27 Friday Oct 2017
Posted in Legal/Political Columns
≈ Comments Off on The Idol vs. The Engine
Nothing to do with cars.
Jesús Huerta de Soto’s interesting and relevant essay excerpts: Classical Liberalism versus Anarchocapitalism: from LRC.
“The state has become the “idol” everyone turns to and worships. Statolatry is without a doubt the most serious and dangerous social disease of our time.”
Because nothing says, “Good Morning, Friday,” like a good old political theory essay.
“We’re all career-sadists, now.” – Unknown Politician.
17 Friday Jun 2016
Posted in Legal/Political Columns
≈ Comments Off on Gun Control: The Great Divide (Over Nothing)
Tags
America, anarchy, CIA, Congress, Constitution, crime, evil, freedom, government, gun control, Gun Control Act, guns, H.L. Mencken, Hitler, ISIS, law, National Firearms Act, Natural Law, Obama, politics, Second Amendment, statism, terrorism, The People, War, Washington
Mass shootings, terror attacks, and assassinations always prompt a heated national “discussion” on the matter of firearms and firearms control (the private ones, mind you). As with any important issue there are many competing ideas and angles though there are two predominant groups that get attention – pro-gun control and anti-gun control. While I am solidly in favor of the private ownership and use of firearms, my anarchist disposition gives me a unique, almost outside view.
As I see the current debate one side, the gun controllers, really want a complete ban on all private firearms though they present their ideology in terms of “responsible”, incremental measures designed only to ensure safety. The other side, the NRA side, nominally defends the Second Amendment while agreeing to many of the same incremental controls sought by the other side. I see both groups ultimately seeking to use the power of government to advance their own agendas and the agenda and existence of the government itself. They are both allied with the state. I have no use for any of them.
Some of the gun grabbers are blatant about their ultimate aim – Rolling Stone called for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Other grabbers pretend to agree that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms while insisting that those arms never be used for defensive purposes.
The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights. In addition, one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm.
The author of this insane Huffington Post statement wants to alter, rather than abolish, the 2A in order to nullify it. The author takes into account only those relatively few crimes committed and lives lost to the illegal use of guns. Considered in totality, privately owned guns save far more lives every day and every year than they take. Then again, by this man’s standards, each such lawful defensive usage constitutes a deprivation of the original aggressor’s right.
The only thing I can think of to attempt to justify this kind of logic is that this fellow obviously worships the government as a god and regards laws as a religion. Like a Natural Law theorist, he seeks to conform all positive law to the designs of and the adoration of his god. He would happily place the primacy of the state over the lives of human beings. He is a statist’s statist. Some on the other side do a good job of refuting this nonsense:
We have a government here that is heedless of its obligation to protect our freedoms. We have a government that, in its lust to have us reliant upon it, has created areas in the U.S. where innocent folks living their lives in freedom are made defenseless prey to monsters—as vulnerable as fish in a barrel. And we have mass killings of defenseless innocents—over and over and over again.
How dumb are these politicians who want to remove the right to self-defense? There are thousands of crazies in the U.S. who are filled with hate—whether motivated by politics, self-loathing, religion, or fear. If they want to kill, they will find a way to do so. The only way to stop them is by superior firepower. Disarming their law-abiding victims not only violates the natural law and the Constitution but also is contrary to all reason.
All these mass killings have the same ending: The killer stops only when he is killed. But that requires someone else with a gun to be there. Shouldn’t that be sooner rather than later?
The NRA is the poster child of the pro-Second Amendment movement. They are vilified by the New York Times:
What makes the legislative inaction all the more maddening is that there is general public agreement in favor of attempts like these to reduce the bloodshed. An overwhelming majority of Americans — including gun owners and even N.R.A. members — support universal background checks, while strong majorities want to block sales to suspected terrorists and ban high-capacity magazines.
And yet the N.R.A. rejects these steps, even though it says that terrorists shouldn’t be able to get guns. Instead, it clings to the absurd fantasy that a heavily-armed populace is the best way to keep Americans safe. That failed in Orlando, where an armed security guard was on the scene but could not stop the slaughter.
There is no truth to any of this dribble from the fallen Gray Lady. The worst of the lies is that the NRA is complicit with terrorism and that it blocks those “common sense” gun control measures. It does not. The NRA seems more than happy with the bulk of the existing gun control measure – all of them unconstitutional. While the NRA backs lawsuits to overturn various local measures, they roundly accept the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. Both of these laws treat all Americans like criminals and bar the easy or economical possession of the type of weapons actually protected by the Second Amendment.
The NRA also agrees with the opposition regarding the expansion of watch lists – to exclude terrorists from the gun pool of course, and no more… Their own words on the matter:
Fairfax, Va.— The executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:
We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.
This statement places the NRA (and Donald Trump by association) in the same position regarding gun control as Senate Democrats and the Obama administration – though the Executive seems a little at odds with itself as to how the proposed list measures would be (will be) implemented. Proposals to expand the “no-fly” list to cover firearms purchases has even drawn the ire of the ACLU as the list procedures (as they exists and as proposed) violate fundamental due process.
The NRA, Donald Trump, Hussein Obama, and their friends are all wrong. There is no due process at all concerning these controls. The new Senate proposal, S.551, mentions due process protection and then negates it in the same paragraph.
The government really has no dog in this fight as it is the primary creator and enabler of terrorism today. If not for the unceasing meddling and misadventure of the state there wouldn’t be any terrorists in our nation to worry about and no need for any lists nor for gun control.
