long term effects on society, as well as from the left’s highly profitable and murderous abortion industry.

It is sad that so many people prefer to be obedient and believe what their authorities tell them. The Founding Fathers knew that such a blind trust in government was dangerous and that the State must always be viewed with suspicion, and distrusted. The more centralized and powerful a government, the more dangerous it is. The Founders’ big mistake was their Constitution that gives the federal government a monopoly in territorial protection. Without the necessary pressures of competition in the business of security, the agents of the State will abuse the monopoly, and deliberately provoke foreign elements as a means of expanding the power of the State to satisfy the monopolists’ own craving for more power. Another mistake the Founders made was allowing the State – federal or local – to have the power of compulsion over others, and allowing bureaucrats, police or soldiers to be above the rule of law, which, ipso facto, undermines the rule of law.

The U.S. government’s intrusions, trespassing and mass murders abroad for decades and their natural blowback are what have most undermined the security of Americans. All WikiLeaks has been doing is exposing our government bureaucrats for what they are, and the State’s crimes for what they are.

Rather than being obedient sheeple, and rather than prosecuting or murdering Julian Assange and censoring WikiLeaks online, and rather than allowing virtual strip searches and sexual molestation at the nation’s airports, we need to protect ourselves from our government. And that means not only putting a stop to our government’s crimes, but ending centralism altogether, like the former Soviet Union did.

Continue to Expose the Crimes of the State, and Restore Our Freedom!

The coincidences between U.S. happenings and goings on in Israel never end. This situation with WikiLeaks and its latest release that exposes nincompoops like Hillary Clinton, and with neocon nudniks like Sarah Palin asserting that Julian Assange has “blood on his hands,” is very similar to the situation in Israel. A young female Israeli military clerk named Anat Kamm burned classified military information to CD as well as made copies of material in print and released that material to a Haaretz newspaper reporter, Uri Blau, who used the material to report on the military’s alleged crimes. In the words of Ms. Kamm,

There were some aspects of the IDF’s operational procedures in the West Bank that I felt should be public knowledge…

…When I was burning the CDs I kept thinking that history tends to forgive people who expose war crimes…

Kamm is not charged with espionage on behalf of another government, but she is charged with compromising Israel’s security. It’s very similar to the current situation with WikiLeaks. The Israeli media by and large is the propaganda organ for the government and military, just as our Fourth Estate here in the U.S. has become with the U.S. government. Thomas Jefferson is throwing up in his grave right now over this.

The Haaretz reporter Uri Blau had been in hiding in London, but had recently come forward for interrogation, but I don’t know whether or not he’s been charged.

But as British journalist Jonathan Cook put it,

During her conscription, Kamm copied possibly hundreds of army documents that revealed systematic law-breaking by the Israeli high command operating in the occupied Palestinian territories, including orders to ignore court rulings. She was working at the time in the office of Brig. Gen. Yair Naveh, who is in charge of operations in the West Bank.

Blau’s crime is that he published a series of scoops based on her leaked information that have highly embarrassed senior Israeli officers by showing their contempt for the rule of law.

In other words, the two are really accused of embarrassing government officials, and exposing their transgressions, just as Julian Assange and Bradley Manning are accused of with U.S. officials. But while this was initially going on several months ago, you just wouldn’t believe the hatred and venom toward those two Israelis in comments sections of various Israeli newspaper articles and opinion columns.

The worse of it, in my opinion, has come from Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick, who also has some things to write this week about WikiLeaks.

Make no mistake about it, the ongoing WikiLeaks operation against the US is an act of war.

Only a fool could actually think that Julian Assange’s releasing information that the American people have a right to know about what their government has been doing on their behalf could be an “act of war.” A fool, or someone who is so absorbed in the power of the State, so mindlessly mystical of the State and its military that any act by someone that is in the slightest way challenging of the State’s authority and integrity (which is not difficult — what integrity?) is to the State and its apparatchiks an “act of war.”

Glick also refers in that column to Kamm and Blau that Glick feels should be investigated for “treason,” yet it is our treasonous governments whose decades-long campaigns of aggression provoke people in other countries and have gravely backfired against us Americans, as well as against Israelis.

The reason for that is the mistake of the people assigning to their government a compulsory monopoly in territorial protection. Monopolists who have the power of law and order on their side, and whose mandate legally restricts others from providing a service of protection, will abuse such power and that is what we have seen repeatedly for a century or more. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe has noted,

The recently ended twentieth century was characterized by a level of human rights violations unparalleled in all of human history. In his book Death by Government, Rudolph Rummel estimates some 170 million government-caused deaths in the twentieth century. The historical evidence appears to indicate that, rather than protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of their citizens, governments must be considered the greatest threat to human security…

Hoppe has also noted the inherent nature of democracy and compulsory government in which the ruling monopolists will abuse their power as the initial aggressors in state-upon-state conflicts:

What appears to be standing in the way of peace and civilization, then, is above all the state and democracy, and specifically the world’s model democracy: the United States. Ironically if not surprisingly, however, it is precisely the United States, which claims that it is the solution to the quest for peace.

The reason for this claim is the doctrine of democratic peace, which goes back to the days of Woodrow Wilson and World War I, has been revived in recent years by George W. Bush and his neo-conservative advisors, and by now has become intellectual folklore even in liberal-libertarian circles. The theory claims:

  • Democracies do not go to war against each other.
  • Hence, in order to create lasting peace, the entire world must be made democratic.

And as a — largely unstated — corollary:

  • Today, many states are not democratic and resist internal — democratic — reform.
  • Hence, war must be waged on those states in order to convert them to democracy and thus create lasting peace….

But what was some kind of quest to force democracy down other countries’ throats had really become a crusade for U.S. government hegemony all over the world. Hoppe also brings up the Soviet communists’ crusade to spread communism in the East, in which the Soviet Union engaged in military conquest of other territories who were impotent in fighting back.

…For instance, no war broke out between the end of World War II and the end of the 1980s, i.e., during the hegemonic reign of the Soviet Union, between East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary, etc. Was this because these were communist dictatorships and communist dictatorships do not go to war against each other? That would have to be the conclusion of “scientists” of the caliber of democratic-peace theorists! But surely this conclusion is wrong. No war broke out because the Soviet Union did not permit this to happen — just as no war between Western democracies broke out because the United States did not permit this to happen in its dominion….

… In any case, however, the result of the crusade to make the world safe for democracy was less liberal than what had existed before (and the Versailles peace dictate precipitated World War II). Not only did state power grow faster after the war than before….

Moreover, empirically democracies are anything but stable. As indicated, in multi-cultural societies democracy regularly leads to the discrimination, oppression, or even expulsion and extermination of minorities — hardly a peaceful equilibrium. And in ethnically homogeneous societies, democracy regularly leads to class warfare, which leads to economic crisis, which leads to dictatorship….

According to democratic-peace theorists, then, it would seem that we are supposed to war against foreign dictators, whether kings or demagogues, in order to install democracies, which then turn into (modern) dictatorships, until finally, one supposes, the United States itself has turned into a dictatorship, owing to the growth of internal state power which results from the endless “emergencies” engendered by foreign wars.

Hoppe has suggested that a free market system of private protection agencies and insurance firms would better and more efficiently protect a greater number of inhabitants of a population than the current protection racket run by a corrupt monopolistic regime. It would not only be more practical, but would be moral, by not restricting the inherent rights of individuals, rights that are recognized by the Declaration of Independence, AND would prevent the never-ending growth of an oppressive, tyrannical, totalitarian government as we have in our society right now. Hoppe notes,

Because they are not subject to and bound by contracts, states typically outlaw the ownership of weapons by their “clients,” thus increasing their own security at the expense of rendering their alleged clients defenseless. In contrast, no voluntary buyer of protection insurance would agree to a contract that required him to surrender his right to self-defense and be unarmed or otherwise defenseless…

…with regard to foreign relations, because states can externalize the costs of their own actions onto hapless taxpayers, they are permanently prone to becoming aggressors and warmongers. Accordingly, they tend to fund and develop weapons of aggression and mass destruction. In distinct contrast, insurers will be prevented from engaging in any form of external aggression because any aggression is costly and requires higher insurance premiums, implying the loss of clients to other, nonaggressive competitors. Insurers will engage exclusively in defensive violence, and instead of acquiring weapons of aggression and mass destruction, they will tend to invest in the development of weapons of defense and of targeted retaliation….

