Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

Hoppe: On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution

This article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, published last year by the Mises Institute, On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution, is a very important albeit somewhat lengthy analysis and criticism of our Constitutional form of government, with suggestions on alternatives towards improving our society.

Hoppe views the Constitution itself as in error, and notes economists Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises on the subject of the government’s monopoly in the business of protecting the citizens:

According to Mises and Rothbard, once there is no longer free entry into the business of the production of protection and adjudication, the price of protection and justice will rise and their quality will fall. Rather than being a protector and judge, a compulsory monopolist will become a protection racketeer — the destroyer and invader of the people and property that he is supposed to protect, a warmonger, and an imperialist.

Hoppe notes:

Instead of a king who regarded colonial America as his private property and the colonists as his tenants, the Constitution put temporary and interchangeable caretakers in charge of the country’s monopoly of justice and protection.These caretakers did not own the country, but as long as they were in office, they could make use of it and its residents to their own and their protégés’ advantage. However, as elementary economic theory predicts, this institutional setup will not eliminate the self-interest-driven tendency of a monopolist of law and order toward increased exploitation.

Hoppe quotes from Rothbard’s book, Power and Market: Government and the Economy:

…while a private owner, secure in his property and owning its capital value, plans the use of his resource over a long period of time, the government official must milk the property as quickly as he can, since he has no security of ownership. … [G]overnment officials own the use of resources but not their capital value (except in the case of the “private property” of a hereditary monarch). When only the current use can be owned, but not the resource itself, there will quickly ensue uneconomic exhaustion of the resources, since it will be to no one’s benefit to conserve it over a period of time and to every owner’s advantage to use it up as quickly as possible. … The private individual, secure in his property and in his capital resource, can take the long view, for he wants to maintain the capital value of his resource. It is the government official who must take and run, who must plunder the property while he is still in command.

The constitution provides that “anyone” can work as government officials, from the president down to lower bureaucrats, and, over more than 200 years now, the moral objection to state-committed property theft by those government officials has declined, and because of that the society in general has degenerated. As Hoppe notes:

That is, open political competition favors aggressive, hence dangerous, rather than defensive, hence harmless, political talents and will thus lead to the cultivation and perfection of the peculiar skills of demagoguery, deception, lying, opportunism, corruption, and bribery. Therefore, entrance into and success within government will become increasingly impossible for anyone hampered by moral scruples against lying and stealing….As the Declaration of Independence noted, government is supposed to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet in granting government the power to tax and legislate without consent, the Constitution cannot possibly assure this goal but is instead the very instrument for invading and destroying the right to life, property, and liberty. It is absurd to believe that an agency that may tax without consent can be a property protector. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that an agency with legislative powers can preserve law and order….Indeed, no one in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one’s alleged protector to determine unilaterally, without one’s consent, and irrevocably, without the possibility of exit, how much to charge for protection; and no one in his right mind would agree to an irrevocable contract which granted one’s alleged protector the right to ultimate decision making regarding one’s own person and property…In fact, any such protection contract is not only empirically unlikely, but praxeologically impossible. By “agreeing to be taxed and legislated in order to be protected,” a person would in effect surrender, or alienate, all of his property to the taxing authority and submit himself into permanent slavery to the legislative agency.

Hoppe comprehensively explains his alternative to the status quo of the reliance on the state’s property and liberty protection monopoly: Insurance. Among the many aspects of this “protection insurance” discussion, Hoppe notes an important difference in the context of arms possession:

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. To the contrary, insurance agencies would encourage the ownership of guns and other protective devices among their clients by means of selective price cuts, because the better the private protection of their clients, the lower the insurers’ protection and indemnification costs would be.

The article suggests a book worth reading on the subject: The Market For Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehill.  Hoppe’s article, Private Law Society, expands on these concepts.

In my opinion, the one major contributor to the self-destruction of our society has been taxation. It has made possible our government’s immoral occupations and atrocities abroad. While most reasonable citizens would voluntarily pay to fund the means towards their own protection, they probably wouldn’t voluntarily pay for (or, do more labor for) the “democratizing,” protection of, or “nation-building” for people in other countries, unless they are masochists. Being forced to do so at the force of gunpoint is immoral.