A former CIA agent admits the government and the elites are the problem:
A former CIA counterterrorism agent has said it is time to talk about why terrorism really happens, and to address the “misguided narratives” that lead to oversimplification of the situation and continued war.
Amaryllis Fox worked on counterterrorism and intelligence in the CIA’s clandestine service for ten years. She told AJ+ that the beliefs surrounding terrorism are “stories manufactured by a really small number of people on both sides, who amass a great deal of power and wealth by convincing the rest of use to keep killing each other.”
Fox says the current conversation about Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in the US “is more oversimplified than ever.”
“Ask most Americans whether ISIS poses an existential threat to this country and they’ll say yes. That’s where the conversation stops,” she said.
Her observation echo what H.L. Mencken said about the government’s imaginary hobgoblins a century ago. Hitler concurred that terrorism (real or manufactured) is the best way to keep people panicked and, therefore, controlled. Gun control is about people control. Terrorism, war, and government in general are about creating and maintaining power for a few. It’s that simple. That’s what they’re working towards.
And, they are working hard. After Washington stirs up an already volatile region in begins to import the angered locals into America. Some really are hapless refugees. Others are terrorists – as the CIA admits. Oddly … or not, many of the recent notable terror suspects in America have had some ties to the CIA. This should raise serious questions and red flags about the state’s motives and how those motives negatively affect the rest of us – but it doesn’t. The bulk of the discussion put forward by either side of the political divide or by the government itself is: what else can the government do?
What they are doing is just more of the same. The people keep seeing their freedoms chipped away. The elites keep amassing power. The useless laws grow. The attacks, foreign and domestic, continue. They unvetted “refugees” keep pouring in – over 400 from Syria alone – since the Battle of Orlando this past weekend.
The horror and the comedy of the divide is how pointless it all is. Until the ridiculous, blasphemous, and hellish cult of government is dealt with, none of it matters.
Google.
18 Wednesday May 2016
Posted in Legal/Political Columns
Tags
America, anarchy, banksters, Constitution, crime, democracy, election, evil, Facebook, freedom, government, H.L. Mencken, math, murder, politicians, The People, voting, War
This morning I drove between two government welfare operations (a “school” and some sort of dance hall/basketball court). Dozens of merry-looking people lined the street (many of them heavily heavy) waving and holding signs proclaiming the need to vote for one criminal busybody or another. The otherwise pleasant neighborhood was clogged with hideous campaign signs. I waved at a few of the sign holders and laughed to myself.
Ah! Another election. Another chance for the slaves to make suggestions about their overseers. Another chance to remember Mencken: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Later at the supermarket I observed some of the overweight and/or disabled and/or EBT-empowered citizenry sporting cute little “I voted!” stickers. I am so happy for them. I’m glad they are proud they think they made a difference. I know they didn’t but it is good for folks to have something to believe in.
I believe in freedom. I have it. I have it because I take it. I do not need to waste time playing political games with people who despise me and who are not fit to shine shoes let alone hold important offices. I know the concept is so simple that it cuts against the grain of what most have been taught. I get it. They vote to feel comfortable. I say let them. I’m happy for that one in a million that finally notices that after election after election after election, after all the lies and broken promises – that nothing changes. It’s a rigged game and the house always wins. I’d love to see people stop playing. If everyone stopped the politicians and their false god would shrivel up and try to slink away by night.
Some people get militant about elections and “their” state. It is usually the militants. They are generally given to a particular faction. They even get militant about militancy – often in conjunction with their partisanship. Facebook provides a lot of examples. Take this one:
One sees the darndest things on Facebook.
This post is an attempted admonishment of people like me, insinuating that by not supporting the criminal regime we insult the memory of dead soldiers (valiant every one of them).
Let’s start with the picture. I said it was about partisanship. “Republicans who stay home elect Democrats.” I suppose this is not targeted specifically at me, the anarchist. Shame on the non-voting Republicans! Shame! But, what happens if they decide to vote and vote Democrat? What it the Democrats do the opposite? What if everyone stays home and nobody votes? Who cares, really? I’ve noticed over the long years that both parties tend to push the same thing – their god of omnipresent government. It never works out for anyone except the politicians, some bureaucrats, the banksters and other corporate criminal hacks. Again, why participate in such a stupid scheme?
For non-voting Republicans the shame goes deeper than just seeing the other team in office. “Keep this in mind when you turn your back on the millions who died to give and keep your right to vote as you choose to stay home and not vote.” Modern Republicans tend to be jingoistic and pro-military – to the point of making the armed forces a demi-god under almighty government. Support the troops!
As with the subject picture, this caption is complete and total bullshit. Millions did not die to give you the right to vote. But, if they did, then they also would have given you the right to not vote. Rights do not have to be used. The freedom thing again – to do or not to do as one chooses.
In fact, “millions” dying is a stretch to begin with. The author of the caption obviously means the millions of American soldiers who died. At the outside maximum only 1.354 Million men have died in all of America’s wars. Out of that number only 664,440 actually died in combat.
Who knew we were in the middle of Operation Inherent Resolve? Resolve what? To vote? Wikipedia.
Wikipedia lists about 80 American wars or conflicts. That’s about one war every three years since we told off King George. We’re a warlike people it seems. Most of those wars had absolutely nothing to do with voting. At best I would say three were somewhat election related and those are very complicated cases. The Revolution set us free from England. That war was over before the current Constitutional (ha!) form of government was created. The statutory right to vote, indeed the existence of the government for and under which to vote was not around when those 25,000 soldiers (maximum estimate) died. Can they really be counted for Facebook shaming purposes?