And to conclude, It is our duty as a people to restore and preserve our freedom, and that means it is vital to continue uncovering the truth about what the State really is. “The truth shall set you free.”

On the LRC Blog, Lew Rockwell is quite succinct:

As Ron Paul notes, “In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. When truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.”As Ron has also long noted, the American State claims the right to know every single thing about us: every dime we earn and spend, every phone call we make or email we send. To track our movements. To know what we are teaching our children. To ascertain our shower head and toilet tank. Now even to see all of you naked or feel you up. And a million and one other insanities, indignities, and outrages. Every single aspect of life is within the State’s jurisdiction, or so it claims.

But for us to know anything about the State, aside from its propaganda, is treason. That is, of course, because the State is a criminal enterprise that depends on our consent. The more we know about its murders, its looting, its lying, the less willing we are to consent, to be good little robots, indeed, to worship it as a god, which is always its ultimate ambition, pharaonic Egypt being its ideal.

Pledge allegiance to this gang? No thanks.

International Relations, 2010

International relations have been rotten for many, many decades, at least for the past century, especially since President Woodrow Wilson’s very stupid decision to take the U.S. into World War I. The statists and internationalists have thrown America into war many times now, and unnecessarily. The U.S. government’s intrusions into foreign territories have all backfired. We have false flag operations and increased government intrusions into Americans’ persons, property and privacy, in the name of fighting terrorism, rather than acknowledging (at least publicly) that much of the terrorism committed or attempted by people against the U.S. is motivated by the U.S. government’s intrusions into those territories, particularly in the Middle East and Asia, inhabited by people who don’t like their territories intruded, invaded, occupied and their fellow inhabitants murdered and their internal matters interfered with by the U.S. government.

As I wrote yesterday, when the FBI encounters a young, impressionable teen whose rage could lead him into trouble, the moral and honest thing to do would be to encourage the kid to deal with his rage by more peaceful means, and discourage him from engaging in acts of violence. But because the FBI are bureaucrats whose only incentive is to enlarge the bureaucracy and expand their power and control because they have no competitive pressures on them, the agents went the other way and not only encouraged the kid in Oregon to go bad and commit acts of violence against others, but provided him with materials. The bureaucrats did this just so they could put another notch on their “terrorist” quota list. And use the whole situation as a further excuse for the government to further expand its “national security” apparatus, the real purpose of which is to further enslave Americans and further empower the State.

Glenn Greenwald writes regarding the FBI’s way to protect themselves from accusations of “entrapment,”

…in order not to be found to have entrapped someone into committing a crime, law enforcement agents want to be able to prove that, in the 1992 words of the Supreme Court, the accused was “was independently predisposed to commit the crime for which he was arrested.”  To prove that, undercover agents are often careful to stress that the accused has multiple choices, and they then induce him into choosing with his own volition to commit the crime.  In this case, that was achieved by the undercover FBI agent’s allegedly advising Mohamud that there were at least five ways he could serve the cause of Islam (including by praying, studying engineering, raising funds to send overseas, or becoming “operational”), and Mohamud replied he wanted to “be operational” by using exploding a bomb (para. 35-37).But strangely, while all other conversations with Mohamud which the FBI summarizes were (according to the affidavit) recorded by numerous recording devices, this conversation — the crucial one for negating Mohamud’s entrapment defense — was not.  That’s because, according to the FBI, the undercover agent ”was equipped with audio equipment to record the meeting.  However, due to technical problems, the meeting was not recorded“ (para. 37).

Thus, we have only the FBI’s word, and only its version, for what was said during this crucial — potentially dispositive — conversation.

Michael Rozeff writes on the Lew Rockwell blog on the moral aspects of this latest FBI entrapment case:

Two persons informed me of some traditional Catholic moral code, namely

Nine ways of being an accessory to another’s sin.
1.By Counsel
2.By Command
3.By Consent
4.By Concealment
5.By Defense of Evil Done
6.By Partaking
7.By Provocation
8.By Praise
9.By Silence

Catholics who subscribe to this should be strongly condemning the FBI’s actions in the Oregon case and other similar instances. One person writes: ” I knew many FBI and Treasury (IRS) agents over the years. Most have retired. From the late ’70?s these decent, (mostly) Catholic men became more and more disenchanted with their agencies – especially the FBI agents. The remaining few still living, hate to talk about their feelings of betrayal; a few tried and couldn’t continue – it really choked them up – tears and all.”

And now we have warmongers and chickenhawk cowards who want to declare WikiLeaks a “terrorist organization,” following the latest in their series of document releases that embarrass government officials. Of course, the largest and worst and most murderous of terrorist organizations has been for many years the U.S. government.

Unfortunately, some people are just so fixated in their love for the State and view any questioning of the State and its actions and exposing of the incompetence, buffoonery and outright crimes of the U.S. government as “treasonous,” when in fact it has been the actions of the U.S. government and its agents that have been the most treasonous against us Americans. Contrary to Rep. Peter King and his blind allegiance to the government no matter what it does, we must shine a light on the cockroaches and that is what WikiLeaks is doing. Watch the little bugs panic and scamper and attempt to control the damage to their already fragile image (of incompetence, buffoonery and outright crimes).

On “The Big Dump,” Justin Raimondo writes,

The US Secretary of State’s intelligence-gathering diktat to our embassies worldwide, uncovered by WikiLeaks, has shocked the international community with its weird insistence on collecting biometric data – including DNA samples, iris scans and fingerprints – on foreign officials. In a missive sent to US embassies worldwide, Hillary ordered staff to obtain credit card information, computer passwords, personal encryption keys, and details of network upgrades. A part of this was a massive spying operation aimed at UN diplomats, including those of our Western allies, but there was also an order to gather similar dossiers on British MPs
That Hillary would risk embarrassment to the US of this magnitude – after all, the chances of being caught (as we were) are pretty high – in order to collect this degree of information, is little short of appalling. Yet it is hardly surprising – after all, we’re talking about Hillary Clinton here, the control freak par excellence.

“What goes around, comes around,” as they say. However, these bureaucrats want to do all that kind of invasive, totalitarian spying on us Americans! That’s because paranoia is inherent in the nature of the bureaucrat. We’re not allowed to expose the totalitarian bureaucrats’ spying on us, yet they want to punish any exposing of what they’re doing! How do they live with themselves? And what the hell is going on in the noggins of those who defend them?

I think that totalitarians know deep down that what they do is wrong morally, their crimes against humanity, their crimes against innocent human beings, and they are always looking behind them, always in fear that they will be caught. And they should be caught. Unfortunately, government officials like King and Sen. Joe Lieberman, and private citizens and journalists such as Jonah Goldberg actually want to prosecute (and murder as well) those people who expose the criminal State for what it is.

The worst amongst the bureaucrats are the warmongers, because they are the ones responsible for the actual murders of innocent human beings, let alone everyday human rights and civil liberties violations committed by governments. Ironically, these days many of the warmongers on the right are also “pro-life” or anti-abortion. They are concerned about people killing innocent unborn human beings, as they should be, but they promote the killing of innocent Afghans, innocent Iraqis, innocent Pakistanis, innocent Iranians, innocent North Koreans, etc. Go figure.