Those who really consider themselves open-minded will probably seriously consider these alternatives. Hoppe also gives suggestions on how to make these changes in our society. I think it naive at best to believe that we will ever be more secure or more free or prosperous with the continuation of our system, as guided by the United States Constitution. It is not pessimistic but only realistic to believe that under the status quo the society will continue to decline, and we might have to start learning to speak Chinese.

Rewarding Failure And Punishing Success

Yesterday on his radio show, Michael Graham was discussing how some people were whining that the New England Patriots shouldn’t have won by so many points (59-0) over the Tennessee Titans, and that Tom Brady shouldn’t have been allowed to throw so many touchdown throws in one quarter. Graham brought up how in so many schools now, teachers and administrators are either stopping keeping score when it reaches so many points in sports, or just not keeping score altogether. Losing makes kids “feel bad.”

Unfortunately, what these goofballs are doing is taking the value of learning and benefitting from failure and loss away from the kids. It’s a self-destructive attitude. How could Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan have succeeded so much had they not had the benefit of learning from their earlier failures? You learn from failure and  make changes towards being more successful. That’s the value of failure.

When kids lose a game, they do certain things differently or improve on their weaknesses with the goal of scoring more points. Regardless of what the whiners and nincompoop parents and teachers believe, there is also a psychological benefit from achieving. Winning a game is a corrective experience from the failure of losing.

That whining nonsense goes with what has become an attitude of rewarding failures and incompetence (giving kids a “B” or an “A” when they should be getting a “C” or a “D” and then not knowing what’s going on in the next grade; banks lending to people who don’t qualify for loans, etc.) and punishing success (burdensome taxes and regulations, etc.). It comes from the resentment and envy by those who either can’t achieve or don’t try, towards those who do work hard and are successful and rewarded for their work.

The society is all backwards now, with rewarding failure and punishing success, where “ignorance is strength, war is peace, freedom is slavery.”

Ruining Our Country To Save The World

George Washington foresaw that “foreign entanglements” would be against America’s self-interests, and he meant US governmental foreign entanglements with other countries’ governments, although he encouraged Americans to engage in free trade with people in other countries.

Unfortunately, it may take a Lyndon Johnson-like Obama for supporters of our invasions, wars and occupations abroad to realize that military Big Government Statism not only goes against America’s integrity and Constitution, but goes against America’s own self-interests, those being protecting and preserving our freedom and prosperity.

40,000 more troops, 100,000 more or 500,000 more troops will not promote security or freedom in the Middle-East or in our country, in the long run, despite the fantasizing of the neocons and followers of the “Bush Doctrine.”

Whether we’re still fighting Al-Qaeda or the Taliban or whether we’re nation-building, our governmental and military intrusions abroad are intrusions. When we use governmental and military powers to “spread democracy,” those powers will be corrupted by special interests, and our presence in that region only incites more violence. People don’t like their territories being occupied. The only reason the “surge” of 2007 “worked” was that it pushed the terrorists back into Iran, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, or over to Pakistan, as we have seen now. We are not protecting America from terrorism.

How can we “spread democracy” abroad when the US has a one-party system of Democrat/Republican legally-protected political monopoly that locks out other parties and individuals from getting elected to public office?

We have been occupiers for many years in the Middle-East because of our dependence on their oil, and I am reiterating my suggestion that the states declare their Ninth and Tenth Amendment Rights and drill for oil and gas, and build nuclear power plants, and ignore all Federal laws and regulations regarding those activities.

America really has two choices. We can continue the path of self-destruction by continuing our governmental  “foreign entanglements” and campaigns abroad and risking further terrorism here, as well as growing our Big Government, Big deficits and Big Debts while further taxing ourselves to death and digging a grave for our freedom. Or we can go back to the Independence, Freedom and Prosperity we once had–that the professional politicians and bureaucrats have been stealing from us.

I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.