The English struck back in 1812. Presumably they did not want to deprive Americans of the right to vote; they just wanted to change the voting system. Do we include the 15,000 (maximum estimate again) who died fending them off?
Then there is the strange case of the Civil War. It wasn’t a civil war by definition – more a war to stop a second revolution. It wasn’t a declared war either. The “wisdom” goes that Lincoln couldn’t get a declaration of war against the Confederacy because that would have required a facial acknowledgment of the CSA as a distinct nation. Semantics and legalities aside, Lincoln killed a whole hell of lot of people. The War of Northern Aggression was America’s deadliest conflict to date. 214,938 men were known to have perished in combat and an estimated 750,000 died all toll.
Of course, those numbers have to be divided into two sides. 364,511 died fighting for Lincoln; 299,524 died for Davis and Co. (By government math those numbers add up to 750,000). If by modern geography I identify myself with the Confederate dead, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that the 364,511 Union troops died trying to take away my (my ancestors) right to vote? Oh yeah, all those marauding Union troops came to my family’s home under orders from a Republican. Details…
Going with the above supposition, I’ll count the 299,524 CSA dead along with the maximum estimates of those killed in the other two wars for a grand total of 339,524 dying for the right to vote. If you subtract the Union dead from that number (they did die trying to take away the right, right?), then the total number of dead soldiers deceased for the electorate is 24,987 – terrible, but not in the millions. If the Yankees run a similar scenario, they come up with another number nowhere near one million, let alone millions plural.
The other wars? No voting consequences. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War were arguably results of WWI and the awful aftermath. America entered WWI at the behest of bankers and other criminals who stood to make a lot of money. Ask Smedley Butler about that. The Germans did not ever want to take away your “I voted!” stickers. Neither did Ho Chi Minh. Saddam was no threat to the ballot. A huge number of our wars were fought against American Indians for the sole purpose of genocide (wave the flag about that). I cannot believe Wikipedia actually included the 34 killed on board the U.S.S. Liberty but, even so, those men died while minding their business in international waters while monitoring someone else’s war. No votes affected.
As sure as people will keep voting, America will keep on fighting more wars. I challenge the assertion that all those who died and those that surely will die deserve our respect (fighting for the vote or not). Columbia County, Georgia is a hotbed of pro-military, flag-waving, GOP voters. It is also the home of U.S. Army Sergeant Chris Muse. I have no idea if Sgt. Muse is willing to lay down his life in the very real possibility the Apache decide to attack an Evans polling place. I do know the police seem to think him capable of kidnapping and raping a 14-year-old girl. Should said girl’s parents thank Muse for his “service”? Should they go out and vote about it? Were I the girl’s father I would rather hang the criminal upside down and disembowel him with a rusty hacksaw. Then again, I am not a Republican.
This pitiful episode and others were about power, money and killing – not voting, freedom or slavery. Google.
No Republican nor Democrat nor any other fairy-tale believer am I. I am repulsed by the idea of giving my sanction to the government – the government known for wantonly killing at home and abroad for no other reasons than to exterminate Injuns and enrich slimy merchants. If you vote, you do so to honor murder and mayhem, not to honor the right of voting itself.
Keep yours ugly signs, your stickers, your child molesters, and your death merchants to yourself if keep them you must. Or, in the better alternative, join me in happy, unobtrusive freedom.
13 Friday May 2016
Posted in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes
≈ Comments Off on The Confessions of Congressman X
Tags
America, anarchy, books, Congress, crime, freedom, government, politicians, The People
The Confessions of Congressman X by “Congressman X” is a stunning tell-all tale due out on May 24, 2016. The anonymous author is either a sitting member of the Congress or a recently departed former member. What he’s saying, to me, is a confirmation. For others it may come as a stunning wake-up call (if they can hear it).
Mill City Press, Amazon.
If you’re still asleep, new to my site, or just arrived from outer space, know this: “you’re” elected officials (virtually all of them) think you are a stupid sheep; they care absolutely nothing about you except for use as a pawn in their crooked schemes for power and easy living. Consider the book’s description:
A devastating inside look at the dark side of Congress as revealed by one of its own! No wonder Congressman X wants to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. His admissions are deeply disturbing. . .
“Most of my colleagues are dishonest career politicians who revel in the power and special-interest money that’s lavished upon them.”
“My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything.”
“Voters are incredibly ignorant and know little about our form of government and how it works.”
“It’s far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification.”
“Fundraising is so time consuming I seldom read any bills I vote on. Like many of my colleagues, I don’t know how the legislation will be implemented, or what it’ll cost.”
“We spend money we don’t have and blithely mortgage the future with a wink and a nod. Screw the next generation. It’s about getting credit now, lookin’ good for the upcoming election.”
America, a “nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification.” I hate to think that this is how Democrats and Republicans look at their constituents but it is true. For their part the people tend to fit the description, especially if one adds to it: fat, slovenly, lazy, effeminate, soft, short-sighted, blind, and foolish.
Many thanks to Michael Snyder for bringing this work to my attention. I’m planning to get a copy, particularly if it is available on Kindle. I bet I already know 97% of what’s in it but, like I said, it is mere confirmation. You too should invest in a copy. 84 pages should be a quick read. I hope you get super angry. Then, I hope you get to work. These filthy psychopaths are the enemies of the free people.