Speaking of North Korea, Arthur Silber writes about the warmongers and specifically mentions Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds, quoting Reynolds on North Korea: “If they start anything, I say nuke ‘em. And not with just a few bombs. They’ve caused enough trouble — and it would be a useful lesson for Iran, too. We can’t afford another Korean war, but hey, we’re already dismantling warheads…”

It seems that there continue to be calls for bombing of North Korea and Iran, and more killing of innocents. And for no good reason. I think these people who want so much war are just sick. Arthur Silber continues regarding the warmongering:

Leaving aside the huge numbers of innocent people who would be murdered by the dropping of nuclear weapons on North Korea — individuals whose primary and often sole concern is avoiding starvation, and who cannot reasonably be found guilty of any wrong against the United States under any analysis (and if you do leave this factor aside, may you be damned) — it hardly requires world-shattering brilliance to acknowledge that widespread death and horrifying illness from radiation and nuclear fallout might be a concern to, say, China and Japan (among others). And then there are the tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers very nearby, in South Korea. What of them? And how difficult is it to imagine that a U.S. attack on North Korea could very quickly lead to escalation involving other countries? One lesson that history teaches repeatedly is the immense, incalculable danger of unforeseen consequences. Yet as I observed in the earlier essay: “We refuse to learn any lessons at all.”

The U.S. especially hasn’t learned any lessons at all, from the first Iraq war and its consequences throughout the ’90s and why 9/11 happened. And any war against Iran would not only be against the interests of the United States, just as were the two wars against Iraq and the war in Afghanistan (as well as Barack Obomber’s wars in Pakistan and Yemen, etc.), but would only be a war on behalf of Israel. Israel is the one who has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons but won’t openly admit it, but at the same time wants to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. Israel is the one with the Armageddon suicide scenarios and the Samson Option, who have been threatening Iran for years, and Iran is the dangerous one!

I know, I know, we’re not supposed to talk about Israel disparagingly. That would be politically incorrect. We can’t say anything negative about Israel or question that state’s integrity or motives because that might offend some people. After all, Jews were murdered by Hitler. However, as I’ve pointed out in the past, tens of millions of Chinese were murdered by Mao, and tens of millions of people were murdered by Stalin, but we don’t pussyfoot around Chinese people or Russians and other ex-Soviet bloc people for fear of offending them, do we? Why is that?

Perhaps as with the very reason for the “Jewish Homeland’s” location with its Biblical symbolism, we can’t say something that’s politically incorrect about Israel because Jews were meant by God to be the “chosen” people. Even my pointing that out is “politically incorrect,” but I don’t particularly care about being politically correct or incorrect, I care about the truth. The truth is very important, whether it’s to do with what the U.S. government’s intrusions and murders in the Middle East or the U.S. government’s intrusions into our liberty, or the Federal Reserve’s deliberate destruction of the dollar leading to economic collapse, or to do with Israel. “The truth shall set you free.” And the truth is, much of U.S. foreign policy is to do with Israel, and that’s the truth, as Edith Ann would say.

But as I’ve tried to point out in the past, the beginnings of the current state of Israel throughout the first half of the 20th Century were based on the deceitful actions of the British Empire and the British Mandate (like most of the actions of the British Empire), and based on the displacement of generations of indigenous Arabs from Palestine, as well as actual ethnic cleansing — and that’s what it is, now, ethnic cleansing, and that’s the truth, now. After the state of Israel was officially founded in 1948, the Israeli government’s actions over many decades now have been to expand its territory well beyond the 1947-48 partition (that Philip Weiss refers to in this post yesterday) and the government continues to take Arab-owned land to this day. What the Israeli government has been doing to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is criminal — if it were an Arab government doing the same thing to a Jewish population, the whole WORLD would be up in arms about it! But like the dehumanizing of the people of less-advanced societies that the Western warmongers have been waging war against for decades, and want more war and continue with their dehumanizing rhetoric, the Israeli government (with the help of the U.S. and other Western governments) have been engaging in their own campaign of dehumanization of Palestinians for decades as well. And that’s the truth, now — if you want to look the other way and be in denial of it, that’s up to you. I’ll deal with the truth.

But it is quite something how Americans, particularly the Israel First crowd, will defend everything Israel does, and will blindly believe every bit of propaganda the Israeli government feeds them. This despite all the spying Israel has done on America, the more recent American Mossad spying on American Muslims, and even the possibility that Israel may have had complicity in 9/11. But much of U.S. government foreign policy is to protect Israel’s “security” (really, its legitimacy), and with all the blind allegiance that one can find in the American sheeple. And don’t forget Netanyahu’s loyalty to the U.S., now. That’s important. He really gives a damn about us. (I heard the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale again.)

The Zionists insisted on Palestine and only Palestine to be the place for all Jews worldwide, and refused to consider any other territory in the world — even though Palestine was already inhabited, it was not virgin land — and based solely on Biblical symbolism.

Those Zionists were brilliant. Placing Jews in a tiny territory completely surrounded by millions of Arabs and Muslims to be a “safe haven” for Jews. That was wicked smart. Wasn’t it?

But don’t blame me, I’m just some poor old Jew, trying to tell the truth about what’s happened to us in the past century.

How are international relations now, throughout this modern, evolved world? Ah, they could be better.

The Latest ‘Insider Trading’ Scam

by Scott Lazarowitz
November 26, 2010

© 2010 LewRockwell.com. (Link to article)

The FBI has raided several firms with charges of “insider trading,” claiming that “expert networks,” have given “non-public” information to clients working in mostly hedge funds and mutual funds, according to the Wall Street Journal. I had never even heard of “expert networks” until this latest example of why there should not be a State-monopoly in law and justice.

According to the Journal, expert networks are companies that “set up meetings and calls with current and former managers from hundreds of companies for traders seeking an investing edge.”

Yeah, so?

Jeepers, it’s too bad that the government’s monopoly in law and justice has created a criminal racket in and of itself in the business of persecuting people for behaviors that harm no one. Usually, a “crime” is something in which there is a victim.

But this sure is bringing back memories of when former New York U.S. attorney and horse’s ass Rudy Giuliani was persecuting financier Michael Milken. What was Milken’s crime, and who were his victims, Mr. Giuliani? Milken’s crime was making a lot of money, but some public “servants” such as Rudy didn’t like that.

The welfare state in America has created generations of people, especially those who feed at the public trough, who feel great resentment and envy toward someone who gets rich honestly (as opposed to getting rich by feeding at the public trough). In fact, Milken wasn’t even involved in “insider trading,” according to Milken’s website, which clarifies the many myths surrounding Giuliani’s persecution of Milken.

In the current situation, the expert networks allegedly acquired information from present and former managers of various companies, and then gave the so-called “inside” information to clients who then made investments accordingly. But neither the expert network people nor their clients are alleged to have committed any actual acts of theft or fraud. Did the networks steal the information? Did they engage in any acts of trespassing or breaking and entering to acquire that information? Apparently not.

To me, and to most people who really have any actual understanding of ethics and morality, in a land of freedom, which ours was meant to be but obviously isn’t, the only categories of acts that should be considered “against the law” are theft, trespass, fraud and actual physical aggression against others. It’s all based on the same kind of private property rights that the American Founders (at least, most of them) believed in. That was what America was to be based on.

Libertarian author Tibor Machan, who wrote about the feds’ persecution of Living entrepreneur Martha Stewart for so-called “insider trading,” noted that

If one learns of something from a friend or overhears a conversation or obtains the knowledge via a psychic, there is nothing wrong with making a profitable move that others hadn’t had the chance to make…

This, by the way, is so elementary that it is amazing that more editorialists and pundits do not make note of it. After all, in the newspaper business a great deal hinges on scooping the competition. Indeed, reporters receive prizes for doing this, namely, jumping ahead of the crowd with information only they got a hold of so as to score! They and their editors should be especially keen on condemning federal insider trading laws – by the logic of such laws, scooping would have to be prohibited…

Insider trading laws aim to mimic rules of golf, baseball and football, all of which aim to even things out between competitors. But this isn’t because it is unfair to have an advantage, not at all. It’s because the fans wouldn’t like a contest in which the same folks – individuals or teams – keep winning. So, to make things interesting, rules are introduced that will mix things up a bit.

Finance, however, is not a game! Its aim is to secure prosperity, economic success. And that requires savvy, acumen, not bending over backwards to please one’s competitors.