—Mark Twain, New York Herald, Oct. 15, 1900

Labor Has Value

Obama Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg is demanding that Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis receive no salary nor bonus for 2009, and will also have to repay the bank the $1 million he’s already earned. Granted that BOA was one of the large financial institutions that received TARP Bailout money, and that the takeover by BOA of Merrill Lynch (for which Lewis had strong reservations) was quite controversial, still, the very idea of a “Pay Czar” is very fascist in nature, like many of President Obama’s policies and proposals. There’s little doubt that it will go from applying to companies receiving TARP money to all businesses, and this kind of government intrusion into the private sector only comes from the resentment and envy of the Left, and control-freak politicians.

A private business, no matter how large, has a right to pay its CEO and top executives what the owners and shareholders think their labor is worth. Many people don’t see what the executives do as “labor,” but that concept includes intellectual as well as physical labor. A CEO doesn’t just sit there at his or her desk looking out the window, but makes very important, sometimes stressful decisions. A lot of pressure, for example, was on Ken Lewis when he was testifying before Congress regarding his misgivings on the Merrill Lynch acquisition. Just one decision by a company CEO can affect millions of people, and billions of dollars. Most business owners and shareholders think that their CEOs’ labor is worth their high salaries.

Likewise, the NFL (in the news a lot this week) values the labor of dog-fighter/dog-executioner Michael Vick and that’s why the NFL hired him back, although fans have been split on that. That reflects more on the decline of values in America in recent years. But Vick’s labor is valued.

When or if the government takes over the entire medical care system, the value of doctors’ and nurses’ labor will decline, along with the quality of care. Already we are seeing doctors planning to retire early or college students deciding against that profession if the government takes over. Those less skilled but who don’t mind being servants of the state will enter the profession as government doctors. The good doctors now are usually those who prefer independence, and who value the confidential relationship between doctor and patient. Doctors and nurses will be paid what government officials, not markets, decide their labor’s value is worth, hence the decline in quality.

We can see how things get devalued when controlled by government bureaucrats. Just look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And look at the products of government-run (aka “public”) schools.

A further example of that has been the Cash For Clunkers program, with more people trading in their clunkers for foreign made vehicles, because of the decline in the value of American-made cars. That isn’t just because of the government takeover of General Motors, but in large part because the quality of American-made cars has declined over the years, as the labor unions’ workers compensation and benefits packages have greatly increased.

And that situation isn’t because their employers put a higher value on their labor, but because of the unions’ strong-arm tactics and pressures on the auto makers. In contrast, the Americans who work at Toyota plants in the United States, for example,  are payed less and, with the exception of at only one plant which is closing next year, are not unionized. Toyota pays American workers the value of their labor, calculated much more accurately according to buyers in the free market and the employers, not an organized labor union.

The value of labor and the products of labor are promoted by freedom and free markets, and downgraded by mobs and government intrusions.

Trade In Keynesian Clunkers

September-October 2009

There have been so many suggestions for new things for government to do (to us): the medical fascists want the government to take over the entire health care and insurance industries, and the environmental control freaks want to impose much stronger restrictions and regulations and higher taxes on us. We need to go the other way and reduce government’s control over our daily lives, and take our freedom back.

Now that the “Cash For Clunkers” program is in the junk yard, here’s a better idea: Let’s trade in Washington’s clunker Keynesian policies of excessive taxation, deficit spending, debt expansion and foreign nation-building campaigns. Given that most of the politicians in DC are themselves big buckets of bolts, let’s trade them in, too.

Last year we traded in the 2000 Bush Wagon for the 2008 Obamobile, while John McCain puttered and crashed his GOP Edsel into a ditch. Now some people are asking of President Obama what was asked of a president 37 years ago: “Would you buy a used car from this man?”

Some of Obama’s voters are joining his critics who don’t want more of the same clunker policies that have caused our country’s ills in the first place. They do not want to be lemmings for lemons. (Sorry.)

Obama promised “change,” but he has kept George W. Bush’s Keynesian policies, as well as the same Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, who promoted the socialist Wall Street Bailout that will further burglarize our future generations’ piggy banks.

No “change.” Just more of the same and worse, and certainly less “hope” for our posterity.

The federal government has rapaciously been taking over whole industries, in addition to its other insatiable intrusions into our private lives. That is backfiring against our country.

In the 1994 elections, the people traded in many clunkers for politicians promising more freedom and less government. Unfortunately, many of those politicians became entrenched and got stuck in the mud of Big Government.