The first step is to recognize that we have an enemy. The evidence is everywhere and on everything they touch. Second, we, all of us, must stop supporting these fiends and cringelings. Do not vote for them, talk to them, or wish them well. One doesn’t get termites out of the house by dividing them into two camps and picking one to coddle over the other. Like termites, we must be totally rid of this political pestilence. Either that or prove Congressman X and his friends right for eternity.
24 Thursday Dec 2015
Posted in Other Columns
≈ Comments Off on All But Dissertation
Tags
ABD, America, anarchy, college, communism, Diploma mills, education, Gary North, JD, Perrin Lovett, PhD, political science, political theory
A.B.D. has special meaning in the academic world. It stands for All But Dissertation and means a scholar has completed all work towards his PhD except for the final review of his primary research project. Universities advertise many professorships as open to ABDs so long as the candidate meets the other job requirements. Dissertation approval and granting of the actual degree is, of course, necessary.
I know this because I have applied for scores of academic jobs only to be declined every time. According to the American Bar Association a JD is equivalent to a PhD for teaching purposes. Most hiring committees have a different view. In reality they want a professor with a terminal degree in the exact discipline taught. I almost exclusively applied for political science positions so I understand my handicap. That, and my personal political philosophy is at odds with most American faculties: me, anarchist; them, communist.
At any rate I am not hurt in the least by this quandary. In fact, I’m kind of happy about it. I’m not alone either. There is a glut of advanced degrees out there destroying the market. There are shocking figures about PhDs taking jobs as waiters, bartenders and truckers. Others turn to alternative disciplines. My writing career is my alternative to teaching and to law.
Gary North faced a similar situation decades ago. He just wrote an enlightening and somewhat damning article on the experience.
Certification vs. competence: Which is it to be? Of course, it would be nice to have both, but Christian colleges are strapped financially, and they cannot afford both. In fact, given the nature of bureaucracies, especially academic bureaucracies, they cannot be sure of anything except certification. There are no measurements of academic competence that are easily examined, since each field is so specialized that aging faculty members are hardly able to judge the competence of their younger, more energetic colleagues. If anything, competence in the classroom is a threat to the self-esteem of those who are tenured, and who also make the decisions. But certification upgrades their departments, and therefore lends prestige to them. What those doing the hiring really want is to hire new men with superb credentials and only mediocre performance subsequent to the earning of those credentials.
When I Didn’t Get Hired, North, Dec. 22, 2015.
Still, part of me wants a PhD in political science – political philosophy, specifically. I see three avenues for achieving this goal. I could return to school and earn a degree. I wrote a short time ago of my last failed attempt to do this. I spent seven years earning the two diplomas I have now. They sit in a box somewhere. This strategy isn’t likely to succeed. Neither is the second option – being gifted an honorary doctorate. I suppose I will have to wait and see if some university values my contributions to the liberty movement or my literary achievements enough for recognition.
BBA, JD, fishing tackle, etc.
I’m leaning towards option three – claiming or manufacturing a PhD. This is a very popular trend. Americans by the thousands are buying degrees online from diploma mills. Some use these credentials for fraudulent or criminal purposes. Not me. I’m putting my fraud out there now, before the fact. Nothing to hide. And for the degree I want I think I’ve already done the required research and work.
Some college professors admit that many of the “fake” degrees are not so far off the mark anyway. Many who pass successfully through “real” schools come out as dumb as they went in.
Here is my current idea. I may look through the political theory class offerings at MIT’s free course website and see how my experience and skills stack up. I may need a little legitimate brushing up. Then I will simply grant myself a title and print up a diploma. It can keep its predecessors company in that box – if I can find it …
As a Doctor of Law I can already proclaim myself “Dr. Lovett.” I do not but I might. I just might. Let’s just say I’m a JD, PhD (ABD).
All Bear Dissertation …
19 Saturday Dec 2015
Posted in Legal/Political Columns
≈ Comments Off on Rache the Vote!
Tags
America, anarchy, election, government, insanity, Obama, Paul Ryan, political parties, The People, voting, Washington
How can a place essentially named “Washing Town” contain so much filth? The only thing awash is the corruption.
The past two weeks have seen inordinate stupidity flow from D.C., even by D.C. standards. In response to terrorism against the people Hussein Obama and his administration announced they will crack down on the people (little more than racist gun nuts, you know). Obama is a Democrat. Democrat, got it. The opposite of a Republican. To demonstrate their oppositeness the Republicans, led by Paul “Blackbeard” Ryan, passed a budget funding everything Obama holds dear.
Funding for Obamacare? In there. Funding for Planned Parenthood? In there. Funding for more terrorists? In there. Bigger government? Got it. More debt? Check. More war? Bombs away.
There will soon be more terrorist “refugees” admitted to the Empire than there are Republican voters in Iowa. Soon there will be more laws than there are people in this nation. Two parties, one result.
The people love it! They don’t just tolerate the insanity, they demand it with religious zeal. In between drunken binges of fantasy football and the Kartrashians they root for their own servitude. David Shellenberger explains the process:
They claim that we consent to be governed, government is our servant, and “we are the government.” This would mean that we consent to domination by criminals, the criminals serve us, and we are part of the criminal enterprise.
They give money to politicians, financing criminal contenders. They enjoy politics, seeing competition among criminals as entertainment. They vote, encouraging the criminal enterprise. They make demands of government, begging the criminals for favors.