Unfortunately, with the government’s monopoly on law and justice, we now have a Justice Department, FBI and others among the royal bureaucracies with investigations and persecutions of innocent businessmen who are not committing actual crimes, while the bureaucrats seem to be ignoring the widespread egregious fraud that has allegedly been going on with the banks in what is probably the biggest foreclosure fraud scandal in America.

“But that’s too difficult for us,” the sainted crime bureaucrat exclaims. “Going after people who are minding their own business is much, much easier for us. Gimme a break!”

Well, right along with what I see as our desperate need to get rid of the current federal monopoly in national security, which so much evidence from the past century and current times suggests is making us less secure and less safe, so should we also get rid of the government’s monopoly in administering law and justice.

The biggest mistake the Founders made was to allow agents of that centralized institution in Washington called the federal government to be above the law. Given a monopoly in anything, and with the power of compulsion over others and the power to be above the Rule of Law, and given human nature, the monopolists will act not in the interests of justice or the interests of “clients” – the plaintiffs or the accused – but will act in ways to feed their egos, gain financially and/or further empower the State.

Like the monopoly in national security, in which we clearly see the road to totalitarianism via the TSA, the federal government’s monopoly in law and justice, with ever-accumulating power and control over just about every aspect of life, is also exhibiting a more Soviet style of justice than ever before.

While it may sound absurd to some people, we need to take the power of monopoly away from the government, and that includes the business of law and justice. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe noted, the pressures of competition under the Rule of Law is what would motivate those working in the “justice industry” to actually serve the public, certainly better than the existing compulsory monopoly does.

As Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger suggested, when he wrote about the Securities and Exchange Commission’s persecution of Mark Cuban,

There is really only one solution to this tyranny and oppression, and it’s not one that involves “reform”: Abolish the SEC, one of the most tyrannical, destructive, useless agencies in American history, and repeal all economic regulations, including insider-trading laws. Or to put it another way, restore free enterprise – that is, enterprise that is free of government control – to our nation.

And finally, for a much more accurate perspective on the current insider trading fiasco that the feds have initiated against people whose only crime is making an honest living, CNBC’s John Carney gives the bottom line:

Mobsters and terrorists have genuine victims, often easily detectable by their corpses; while the victims of insider trading are far harder to detect. That should be the starting place in any story about government enforcement; who is the victim? When it comes to insider trading, the victim is so hard to detect that it’s far easier to suspect that it may not exist. The victim of insider trading is a Snuffleupagus, someone visible only to the Big Birds behind government desks.

“I Am a Socialist”

by Scott Lazarowitz
November 24, 2010

© 2010 LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

Recently, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell announced that he is a “socialist.” O’Donnell referred to Milton Friedman’s quote, “We’re all Keynesians now,” and President Richard Nixon’s quote, “I am now a Keynesian,” in the context of Keynesian economics being very similar to socialism. O’Donnell went on to assert his pride in being a socialist, and even suggested that Glenn Beck, Rand Paul and others are also socialists in one form or another.

So here is an elaboration of someone, whoever that might be, explaining why he is a socialist:

“First and foremost, I am a socialist because I disagree with the Founding Fathers’ ideas on morality and the Rule of Law. It is important that we have a centralized government that redistributes all the wealth. The State needs to have the power to take some of the wealth away from those the State decides have too much of it. Obviously, no one has a ‘right’ to one’s own wealth or property. And I don’t believe that ‘all men are created equal’ because, if there is a law against theft, then obviously because we need to allow agents of the State to take wealth away, then therefore laws against ‘theft’ must exempt agents of the State. That means that some people should be above the law.

“And I am a socialist in medical care because I think that the centralized government should control everyone’s medical care – it’s as simple as that. It is important that government bureaucrats and their government doctors and medical services have a monopoly in the medical industry so they don’t have to deal with competitive interests, as opposed to a free market in medical care in which the consumers determine which doctors and medical plans would stay in business and which ones would fail. Some people assert that that gives ‘power to the people,’ but we socialists don’t want the people to have that kind of power – it takes control away from government bureaucrats and that’s why I don’t like that. It’s important that government officials control the ultimate decisions in what affects American medical patients (and because the Blue State grandmas are more likely to vote for the “good guys” than the Red State grandmas, if you know what I mean).

“I support socialist immigration central planning because the State has a right, for example, to prevent an employer in Arizona from hiring an applicant from Mexico despite the fact that the employer believes that individual is qualified for the job and the Mexican applicant is willing to accept the job at the wage both agree on. Their prospective contract should not be in their control, it should be in the central planners’ control. When we say that socialism includes public ownership of the means of production, then that includes ownership of the employer’s business, as well as the prospective employee’s direction of employment (as well as the employer and employee themselves – after all, one of the most important of the means of production is the people).

(If I may interject here while Mr. Socialist goes to take a brief powder: Some of what is being described is actually fascism. While socialism can generally be described as public ownership of wealth and the means of production, fascism allows for private ownership of wealth and the means of production but the control is usurped by the State. So, there are elements of socialist programs that are also fascist in nature, and vice versa. In immigration, for instance, the central planning nature of public ownership of wealth and the means of production also includes State control over immigration which is really part of fascism, so our socialist here is also a fascist, but don’t tell him I said that. Actually, there really is little difference between socialism and fascism when you get right down to it. But, for the sake of discussion, we’ll continue with our self-proclaimed “socialist” in his discussion of why he favors socialism.)

“To continue, I am a socialist because I support the central planning of chemical ingestion, otherwise known as the War on Drugs. While the common sense answer to the ‘drug problem’ might be freedom and personal responsibility, it is nevertheless important that the centralized bureaucrats have the power to dictate to people what chemicals they may or may not ingest (even though this causes a black market in banned drugs, dramatically raises the prices of drugs and thus incentivizes the black marketers to form gangs and cartels that causes turf wars and increased violence, and incentivizes them to push the drugs on impressionable youths and adults some of whom turn to robbery to afford the pricey substances, as well as distracts and corrupts the police).

“Speaking of police and protecting the public, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the socialist central planning monopoly in territorial security (as opposed to a free market in security, in which those in the protection business would have to deal with profit-and-loss as determined by competitive agents and consumer control). It is important that 300 million Americans are compelled by law to use the monopoly of centrally planned ‘defense’ in Washington to protect them from harm by foreign elements, while legally forbidding anyone from competing in the business of protection.

“I also believe in that central planning military socialism because I haven’t read Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s books, The Private Production of Defense and The Myth of National Defense, or Morris and Linda Tannehill’s book, The Market for Liberty, and because I really do believe in the myth that the U.S. government’s committing aggression on foreign lands actually protects Americans and doesn’t instead provoke those in the foreign lands to retaliate against that aggression and intrusion. I don’t want to admit that giving central planners a monopoly in defense, without the constant checks on their behavior that the pressures of competition in a free market and the requirement to follow the Rule of Law would bring, actually encourages central planners to use the government apparatus to further expand their power and control (and profits at taxpayers’ expense). Can you imagine a private security firm or insurance agency deliberately provoking the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, or deliberately encouraging Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait as an excuse to invade Iraq? A private firm with competitive pressures and under the Rule of Law would not only lose business but its agents would end up in jail. But, despite the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan that our central defense planners in Washington have caused, and the fact that Washington’s intrusions abroad have made us less safe, I still want to pretend that this socialism in defense actually works. As Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano noted, “the system worked.”

“Of course, given that I’m a proud supporter of redistribution of wealth schemes, military socialism is effective in taking wealth from American producers and laborers and redistributing it over to those in the defense contractor industry (and Wall Street). While this socialist (and fascist) monopoly of territorial protection may be completely disorganized because there is no incentive among the government bureaucrats to be efficient and productive, such a scheme nevertheless effects in getting contractors’ campaign contributions in the pockets of those politicians who need the jobs they get in Washington as they would otherwise be unemployed in the private sector. It’s important for America.