Throughout America’s first 100 years or so, we saw the greatest expansion of freedom and prosperity in human history. This was not caused by government mechanics. Rather, it was achieved through individual human initiative, innovation and invention, and made possible by freedom.

Unfortunately, the government that the American Founders created has expanded in its size and intrusiveness, a phenomenon against which the Founders had warned us.

Contrary to the tales of the mass media and government officials, the truth is that the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression were driven by stupid and intrusive government policies, and not by private markets. If only government would stop interfering, it is private markets and freedom that can save America.

The Founders’ vision of “limited government” was corrupted by the Federal Reserve, the “Military Industrial Complex,” and society-planning programs that have stuck a big STOP sign into the road of economic growth, and greatly diminished our freedom.

Centralized government has been driving America the wrong way and uphill towards Soviet America Boulevard. Medical fascism and “cap and trade” will demolish America.

The citizens of the former Soviet Union traded in their big centralized government clunker for freedom, and Americans must do the same with Washington.

We must trade in our clunker politicians for those who have actual knowledge and understanding of history and the US Constitution, and who do not live in a Keynesian fantasy world. We must trade in self-destructive policies for the freedom and common sense that made America’s first century of prosperity and progress possible.

Here’s hoping for a change for the better, but don’t forget to kick the tires first.

Our Health Care Rights

Here are our health care rights:

You have a right to keep your private health matters private. You have a right to be free of any government or legally-imposed intrusions into your private health information. If it’s none of your neighbors’ business, then it’s none of the government’s business.

You have a right to care for yourself. You don’t have a right to demand that society (your neighbors, etc.) care for you. In a free, civilized society such as ours, there will be plenty of charitable, giving individuals and groups who will care for those who can’t care (or afford to care) for themselves. However, when those activities are then assumed by government, with its officialdom and police power, especially with the power to confiscate private wealth (which it shouldn’t have the power to do), over time those who were charitable and giving reduce their charity with the assumption that the government will take care of the needy. The business of taking care of the needy then becomes dysfunctional, as it is now, because such endeavors have been distorted by laws and force. No one has a right to demand that their neighbors care for them or pay for their care.

You also have a right to not care for yourself if you choose not to. However, even (or perhaps especially) in those circumstances, you don’t have a right to demand that others care for you or pay for your care. Especially if you smoke like a chimney, drink like a fish or eat like a pig. Under those circumstances (and there are a lot of people living in those circumstances), a truly honest and genuinely civil society would not allow for people’s neighbors (the “government”) to be forced to pay for your heart attacks, high cholesterol, clogged arteries, lung cancer, etc. self-inflicted or otherwise. I say otherwise because I know there are people with health problems and diseases that are of no fault of their own. That still gives no one the right to demand care from their neighbors.

You have a right to see a doctor and a right to choose your doctor (as long as the one you choose is mutually agreeable to that). You also have a right to not see a doctor if you don’t want to. And laws or governmental mandates interfering in the relationship or association between a patient and one’s doctor is a violation of their right of association, right of contract, and their freedom in general.

You also have a right to have health insurance if you want it, and right to not have health insurance if you don’t want it. Any law or governmental mandate forcing people to have insurance or to do anything involving their private life is a violation of their rights and their freedom.

Health insurance and medical care would be much, much, much less expensive if government and laws would get the hell out of it. As Ronald Reagan said, government is the problem and in fact the cause of these problems, not the solution. People who see MORE government as some kind of solution to all this are ignorant of history, economics, and the actual reality of human relationships. Or they are just corrupt. (Or both.)

Repeal all mandates, regulations and other government intrusions in the medical industry, require people to live more responsibly and undo all the taxes and expensive, unnecessary bureaucracy so that medical providers and insurers can bring their costs way, way, way down (and they will!) so people can afford to see a doctor or have a medical procedure if they have to.

H1N1? Don’t Panic! Overreacting Government Bureaucrats? PANIC!!!

Is it really a good idea that the government mandate things like flu vaccines or H1N1 flu vaccines or any vaccines? No, it’s not a good idea. People have a right to choose what medications to take or what chemicals get injected in their bodies.