Shellenberger, The Absurdity of Tolerating the State, May 18, 2014.
Of course, all this will change for the best immediately after next year’s election. Just like last time.
Arrrrr. Avast thar, me tax slaves!
16 Wednesday Dec 2015
Posted in Legal/Political Columns
≈ Comments Off on Powers Vs. Rights
Tags
America, anarchy, Articles of Confederation, Bill of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Courts, fantasy, freedom, God, government, law, law school, Liberty, Lysander Spooner, monarchy, Natural Law, politics, republic, rights, States, The People
This post concerns the force and effect of the United States Constitution and similar documents. I’ll stick with the U.S. version for simplicity and because most state and many foreign constitutions are based on the federal version.
The old parchment is divided into several articles and subsequent amendments. Each of these deals with different legal concepts. Article One grants certain powers to Congress. Article Two does the same for the executive. Amendment Three prohibits the government from sheltering soldiers in your house during peacetime. There are seven primary articles and twenty-seven amendments.
Aside from formal division the Constitution may be properly divided into two parts. Good Constitutional Law professors cover this in first year law school. The notice is generally lost amid a mad scramble to interpret Byzantine case-law and make a living as an attorney. The lesson is almost completely unknown outside of law and political theory education.
The first effective feature of the Constitution is that is allows powers for the government. In fact the Constitution created the federal government. In 1789 those seeking strong central political control replaced the Articles of Confederation which had loosely united the several (and wholly independent) states for a very few mutually beneficial purposes. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, came along two years later as almost an afterthought.
The anti-federalists were concerned that certain fundamental rights needed official recognition and legal protection. Their theory was that a strong government, even of republican nature, could run roughshod over the freedoms of the people – like a dictatorial monarch. The amendments were added without much fuss as it was then concerned the new government, its keepers, and their successors would never seek to abridge such rights as freedom of speech, bearing arms, or freedom from illegal arrest and punishment. No one saw any harm in the additions.
The inclusion of those additional protections proved both prophetic and pointless. Those ten amendments and a few others comprise the other practical function of the Constitution – protection of individual rights.
In an ideal world government would only exist to protect people from those things they would be otherwise vulnerable to. The proper function of law and politics would be a careful balancing of the power of the government and the rights of the people. Powers versus rights. Some legal scholars still wax elegantly about the concept. Their conceptualization is largely just conceptual.
The new federal government lost little time in enacting various laws which curtailed individual liberty. The trend continues to this day in addition to the habit of constantly expanding the realm of federal authority light years beyond what the Constitution allows. The courts, allegedly the arbiters of the balancing test, have largely consented to this gross shift. They too wasted no time in inventing new authority for themselves – “judicial review” for example.
Any review usually ends up empowering the state. They are on the same team after all. The people, now bereft of representation and appellate avenues, are on the outside looking in. Lawyers gleefully await court decisions to tell them what laws really mean. The public, largely fat and ignorant, continues to support this corrupt system with astounding zealous patriotism.
As a result of all this what we are left with is a central government of unlimited power ruling over a nation of peasants who are happy to receive whatever liberty the rulers confer upon them. Every once in a while one or another branch kindly reaffirms some right. These are usually in trivial matters. However, the march to greater control never ceases. It works well as most do not favor freedom. Under the faux two-party system, most go along so long as their side wins on a somewhat regular basis.
In truth, they lose. We all lose. All except for the corrupt politicians and beaurocrats and their corporate crony enablers. The system is wrecked and bears nearly resemblance to even that central authoritarian regimes of the late seventeen Century let along an ideal state.
In modern reality ignorance abounds. Some speak of the right of the government to do some thing or the other. Governments have no rights as they are artificial constructs. Only human individuals have rights. These rights are natural, God-given. Governments can only protect or (more often) abridge those freedoms.
Others decry freedom outright. They declare the people have too many rights. For them, in their simple lives, they may be right. Argument for order and justice is lost on them and a waste of time.
There are those who indulge in the fantasy that a return to the original text and intent of the Constitution would usher in utopia. If this myth was anything but, I could agree with them. The federal government of 1791 would be infinitely better than what we suffer today. That of the Articles would be better yet.
The myth lovers assert the Constitution established a national government of limited scope. Maybe they are correct in theory. In real life no government worth its salt stays limited for long. Geometric growth of government is an iron law of political science.
So it is with freedom and central authority. Mencken.
Lysander Spooner said it best of the lost war of Rights versus Powers: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” He elaborated: “A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government.”
I find my view of anarchy criticized at times as belief in fantasy. It is said that men, by their very nature, cannot be trusted for long to maintain free, peaceful association and mutual respect. This, sadly, may be true. It, then, is also true that an honest man, desiring to remain free, cannot trust a government, any government. Belief in central authority is thus misguided. Tell you what, you have your fantasy and I’ll have mine. The rest of you have a choice to make: support powers or support rights.
30 Monday Nov 2015
Posted in Legal/Political Columns
Tags
Alan Watson, anarchy, attorneys, chaos, crime, education, evil, freedom, Golden Rule, government, J.R.R. Tolkien, law, legal theory, libertarians, life, Natural Law, Natural Rights, Perrin Lovett, philosophy, political science, politics, UGA
Some years ago I landed in what for me was probably the perfect legal position of employment. I took a job out of law school as a law clerk with a Georgia court. Law clerks review case file, do research and make recommendations to their judges.