“After all, the Founding Fathers were also socialists in that their Constitution mandates a centralized government monopoly in defense, in which free, open competition in that area is outlawed. That’s been good for America.

“And finally, I support the socialized commerce that the Federal Reserve provides, with the help of legal tender laws and loose fractional reserve banking permissions, because I believe that it is vital that a centralized government control the money supply and banking. We can’t allow the people to have the freedom to choose a bank based on its record of service to the community, because that would take control away from the centralized authorities who know better as far as what’s best for the people, and we can’t allow the people to have the freedom to choose among competing currencies, because that would take control away from the centralized authorities who know better as far as what’s best for the people.

“Like the central planning micromanagement from ObamaCare, Social Security and government-run education, the Federal Reserve is important to micromanage the economy, despite all the damage it has caused since its founding in 1913. So, as a socialist, I feel it’s important to continue the Fed’s control over and intrusions into our money, banking, savings and investments (and our prosperity, security and Liberty as well).

“We need as many government intrusions into every aspect of human existence as possible, so most of all, I guess I’m a socialist because I like power and oppose freedom.

“Bye.”

Yeah, goodbye, Socialist. Now, get lost – we’re better off without you.

Martial Law vs. ‘Let Us Separate’

by Scott Lazarowitz
November 23, 2010

(Link to article at Strike the Root)

It seems that President Obama, Congress and especially Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke are determined to cause economic collapse in America. Some people, such as economist and investment analyst Peter Schiff and trend forecaster Gerald Celente, have been predicting that, because of Washington’s spending sprees, debts, perpetual wars and monetary printing, America is indeed headed for that economic collapse.

But one aspect of that inevitable economic collapse that really concerns me is the possibility of martial law. Celente has stated that by 2012 there will be civil unrest, looting and food riots.

If there is going to be an economic collapse along with the complete destruction of the dollar, then there probably will be rioting, looting, robberies, burglaries, muggings, vandalism and murders, which will mean that federal martial law will follow. Even the Wall Street yuppies will turn to violence, as they will need to support their addictions to Prozac and Xanax, or whatever the hell it is the Wall Street yuppies take these days.

If martial law is inevitable, then nullification and secession are in order. Thomas Jefferson sided with those who believe in the right of nullification and secession, and said that if the people of the states find secession necessary, then, by all means, “let us separate.”

Thanks to a post-9/11 panicked America and a federal government not hesitant to take advantage of a crisis situation as a means of expanding its size and power, we now have a stronger federal State apparatus in place to further encroach our Liberty and trespass our property.

Militarizing “Public Safety”

In a martial law situation, “law enforcement” and “public safety” duties are usurped by the federal military, which also includes the suspension of civil liberties.

Now, one of the most important documents in American history, the Declaration of Independence, notes that we are all equal under the law and have inherent, inalienable rights to life and liberty. My interpretation of those rights is that each individual has the inherent right to one’s own life and has a right to be free from the aggression of others. And that means that everyone has a right to be left alone and a right to presumption of innocence, unless and until someone suspects an actual individual of some actual violation against some other individual’s life, person or property. These are “inalienable” rights in that no one may take them away.

However, the whole concept of martial law is based on the suspension of these inherent rights, in which one’s rights to freedom of movement, speech and presumption of innocence and so on are suspended, without actual suspicion of crimes, without due process. That means that, if individuals’ rights to life and liberty are inalienable, then any government-imposed suspension of those inalienable rights would be crimes committed by agents of the State.

We are unfortunately experiencing the culmination of the “perfect storm” for totalitarianism in America. The buildup of decades of state-worshipping indoctrination in our schools to the point of developing a prevalent police state mentality is not helpful to liberty, to say the least.

In this day and age of TSA porn Nazis and molestation sickos, which is a federal government policy run amok now at America’s airports, and which is a policy primarily to empower agents of the State to remind us mere subjects of the State’s supreme superiority, the real (albeit unstated) reason for any martial law will not be to “protect the public,” but to further empower the State. The real purpose of martial law would be to stifle political dissent and for the federal State to remind the sheeple who’s the boss, just like the TSA is doing.

And we have seen over the years from this “War on Terror” started by George W. Bush, the kinds of people who have been appointed to be our “protectors” of society, in the TSA.

Additionally, the possibility of a military martial law should be of serious concern to Americans, especially given the character of many who join the military, especially in recent years. There are groups such as the “Thrill Kill” unit in Afghanistan, in which a young soldier had testified that members of his unit had committed acts of murder for the “thrill” of it. Incidents of sexual assault against female soldiers have been on the increase, and we have an increase in crimes by and mental illness of soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. Because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that President George W. Bush started, the military has been stretched and had by 2006 lowered its standards, including accepting recruits with criminal backgrounds.

Our society is now one in which the rich and powerful have been getting away with actual criminal behavior, while the common man, woman and child are constantly victimized with intrusions by the Authorities into their private lives, homes and businesses. This is seen in every aspect of daily life, from the cops harassing people in private businesses and pulling over innocent drivers for no good reason except to collect money for the State, to people being harassed by the IRS for making tiny errors in complicated tax forms, while the Wall Street fat cats and the big banks are now getting away with egregious acts of fraud and theft as though they are in competition with organized crime syndicates (and winning).

With those who are either in power or close to it in Washington, from the unions and ACORN on the left to the militarist warmongers on the right, it’s enough to scare the bejesus out of anyone who has read any history of what happens when groups based on force and intimidation grab the reins of power. The federal government has increased its control and intrusiveness into our lives with the passage of ObamaCare and the passage of the Dodd financial regulations, with hundreds of new bureaucracies, thousands of new IRS bloodhounds and plenty of armed flatfoots to enforce all these intrusions and dictates.

Are branches of the U.S. military already preparing to run America’s cities? Who knows. But there are very good reasons to oppose a fusion between military and local law enforcement, given Hurricane Katrina and the BP fiasco. A martial law situation in America now will be one in which it will be difficult to distinguish the “officials” from the criminals.

Now, one solution to prevent a police state with martial law would be to undo the federal economic and monetary policies that have led the U.S. to the point of possible economic collapse: repeal ObamaCare and DoddCare, repeal all the existing costly medical and financial bureaucratic intrusions, refuse bailouts for the banks and financial firms and require them to follow the rule of law, and get rid of the Federal Reserve and repeal legal tender laws and allow for competing currencies and a return to the Gold Standard.

But will that happen any time soon? Nope. We can’t rely on the same nincompoops and scoundrels in Washington who are committing these acts against our liberty to actually reverse themselves. As Perry Como would say, “It’s just impossible.”

Nullification and Secession

A much more practical solution would be for the people of the states to nullify all federal laws and policies, police state dictates and mandates, a “de facto secession,” as Congressman Ron Paul had described. And not just any federal martial law that might be imposed, and ObamaCare, but especially the banking and legal tender laws that restrict competition in money and banking, and allow for competing currencies in the states and a return to the Gold Standard. (And don’t forget the important recognition of the individual’s right to bear arms.)

Each state needs to do these things.

And the states do have a right to nullify federal laws, whether the statists of the left and the right like it or not. Thomas Woods, author of Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, noted on his blog recently regarding the relationship between the states and the federal government:

If you and I give a third person (call him Person C) a limited power of attorney to help govern our affairs, and that person oversteps the boundaries outlined in the contract we signed, who gets to decide if Person C is in violation of the contract? Is it Person C himself?  Or is it you and I, the people who wrote and signed the limited power of attorney in the first place?  Likewise, the states, as the principals to the constitutional compact, have a far better logical claim to be the judges of constitutionality than their agent, the federal government.

The people of the states have a right to nullify federal laws that violate their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, period. And they also have a right to fully secede from the “Union” as well. No one has a right to force someone else to be a part of an association against one’s will. The federal government has no moral right and no legal authority to force the people of any state to be a part of a “Union,” in which that union’s government is destructive of their liberty, prosperity and security.