With the H1N1 flu this year and Federal and state governments’ overreactions, suggestions of martial law have been made, and these kind of threats of intrusions, along with the intrusions  health care fascists are threatening in the proposals for government medicine, is why we should be alarmed.

This news story here is about health care workers protesting mandatory H1N1 vaccines for lack of testing and/or reliability and safety, and also notes the overreaction of the government is similar to overreaction of the government in the past, such as in 1976 when more people were killed by swine flu vaccine than swine flu itself.

This news story is about studies questioning the effectiveness of the regular flu shot. And this article is about why the flu vaccine doesn’t really work.

Parents in New Jersey have been protesting the state’s mandating of flu vaccines for preschool children, and given how past government mandates of vaccines, such as that of HPV which caused deaths, as explained here by Karen De Coster, the parents have good reason to be angry.

First, people have a right to be left alone. They have a right to be presumed innocent, and presumed “in good health,” and otherwise left alone, especially by government. Sweeping mandates that affect everybody is not going to protect the public from any flu. ADVISING people of the best way to keep themselves healthy and to prevent colds, flu, H1N1 etc., is a good idea, but not forcing something on people, especially vaccines that have potentially dangerous chemicals that could be more harmful than the actual virus itself.

Hysteria and panic are emotions that can cause people to behave irrationally, and, given the irrationality of the Obama Administration in just about every policy it wants to force on us, as well as the Deval Patrick Administration in Massachusetts, we can do without it.

When Does Self-Ownership Begin?

Last week, S.M. Oliva wrote* for the Mises Economics Blog:

“Let’s say that, in fact, creation is a source of property rights. Does that mean parents have intellectual property rights in their children? After all, they created them.”

Since then, I’ve had some thoughts on that.

Parents can’t own their offspring, regardless of their labor they exerted  and “tools” they used, because their “product” happens to be another separate, individual human being.

Human beings inherently have natural, inalienable rights, among them the rights to life and liberty. Part of the right to life and liberty is the right of an individual to self-ownership. The right to self-ownership begins when the human being begins. But when does the human being’s life actually begin?

At the time of the  Roe v. Wade decision, the concept of “personhood” was brought up by Justice Harry Blackmun:

“(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

I’ve seen references to “personhood,” “viability,” “sentience,” and “consciousness, “  and I have some questions.

What is the viability of a born baby? If baby is left alone for a particular amount of time, one cannot survive for very long, because at that early stage of development one is dependent on one’s caretakers for feeding. The same can be said of a 2-year-old, maybe even older children, although the older the child, the more able one is to go out and seek food, unless one is locked inside and can’t get out. Is there a difference between the viability of a born individual and an unborn individual (at whatever stage of development)?

What about “sentience” and “consciousness?” How do we know whether or not a two-month-old “fetus” or a 2-day-old “fetus” can have any physical sensation or conscious awareness? If it is important whether or not that individual has sentience or consciousness in considering whether that individual has any right to life and liberty, and self-ownership, then, what about a born human being or a grown adult who has a neurological disorder and has no “sentience” or who is in a “persistent vegetative state” and has no consciousness, but is still “alive” (or can be kept alive via artificial means)?

I can’t say for sure that a human life begins at conception (although I believe that to be the case and have believed that for 20 years now), but I can sure say without any doubt that, IF a human life begins at conception, then self-ownership begins at conception. And IF that actually were the case, then those of the female gender would have an extra burden–and responsibility–that those of the male gender just don’t have.

* Update, October 2014: Broken link preserved at the Wayback Machine.

Right to Bear Arms, Individual Rights, Public Health Hysteria and the Police State

Here is a question about the Second Amendment, which protects our right to bear arms, a right the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed as an individual’s right, particularly associated with one’s right to defend oneself from the aggression of others. However, the court specifically referred to the right existing within “one’s home.”

My question is this: If there are laws that forcibly disarm a citizen while outside of one’s home, such as while walking in public areas, and that citizen is attacked by some assailant and killed because of being disarmed by the state and thus unable to defend himself, the officials who engaged in that legal disarming, such as the legislators and the mayor or governor who signed it into law, can’t be charged with “aiding and abetting” or being “accessories” because of lack of “intent,” but can they be charged with “involuntary manslaughter?”