My tenure went far beyond the norm. I was afforded the opportunity to wear many hats – each of which fitted me perfectly. I was able to indulge in a great breadth and depth of research with some publication to boot. I was granted the more prestigious title of Staff Attorney. I was also a registered lobbyist, working occasionally in pursuit of projects concerning the judiciary. I even filled in a few times on the bench.
Gravitating naturally towards research and writing and having almost total freedom with my time I began to explore additional opportunities of academic nature. My great interest is in freedom in and out of legal and political systems. I am a theorist. I learned towards some hybrid between legal theory and political philosophy.
The American Bar Association views a J.D. as the equivalent of a PhD for teaching purposes. Most non-law schools hold a different view. I realized I might benefit from another, specialized graduate degree. My choices as I saw them were either a Master of Law or LLM (in law a Master’s degree comes after the doctorate – yes, backwards) or a PhD in poly sci.
My school of choice, based on both reputation and logistics, was the University of Georgia. I had my own strict criteria concerning any entry into these programs.
The only LLM program in the world which interested me was at UGA. It was a directed study of comparative legal theories under the esteemed base master of such philosophy, Dr. Alan Watson. The only PhD I would consider was in political theory or philosophy and, with a concentration in natural law and libertarian/anarchist views.
I demanded, or would have, freedom to explore my own paths. I also included teaching experience as a must have.
My quest never got very far. In short order life dictated I abandon my beloved job and move to a less than desirable locale, practicing less than desirable law. Thus began my professional “downfall.” I ended up, for a brief time, a miserable prosecutor. When I could no longer stand that I entered private practice. Several were my shinning moments but I never regained even a shadow of my former fit and happiness.
Everything happens for a reason. Today, through my writing, I am finally able to pick up where I left off nearly a decade ago. This time, it’s my way on my own by necessity. One, I doubt there is any organized poly sci department in America which would or could house me. That’s fine – times have changed. Today we have YouTube and Udemy. Two, Alan Watson retired and took with him the last vestige of true legal study in the country. Again, I’m on my own. Autodidact or die …
I visited Watson’s office a few times back the. It was my intention to interview him and to be interviewed myself to check compatibility. Per my usual laziness I always showed up unannounced. He was never in. I have never met the man. Perhaps that all was a sign. My little daughter did accompany me on one visit – we had a great time – as such the trip was anything but a waste.
The political science department did receive me for an arranged visit. I toured the facility and we had a good discussion. There was a real chance things might have worked out. Nearly all the faculty members were “liberals” but they seemed to tolerate my extremism rather well. They were open to my ideas of a very loosely structured curriculum and my desire to teach while I worked. They also deemed an attorney in the department a plus. But, as I said, life intervened.
On my afore-mentioned tour I passed many faculty office doors. Many were closed. One was covered in signs and stickers. One of the stickers read: “Anarchy is better than no government at all.” That stuck in my jumbled mind. I think I used it as a title once …
“Anarchy” has various meanings to different people. Of late the term has been used to describe somewhat disruptive protestors of modern socio-economic life. These, to me, appear more like pro-communist or anti-capitalist activists than anything else. Communism is in my mind the polar opposite of anarchy. Then again, I don’t have a monopoly on the word. I suppose this crowd is descended from the mad bomb throwers of yesteryear.
Tolkien, a hero of mine, described his own political philosophy as anarchism. The specifically rejected the bomber disposition; rather, he merely wanted to leave others alone in exchange for equal treatment. This position is as close to my own as any.
Anarchy and “no government” as the door sticker alluded are often used synonymously. However, I don’t think they are one and the same.
Many consider anarchy the equivalent of chaos. To them it is the complete absence of any controls, political or societal, and could only lead to pandemonium. Their views are understandable. For 10,000 years we have been trained to accept some degree of authority outside of ourselves and over us. As society has evolved (or fallen) government and society have also become synonymous. They are not.
One can speak of the American or French or Japanese cultures and traits without the slightest regard for their respective governments. Government did not create the beauty of the natural world. Nor does it bring happiness to small family gatherings. Though they might claim otherwise, politicians had nothing to do with the development of symphony, football, pizza or the quiet enjoyment of an evening cigar.
Anarchy does represent a form of governance. It is one that stems from the natural freedom of association between civilized people. Heavy-handed policies, tactics, and laws are most unnatural. Too many repeat the phrase “government is a necessary evil.” At least they acknowledge the evil but the institution is just that – evil but unnecessary.
Think of anarchy as “Golden Rule” government. Each affords the other respect and vows not to violate the other’s rights and freedoms. Anarchy is freedom. Freedom is happiness.
Yes, not all people are civilized. Criminality is a continuing cost of original sin. Somewhere in time someone postulated the state’s main purpose was to protect the good people from the bad. History shows this premise is a total failure. Governments are typically the worst violators of freedom and dignity. They also have the nasty habits of coercing decent people into supporting and paying for their depravity and of criminalizing private attempts to disrupt real criminal activity.
In the absence of such retarded controls the free would be able to – individually or in concert – using their strength and conscious – shame, disrupt, or terminate undesirable elements.
Other things government is supposed to do, but which it can’t do well and did not invent, are better left to private cooperation. Roads, schools and defense are all possible without state intervention. And they all predate government.
Many a good, libertarian man I know have said to me (almost in desperation) “you have to have some government!” No, I do not. I have reached a point where I am content to manage my own affairs and relations. Perhaps they real mean “they have to have government.” They don’t. It’s the conditioning of 10,000 years at work which convinces them otherwise.