As the Declaration of Independence notes: “…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive…it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

This is a time in the life of the United States of America to recognize that, while creating America was a relatively good idea, the Founders’ creating a centralized, federal government with a monopoly in territorial protection and a monopoly in the administration of law and justice was utterly misguided, and has led to all the trouble we now face. Economically, when people are given a monopoly of some kind in which competitive interests are restricted by law and the population are compelled by law to use the monopolists’ services, then without competition and profit-or-loss motivations, the monopolist lacks the incentive to actually serve the needs of his “clients,” and in fact will use the armed power he is given for his own advantage. The monopolist’s main motivation becomes not the “protection of the public,” but the expansion of the federal State, and the monopolist’s power and control.

Because of this aspect of human nature, the institution of centralized monopolies just doesn’t work, as centralism is not only counter-productive, it naturally begets totalitarianism.

When the Soviet Union experienced an economic collapse, the people there did the right thing: they decentralized and broke up the “Union.”

Americans had better not allow the DC Leviathan federal government to inflict martial law on us. So, to save our liberty, prosperity and our security, as Thomas Jefferson said, “Let us separate.”

America Can’t Survive With Continued Government Monopolized Money and Cartelized Banking

In Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s latest scam, Quantitative Easing the 2nd, he is going to be deliberately “printing” up a whole new trillion in new money for the most typically selfish of government bureaucrat reasons: to help the selfish government bureaucrats to pay off some of the public debts that THEY have been causing with their reckless government spending, their selfish, short-term oriented deficit spending that is ruining America. Even pro-Fed, pro-fiat paper money Milton Friedman recognized this kind of economic self-destruction for what it is.

As economist Richard Ebeling notes in his article, A Return to the Gold Standard?,

In the mid-1980s, leading free market economist, Milton Friedman, who for decades had advocated a paper money monetary system restricted to increasing the money supply within a narrow “rule” of three percent a year, admitted that he had been all wrong in believing that such a system could ever work. He said that he, now, realized that it would never be in the interest of governments or their central banks to resist the temptation of printing money to cover government spending, serve special interest groups, and advance other short-run political purposes. He concluded that, in retrospect, the costs on society since 1914 from inflations and the boom and bust cycle caused by central bank mismanagement were far greater than the costs that would have been associated with a real, politically-free gold standard from mining, minting and storing gold, and facilitating transactions through use of the yellow metal during the 20th century.

Yesterday, Congressman Ron Paul on CNBC had harsh words to say about Keynesian economist Paul Krugman, and wondered how Krugman can possibly get away with having so much credibility for views that are, well, utterly ignorant of actual history and economics, in my opinion. And I’m really just an amateur at studying economics, and even I know that deficit spending and putting oneself into debt, and further debt, is just plain dumb and self-destructive. (Actually, Krugman is not a real economist — he’s an e-commie-nist. His main field is not really economics but politics, i.e. he’s a political hack.)

People such as Krugman are clueless about what actually causes economic prosperity for the masses: freedom. Freedom gives us all opportunity and the means of growth. Government stifles it. That is why political hacks love all of government’s usurpations, the central bank, the government-protected banking cartel, the State-imposed restrictions on currency competition and banking competition, and so on. Political hacks love the government power that government’s monopoly usurpations take away from the masses. They love power.

Even more telling about who these hacks really are and what motivates them, more than their love for power and control over others, is their infantile need to satisfy their “id,” their desire for immediate gratification. Krugman is a Keynesian, an advocate of deficit spending and debt. People who love politics and its power hate self-control and personal responsibility. Deficit spending and debts are examples of abandonment of responsibility. To continue spending and creating further deficits is not just showing lack of responsibility, but is extremely selfish in that, at least with public money and finances, it is putting extra burdens on future generations. That, to me, is extremely selfish, to force your grandchildren and great-grandchildren to have to pay for your out-of-control, selfish immediate gratification impulses, and WORSE is when you force MY grandchildren and great-grandchildren to pay for it!

And now I see, as a result of what Washington’s legislative and executive branches have been doing to America, and as a result of Chairman Bernanke (whom I have referred to in the past as “Burnbanker,” and rightfully so) and his reckless, knowingly and deliberately causing more inflation that will make regular visits to the grocery store difficult for poor schmucks like me, some indications that the banks are not only holding off on lending, but not allowing some people to withdraw certain amounts of cash. This new one began as I saw Tyler Durden’s post that apparently some ATMs are not able to give you the cash you want to withdraw. Some of the comments to that post were even more disturbing. And Robert Wenzel had this post on that post.

One individual (and I don’t know whether I’ll believe this) stated that his bank wouldn’t let him withdraw $4000 because “they didn’t have the money.” Now, if banks are unable to give you your own money you have in their bank because “they don’t have it,” then I think there’s something wrong here, and there will be something even more wrong if there are to be actual “bank runs.”

What would be most responsible for “bank runs” would be this fraudulent system of Fractional Reserve Banking. FRB allows a bank to have much less cash in its reserve vaults than the amount of what their depositors have put into the bank. This is fraud. If I agree to a contract with a bank in which I deposit my $5,000 in their bank, for safe keeping or to grow with interest and so on, then, unless there’s a stipulation in the contract of “penalty for early withdrawal” etc., then I have every right to withdraw my entire $5,000 (or $100,000) from their bank, whenever I want to. If they won’t give me my money when I want it, then they are committing fraud. Not only that, but if they choose to lend out that money and don’t have reserves to cover it when I want my money, they are in effect stealing my money to lend out to someone else. This is the theft and fraud of Fractional Reserve Banking, and will be the main cause of any “bank runs,” in which too many people try to take their money out of the banks in a short period of time when the banks just don’t have the cash in their vaults to pay out. Another example of the irresponsibility that’s been institutionalized in American money and banking for over a century.

Murray Rothbard explains FRB in this article. And further in this article, Anatomy of the Bank Run.

Fractional Reserve Banking is a result of laziness and incompetence (and corruption) on the part of those who run the industry, whose laziness, incompetence and corruption is protected by the government that protects their banking cartel. And so it goes (as Linda Ellerbee used to say).

But my question regarding all that is this: If it’s true that people are having a hard time just withdrawing something like $4,000 because the bank “doesn’t have the money,” then what’s all this I’ve been hearing about the banks sitting on a trillion dollars in reserves and not wanting to lend it out? If banks are sitting on a bunch of cash, then why can’t some dude get his measly $4,000? Hmmm. Something smells rotten in Denmark. (Actually, it might be preferable to live in Denmark at this time.)

Government’s interventions in money and banking have done nothing but gravely reduce the value of our currency, distort economic matters of everyday life, and cause extremes in booms and busts, whereas, if government didn’t interfere with natural economic occurrences, the booms and busts wouldn’t have been nearly as extreme as they’ve been. More than that, government’s interventions, interferences and manipulations are intrusions. It is nothing different from your neighbors intruding in your private financial lives and manipulating various factors either without your consent or your knowledge, and then causing your economic life to go downhill through no fault of your own and/or causing problems that you then have to go out of your way to waste time trying to fix.

These government intrusions are immoral. They are nothing other than acts of trespassing, theft and fraud. These government manipulations and intrusions are literally nothing more than a criminal racket. But because government is the institution of “authority” that has the monopoly on “law and justice,” government gets away with these crimes.

Much of this started with Herr Lincoln and his banking cartel, the government-protected monopoly of the big banks, which restricts competitors from getting in the business. This cartel monopoly removes the incentives from the banks to actually serve the interests of the consumers, which is the situation for any monopoly. Because of lack of competition they have no profit-and-loss incentives. For example, in a free market in banking under the Rule of Law, if the banks get out of line and engage in lousy business practices, such as Fractional Reserve Banking or fraudulent loan and foreclosure schemes, they would go to jail for fraud and theft, obviously. But in a government-controlled, government-protected cartel monopoly as we have now, the banks that have been committing the fraud and theft are being bailed out by the government that protects their cartel. They are not held accountable for their actions and are getting away with actual crimes.