Didn’t the Founders create our Constitution and the Bill of Rights with the intention of protecting the individual from the state?

What would the American Founders have done if there were a “Royal Gun Control” policy? Would the Revolution have been possible?

Here is Will Grigg on some issues with local police in Support Your Local Sadist.

In Massachusetts, a bill passed both houses of the legislature in response to H1N1 Flu pandemic hysteria, that will give “authorities” the power to, without warrant, forcibly enter private homes of people suspected of having that illness, and either force vaccinations or “quarantine” them if they refuse, or they would face heavy fines and/or imprisonment. I don’t know if Gov. Patrick has signed it or intends to. It depends on how pro- or anti-civil liberties he is.

It is interesting how people on the left and Democrats were in the past very pro-civil liberties and individual rights. I think that’s changed.

And, with any further government or Federal government control over the entire health and medical care system, the police state mentality and hysteria might very well increase.

Michael Moore’s “Capitalism”

September 8, 2009

It is not surprising to see  someone like Michael Moore with a new film depicting the Wall St. Bailout as a “capitalist” action by government. He is displaying gross ignorance, which is typical of the Left.

And come and gone was the  controversy of Van Jones, described by some as a “communist,” as several of President Obama’s cronies have been described, such as long time Obama supporter and friend Bill Ayers, who described himself as a “small ‘c’ communist.”

There is little difference between communism and socialism, except that communism supposedly is the desired end result of a progressively socialist society (which is what ours is now, and getting worse), with the state having complete ownership of and control over all property and the means of production, which includes the people.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is a system in which the rights of the individual are recognized and protected by government. The United States is unique in that regard, in which we have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights, a document on which laws were to be made to protect those individual rights and, as declared in the Declaration of Independence, our natural “rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Capitalism is an economic system which recognizes those individual rights and private property rights and the right of freedom of trade and commerce. By its very nature, a socialist system violates those rights of private property and voluntary free trade, and, since the means of production includes the people, it therefore is a system of collective ownership of individual people and thus erases any idea of “individual” rights.

In socialism, the individual is owned by the collective and thus does not have any right to one’s own life and liberty. In socialism, the individual is a slave of the collective and of the state; only in capitalism does freedom of the individual exist.

Michael Moore does not realize that it is because of capitalist freedom that he earns a big profit from his films, from the people who voluntarily pay money to see them. That is an example of voluntary free trade among individuals that the force of socialism destroys.

However, because our country is a “mixed economy,” with some capitalist free trade allowed by the government, and some socialist-forced government confiscation of private wealth and earnings, half of Mr. Moore’s earnings are forcibly confiscated by the armed force of government and then redistributed to Wall St. executives and Big Banks and Big Finance and Big Mortgage, etc. That’s Socialism, NOT “capitalism”!

Mr. Moore and others would benefit by reading Mises’s Human Action and Socialism, Rand’s Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, and Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.

“Promote the General Welfare”

While Walter Williams filled in for Rush Limbaugh yesterday, a caller asked about the phrase “promote the general welfare” in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution.

I don’t know if the Founders meant by “promote” anything other than to advance or to further, but I see the word “promote” as in Merriam-Webster’s 1st definition,”to advance in station, rank or honor.” Maybe one can compare that to being “promoted” at one’s job. For example, the Founders created the Constitution “in order to,” among other things, “promote the general welfare” of the people of the United States, or to raise the standard of living as well as level of freedom of their posterity. Of course, when the very government the Founders created, which is sworn to uphold that very Constitution and its stated purposes in the Preamble, enacts laws and restrictions on the citizens’ freedom and creates burdens on Americans and siphons from them the fruits of their labor, then such a government is then violating the concept of “promoting” the citizens’ standard of living and their “general welfare,” and is thus demoting them.

There was so much progress in the 19th and 20th centuries, but then our Federal government inflicted  Americans with the income tax, and then created the Federal Reserve, and then the fascist New Deal, and several wars, etc.

Governments in America have caused the demoting of Americans, and we really must get back on track by dismantling all the enslavements and impoverishments that government has caused.