Anarchy isn’t better than no government. It is the best government.
Google.
Note: I realized upon finishing this one that it’s as much about me as my pet philosophy. The two seem intertwined. Funny. I don’t care much for structure and tend to live out a life of personal anarchy. I have to admit that for all the foibles it works out pretty well.
23 Monday Nov 2015
Posted in Legal/Political Columns
Tags
Amercia, anarchy, banksters, Barack Obama, Congress, Constitution, counterfeiting, Courts, crimes, Federal Reserve, fiat money, freedom, G. Edward Griffen, government, green space chickens, history, inflation, law, Lysander Spooner, money, piracy, President, regulation, Ted Cruz, terrorism, The People, treason, War
This article was featured on The Perrin Lovett Show (with usual amateur production, etc.).
The United States Constitution sets forth a very few enumerated powers for the federal government – 18 to 30 or so, depending on how one reads the text.Several others could be imagined given a certain degree of lucidity. The modern law and political crowd obviously has a very vivid imaginations.
“Our” government now involves itself in literally everything. The pretense of following the Constitution was long ago dropped in favor of a do-all, end-all, all things for all people nanny state. This proves, as Lysander Spooner noted toward the end of the 19th Century, the abject failure of the Constitution. Either it enabled the growth and development of the current system or it was powerless to prevent it. Either way a lost cause for the liberty-minded.
Amongst those few, ancient powers were the prohibition and prosecution of but three specific crimes. Others, a few, could, again, be imagined based on the surrounding text.
Insanity, rather than imagination, best describes the current vast expanse of federal criminal “justice.” Today there are something like 10,000 crimes in the federal code – not all of them are even contained in Title 18, criminal laws. If you have a system where laws escape their designated place, you then have a problem. Worse, the various federal administrative agencies – none of which are found in the Constitution – write a bazillion regulations every year. Many of these carry quasi-criminal penalties.
One gets the idea that any and everything is illegal in America. It is. Possessing a “short” lobster is illegal. Owning a flower banned by a foreign government is illegal. Installing a toilet with a decent sized water tank is illegal.
Few of these laws were enacted to preserve order or to protect the public. Rather, they are intended to promote the government’s over the populace. The people seem to approve. That is, until they find themselves on the wrong side of a federal courtroom.
The average American commits three felonies a day – usually with no intent. Most of these go unprosecuted. Most are never known. Even if a violation is disclosed it is rarely acted upon. It would be impossible to persecute 300 million citizens on a regular basis. Unnecessary too. Prosecution is selective at best. It’s designed to make examples to keep the people in line.
Again, it started out with but three crimes. All the rest were left to the states for enforcement by statute or under our English heritage of common law. While a few cases of the three original varieties occasionally come up, these crimes are almost completely committed, these days by the government itself.
Counterfeiting
“The Congress shall have the power …To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, Section 8.
You, dear reader, must be familiar with the concept of the counterfeiter. It’s some dude in a basement with a press and green ink or a high-end color copier, who manufactures fake twenties for use at the supermarket. This does happen. However, it is dwarfed by the scheme enacted by the government in 1913 through the Federal Reserve Act.
That Act created the modern central banking system. One of those thirty or so enumerated powers in the old parchment authorized only Congress to create currency. Said currency was to be based only upon the determined value of gold or silver. It was thus real money, linked to something of intrinsic value.
Via the Act Congress abdicated its authority to a private banking cabal. They were literally given a monopoly to print money. A tenuous link was, then, in place which, on the surface, to the Constitution and the gold standard. The Act’s original language stated the new federal reserve notes could be redeemed at any time for either “lawful currency” or precious metals. It was a sly admission the new notes were something other than lawful. Funny almost but deadly.
This cozy arrangement allows the government an endless supply of debt by which to prop up its income tax scheme and bottomless spending. The tax also, conveniently, came along in 1913. Like a plan or something.
The cabal benefits by being able to loan themselves and their friends an infinite amount of money. You may read all about this process, dubbed the “Mandrake Mechanism” in G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island.
The downsides for you are several. First, you endure the loss of Constitutional government – lost to a despicable gang of criminals. Second, you loss buying power to inflation. The more of something there is, the less each individual unit is worth. The more money the Fed prints, the less the money you have buys. Prices rise accordingly. Incomes are always the last to increase; they are perpetually behind the curve.
The Treasury still has the ability to print real money in addition to the Fed’s funny notes. The last time it did so was in the 1960s in a bid to boost currency circulation. The gold link was weakened during the great depression (by a Democrat administration) and severed entirely in the early 70s by Richard Nixon (a Republican) (2 parties, remember…).
Piracy
“The Congress shall have the power … To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations…” U.S. Const., Art.I, Section 8.
This was a serious issue for the young Republic, being tied to European trade. It’s still an important issue. Ask Captain Phillips about piracy in the 21st Century. Again, however, the actions of the central government eclipse anything done by the hook and parrot set.
The government does not roam the seas looking for vessels to raid. Well, actually, they do. Most of their pillaging and plundering is conducted on land though. Piracy is synonymous with stealing. What doesn’t the government steal?
They get your money through taxes, fees, and insidious inflation. They get your flowers, short lobsters, milk, and produce. They get your arms, legs an lives through their endless wars. They get your children with their mandatory non-education system. They get it all. Pipe up too loudly about this theft and they bring out the guns – piracy. Everything, everywhere, everyday.
Treason
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason…” U.S. Const., Art. III, Section 3.