And the government’s currency monopoly we have now, protected by Herr Lincoln’s Legal Tender laws, forbid currency competition. It is competition that drives prices down for the average consumer, and it is government-protected monopolies that drive prices up. The Federal Reserve is an example of that, as their actions have reduced the value of the dollar by 95% since the beginning of the Fed in 1913.

And even worse than all that, the problems that government has caused will get worse, and the government bureaucrats’ answer to the problems has been more intrusive regulations and monopolies  and usurpations, such as with the Dodd financial regulatory law in which a know-nothing communist punk like Elizabeth Warren will be given so much power and control to “regulate” to death the smaller firms as a means of protecting the cartels and monopoly of the big financial institutions, whose executives donate tons of money to the campaigns of the hacks who gave Warren her job.

I agree with Rothbard and Ron Paul: Get the government out of the banking business and allow competition in banking and currencies, require people to actually be responsible for their actions under the Rule of Law, and get rid of the criminals.

More on Social Security and Government’s Intrusions

There was a bit of anger and bitterness expressed in some of the emails I had received regarding my article that was on LewRockwell.com on hoping the new Republicans elected to Congress will reject government interventionism once and for all.

The anger and bitterness centered around my views on the Social Security system. Unfortunately, many people have a mistaken view of what the Social Security system is all about. No, you don’t “pay into” the system, and no, it is not a “contract” in which you have signed an agreement with government officials whereby they are obligated to pay you a certain amount when you retire.

You don’t “pay into” the Social Security system; money is seized from your earnings against your will by the government — you have no choice. That is not a “contract.” It is not a “retirement account” or any kind of bank or savings account that you contribute into toward your retirement. The money that is taken from you is used to fund older people in their retirement, and when you retire and receive Social Security payments, that money you receive is money taken from current workers’ paychecks. And that is what it is, that’s exactly what it is, despite the need to believe that it’s a “retirement account.” It is a real-time redistribution of wealth scheme, and that’s it.

Worse, it is a fraudulent scheme, a Ponzi scheme. It is an act of deliberate deceit, a fraud. Social Security is a scheme in which the government has been deliberately giving people the idea that the money that is taken from their paychecks and other earnings will be there for them when they retire, when over the years that has been increasingly not the case and becoming impossible now, especially in these times of Big Deficits, Big Debt and such an utterly dysfunctional centralized system of socialist misallocation of resources.

How can we expect any system that is based on theft, the government demanding a certain proportion of your earnings by threats of violence, to pass the smell test? Any system that is based on that initial part of the scheme, something that is itself morally bankrupt, is destined to crash.

One emailer perceived my call to end Social Security as causing people to starve and be out on the streets. However, I noted that if we end Social Security we would also have to end the income tax, because when the younger workers no longer have to pay those taxes they will then be able to take care of elderly family members. And in the case that retired or elderly people don’t have younger family members, ending those taxes would also free up people to donate to private organizations and charities to afford to take care of those who don’t have younger family members. In the Soviet Union, there was plenty of impoverishment to go around despite that (or, more accurately, because of) the government “took care of” the people.

My main point has been that FDR took advantage of the panic and vulnerability that was widespread in America following the Crash of ’29, and his new schemes were a State usurpation of freedom, usurping Americans’ retirement freedom, independence and prosperity from them — no different from any street criminal holding a gun to your head and demanding not only your money but that you “agree” to pay him your earnings and let him organize and manage your retirement, whether you like it or not.

We have to watch out when the State wants to help us at a time of panic and vulnerability. Unlike private businesses, government is an institution of compulsion, in which agents of the State have the artificial authority to use compulsion over others against their will, hardly a moral kind of institution, in my opinion. When government gets itself involved in private people’s private economic lives, young or old, working or retired, that is an intrusion — the government’s intrusions, well-intended or not, are nothing but acts of trespass and theft.

 

Here’s Hoping the New Republicans Will Finally Reject Government Interventionism

November 5, 2010

© 2010 LewRockwell.com. (Link to article)

Are Republicans capable of learning and heeding the lessons of history, economics and common sense, and the lessons of past Republicans’ abandonment of the Founders’ principles of limited government? Well, they had better learn quickly, and realize that repealing every policy of government interventionism is the only way to reverse the moral decline and economic impoverishment into which our politicians have brought us for the past century.

So far, the Republicans and conservatives seem to have the same kind of reluctance to reduce government’s intrusions as do the left.

For instance, after his 1980 election as president, Ronald Reagan promised to eliminate the Department of Education and Department of Energy because he recognized that socialism and federal intrusions into education and energy increase bureaucracy, and reduce the quality of education and create misallocation of energy resources, and he was exactly right. But did Reagan fulfill his promise? No.

Reagan cut taxes, but he also raised taxes, on business and capital gains, and through higher Social Security taxes, higher fees, plugging loopholes, and other methods, according to economists Murray Rothbard and Sheldon Richman.

And after the 1994 Republican Revolution, the Republicans, rushed into Washington to reverse the Clinton Big Government partying, caved and kowtowed to Democrats and special interests in a new race to outspend the Clinton Democrats. After 2000, the Bush “compassionate conservatives” continued the trend of ever-increasing socialism and government spending, waste and debts.

There are two aspects to the root of problem: human nature, and the system of centralism.

With so many of our politicians, as soon as they get to Washington and get absorbed into a system of such huge centralized power and control, they can’t seem to control themselves with such power – even the most noble amongst us. The power just mesmerizes them, unfortunately.

And systemically, for the past century the U.S. government has become a Leviathan socialist regime, particularly with such regressive institutions as President Wilson’s income tax and Federal Reserve, and the welfare-state interventionist schemes of FDR’s Social Security and LBJ’s Medicare. And the policies of Wilson-Progressive foreign interventionism continue to this day.

Not unexpectedly, we have already seen the Republicans’ lack of understanding from their House Pledge to America, which promises to repeal ObamaCare but replace it with a little less socialism (but enough to get reelected). Alas, if only they could recognize the main causes of the American medical system’s high costs and dysfunctions – the government intrusions, mandates, bureaucracy, taxes, licensure and regulations already in place – then they might see the light of the real solution: repealing all those initial intrusions, cutting those chains of government-imposed bondage and letting the people be free to control their own medical associations and contracts. Then the costs will come down, way down, and private individuals and organizations will then additionally be able to afford to help those in need, like it used to be before FDR arrived and usurped that freedom away.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s usurpations were through his taking advantage of the utter despair and vulnerability that many Americans suffered following the Stock Market Crash of 1929, even though he campaigned on a platform of reducing the burdens that the Hoover Administration had placed on Americans and their businesses that were Hoover’s quick, short-term fixes for the damage that occurred following the Crash. FDR’s grandiose interventions laid the groundwork for the further destruction we are now suffering.

The Truth about Social Security

The truth is, Social Security is not the “retirement account” that many Americans think it is. It is a real-time redistribution of wealth scheme, in which the younger workers’ paychecks are siphoned by the federal government and redistributed to retired people (and others). FDR manipulated the panic and vulnerability of many Americans and literally removed actual independence and prosperity from Americans’ retirements in this deceptive scheme. FDR’s other transgressions included new intrusive bureaus and mandates, and higher confiscations of the fruits of Americans’ labor.

These socialist programs helped FDR to get reelected, and help our current politicians get reelected, as they promise the voters, “I won’t touch Social Security.” But while short-term fixes really help the politicians’ self-interests, government-mandated and administered socialist programs are immoral and have disastrous long-term consequences.

Now, if Americans were to finally accept the truth about Social Security and end that program, then that would probably terrify many Americans with the thought of losing their only means of sustenance. That is why the income tax would also have to end. The removal of income and Social Security taxes will enable people who are still working to care for their elderly family members. These actions, though initially difficult, would be the moral and practical way of saving Americans’ ability to plan their retirement years.

Unfortunately, people whose paychecks were siphoned by the central planners in Washington for many decades may just have to accept those losses. The Social Security system is inherently flawed, and we need to deal with that reality now, because kicking the can will only make things even more difficult for future generations, whereas dealing with it now will free future generations and their ability to care for themselves and their families.

The Federal Reserve

In 1913, the Federal Reserve was created, turning America from a mainly laissez-faire economy into one of “centralized statism,” as Rothbard explained. The Fed was a product of President Wilson and the Progressive movement. Progressives over the past century have shown a love for government and for State control over private economic matters, including money, one of our most important commodities.

Unfortunately, the mainstream pundits and economists blamed laissez-faire economic freedom for the Crash of ‘29, as well as the downturn of 2008, even though both crashes were actually caused by the government intrusions into private economic matters that Congress and presidents installed prior to those points. In fact, the Federal Reserve itself was created by interventionists in 1913 as a solution for the business cycles – the booms and busts – and the panics and depressions that were actually caused by previous government interventions.

With the 2008-2010 bailouts and stimulus, the passage of medical care usurpations and the Dodd financial regulatory bill, and with the Federal Reserve’s obsessive authoritarian top-down micromanaging of the economy and distorting the markets, we have seen up close how literally delirious our government bureaucrats really are.

A good example of the pathology of centralized statism is Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s hinting at further interventionism. Bernanke, referred to by economist Robert Wenzel as a “mad scientist,” may be printing more money, with the hope that it will decrease the unemployment rate. Wenzel describes this as “going nuclear,” and says that Bernanke is using new “tools to attempt to manipulate monetary and economic matters, while ignoring the old tools used by most other Fed chairmen. Bernanke’s first new tool, interest on excess reserves, has resulted in a trillion dollars in excess reserves and is out of control, according to Wenzel. And Bernanke has more new tools, such as selling Treasury securities to money market funds, to fix the first out-of-control tool, and Wenzel predicts that any new flood of money printing will lead to further instability and the “dagger” of hyperinflation.

Rothbard noted that the Fed’s money printing not only causes the devaluing of the currency and thus effects in inflation, the rise in prices of everyday goods, but is a system whereby the money printers and early receivers of the newly printed money (the big banks) are expropriating assets from the later receivers (particularly those on fixed incomes), a “massive scheme of hidden redistribution.”

The new Congress needs to take a serious look at the entire authoritarian centralized Federal Reserve system, and needs to consider competitive alternatives in banking and currency. Like Social Security and all other forms of centralized government interventionism, the Federal Reserve is inherently flawed. Only free markets under the Rule of Law can adequately adjust to the changes in economic activities, while bureaucratic monetary central planners and government-protected bank cartels stifle those factors. Socialist central planning intrusions of government interventionism in money and banking in fact undermines the Rule of Law, and thus it should be no wonder that such a system has led to so much fraud and corruption at this time.

Foreign Interventionism

For decades, the U.S. government has been engaged in many acts of interventionism in other countries’ affairs, and has expanded its various government apparatus in foreign territories.

Unlike entrepreneurs in the private sector, who must compete through the structure of profit and loss in the free market and based on the private producer’s ability to allocate scarce resources, the government bureaucrat lacks the incentive of profit and loss and instead relies on central planning committees and agencies and whose main goal, stated or not, is the survival and expansion of the bureaucracy. Unlike private businesses that must follow the Rule of Law and must respect the property rights of others and may not trespass, governments do not seem bound by the same rules. And because the government bureaucrat is given a monopoly that the citizenry are compelled to patronize without any alternative choices, the expansion of government, its bureaus and the bureaucrats’ power become the main incentives of the government bureaucrat. And this is the case in foreign policy as well as domestic policy.

For the past decade, the federal defense bureaucrats have given us more government, more bureaucracy and more intrusions at home and abroad. Iraq is now under Sharia Law, and Afghanistan is a mess. And Americans are becoming increasingly uneasy with the additional intrusions – not just inconveniences, but intrusions, groping pat-downs and virtual strip searches – at American airports.

Meanwhile, some people have raised the point that the hundreds of U.S. military bases and other government apparatus on foreign territories since World War II have been serious provocations, particularly in Middle Eastern countries.

Likewise, Americans probably would react negatively if President Obama were to sign an agreement with China to install Chinese military bases in Texas or Montana.

That hypothetical is a fair comparison, because the idea of national sovereignty is important. The U.S. government is not the Government of the World, and its various apparatus on other countries’ territories are intrusions, and clearly go against the Founders’ original intent.

Conclusion

The Founding Fathers would never have approved of any redistribution schemes that involved the taking of any individual’s wealth or property. They would have recognized that as theft, pure and simple. Most of the Founders were against fiat paper money and centralized banking, and they certainly would not have approved of hundreds of U.S. military bases and other U.S. government apparatus on other countries’ territories or the U.S. government involving itself in other countries’ affairs. The Founders believed that governments must not violate the liberty or property of its own citizens or of those in foreign countries, and believed that governments must behave under the Rule of Law.

With their regained control in Washington, Republicans had better get back to the Founders’ principles of Liberty and limited government. If the politicians’ recklessness and utter violations of the Rule of Law continue too much longer, then secession of states might have to be the next alternative.

Obama’s Trip to India (Please, STAY there!)

Today Glenn Beck expressed concern about Barack Obomber’s safety while the Nincompoop-In-Chief is visiting India. The main concern should not be Obama’s safety, but rather the cost to American taxpayers, that Beck is saying is as much as $2 billion for this trip, but it’s probably closer to $1 billion. But since when does a billion here or a billion there actually matter in the loony world of Beltway Neverland?

Concerning Obama’s safety, the top bananas will be protected by supposedly many more Secret Service than he really needs, and his entourage will also include 34 warships. The Times of India explains:

He will also be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast during his two-day stay there beginning Saturday. The measure has been taken as Mumbai attack in 2008 took place from the sea.

Arrangements have been put in place for emergency evacuation, if needed…

From there, he will drive down in Lincoln Continental — the Presidential limousine — to the nearby the Taj Hotel. [where the 2008 terrorist attacks took place]

Two jets, armed with advanced communication and security systems, and a fleet of over 40 cars will be part of Obama’s convoy.

Around 800 rooms have been booked for the President and his entourage in Taj Hotel and Hyatt.

I don’t think that Glenn Beck should worry about Obama’s safety. Even the coconuts were removed so Obama wouldn’t get hit by a falling coconut. (But he should worry about the ones they might throw at him, given that he’s giving so much military aid to India’s enemy Pakistan, and Indians are not thrilled with that, according to the India Tribune.)

No, the real concern here is the cost of this luxurious trip, which is a reminder of her majesty Queen Michelle (or, as Rush Limbaugh refers to her, “Moochelle”) and her recent trip to Spain. These elitists live high on the hog, and don’t have to pay a dime for it. Meanwhile, while they go over there to get served and pampered, Ben Bernanke has just begun the process of causing the cost of daily necessities here in America, such as food, to go way up.

But the people in Washington just don’t care, since they are all so damn rich. They never go to the grocery store, and don’t care about someone else’s grocery bill. So, Congress really doesn’t care about the Fed’s “quantitative easing,” which will give us Big Inflation. Actually, the economic ignoramuses and functionally illiterates in Congress like the new money the Fed is printing out of thin air and giving to the banks, so the congressional knuckle-draggers can spend, spend, spend (as well as borrow, borrow, borrow) to give themselves more pork, perks and privileges, and give their corporate lobbyists and campaign supporters more gifts.

But apparently, one reason for this Obama trip to India, that will also include CEOs of several major U.S. corporations and presidents of U.S. universities, is to deal with outsourcing and trade issues, although supposedly India outsources jobs to the U.S.

Regarding issues of trade, the problems involving trade issues are that governments are involved, just like the problems with everything else are because governments are involved. Get the governments out of trade — it’s none of their business. Individuals and groups and businesses have a right to trade with any other individuals, groups and businesses anywhere in the world, as long as they are peaceful and don’t engage in fraud or theft. It is when governments — institutions of compulsion that institutionalize fraud and theft– involve themselves in the activities and business of private individuals that conflicts arise.