With the exception of the “Civil” war the government does not conduct military operations against itself. Sometimes one wishes the opposite. They do occasionally make war on us: whiskey tax protesters, poor coal miners, displaced veterans, Indians, those of Japanese ancestry, churches, etc.
The real crime they commit – constantly – is giving aid to our enemies. Any enemy they can find so long as the free people suffer. Piracy and counterfeiting (see above) are two good examples. Another example is the absolute infidelity to the limits of the Constitution. Yet again, the majority of the people seem okay with the ridiculous overextension of state authority – so long as they get (or are at least promised) some goodies.
A great example from the news of late is the American warfare/welfare policy concerning Islamic terrorism. The military trots around the globe in search of crazed radicals. Rather than defeating them, they stir the boiling pot. This allows for wholesale spending of the fiat money. It also gives them graft to loot. It also angers the hell out of already dangerous peoples.
As if that isn’t bad enough Washington then imports as many “refugees” to the States as it can locate. Screening be damned, they have a Civilization to wreck.
If any outsider attempted such unimaginable terror, it would be considered an act of war. As is, I view it as an act of Treason. The people may not go along with this one much longer. Not when Paris-style theater and sporting outings become the norm. Not when Sharia law emerges from the 7th century into places like Dearborn and Omaha.
What if anything can be done? I think reform is not an option. Many of my conservative friends want a “return to the Constitution.” That means going back to a document that was roundly ignored the first time. At best, it would reset the clock. This time around there’s no assurance the demise (eternal) would take so long to happen. They could just use history as a blueprint.
Congress, the President (any President), and their friends in beaurocracy and banking are non to eager to give up all that power and fun. The Courts have long since rubber stamped the insanity. It’s all okay because of the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Welfare Clause, or the Santa Clause, or … Just because it just is.
Years ago, during a federal firearms case, I asserted the government’s lack of authority over firearms law as a defense for my client. I moved the court to dismiss the charges for lack of standing. I reminded the judge about Article One enumeration. I waived a copy of the parchment around like a fan. As I spoke there was a stunned silence. Attorneys are not supposed to uphold the law as I did literally.
My motion was denied instantly. My client took a plea deal and voided any chance of an appeal. Any appeal would have failed anyway. Law and order minus the law part.
These are not only my experience. Ted Cruz, whom I’m told is running for President, accessed the White House of ‘Counterfeiting Immigration Documents’
Given what we know about government, they probably did. They’re obviously getting away with it. This was a story about immigration too. Perhaps the merging of Treason and counterfeiting.
Speaking to Fox News following a federal judge’s decision to temporarily halt President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration, the potential Republican presidential contender said the commander in chief is ignoring federal law.
“One of the things it points out is the president has claimed, rather absurdly, that the basis of his authority is ‘prosecutorial discretion.’ That he’s simply choosing not to prosecute 4.5 million people here illegally,” Cruz told Fox News. “But what the district court concluded, quite rightly, is they’re doing far more than that. The administration is printing work authorizations. It is affirmatively acting in contravention of federal law. Basically, what its doing is counterfeiting immigration documents, because the work authorizations its printing are directly contrary to the text of federal law. It is dangerous when the president ignores federal law.
…
“We’re not going to disregard this federal court ruling,” Obama said, but he added that administration officials would continue to prepare to roll out the program.
We’re not going to ignore the law, we’ll just not abide by it. To hell with it… That, in a nutshell, is the government. What can be done? Not much right now. For starters though we could all cease to hold the state up on a pedestal of honor. The gallows would be more appropriate. Stop legitimizing the monsters. Shun the long enough and maybe they will go away.
Arrrrrrr. Ye taxes and short lobsters I shall have! Disney.
04 Wednesday Nov 2015
Posted in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes
≈ Comments Off on Meet The New Boss …
Tags
anarchy, Congress, economy, GOP, government, healthcare, militia, Paul Ryan, taxes, The People, welfare
These days I watch as little television as possible. With a few (very few) exceptions there just isn’t anything worth seeing. Tonight’s experience is a good example. I passed by the TV after dinner and decided to watch for a minute. A minute was all they got too.
Google Images.
Paul Ryan, the newly ordained 54th Speaker of the House of Representatives, was interviewed by some lady on Fox News. Young Master Paul was glibly gibbering on about the new direction he was going to head us in. Before I left, disinterested and a little angry, I caught four of his plan points, posed as questions. I’ll paraphrase them as best as I recall:
What are we going to replace Obamacare with?
What new tax system will we develop?
How do we get people off welfare?
How do we get people working?
I have an answer for each of these quandaries; I’ll get to them shortly. First, isn’t this amazing? This Speaker reminds me of the one before, and the one before him, and the one before her, and on and on. These are the same pet issues the GOP has talked about for decades. They’ve done nothing more than talk. I suppose this rote, broken record is entertaining enough for the average voter. A person of substance, looking objectively at what has been done (rather than said), would get the idea the people are being played for fools.
It is clear as a bell the GOP and their Donkey friends intend to keep things just as they are – only the form or name may change slightly. The effects will be the same. “Replace” Obamacare. With what? A “new” tax. Why?
I walked by a minute later and heard Paully say “military” – another Republican pet project we can’t afford. That’s all I heard. I assume he wants to keep it. Maybe make it bigger. And, lordy, it needs regular u$e.
My four answers:
Repeal Obamacare (and Medicaid, Medicare, etc) and replace it with … NOTHING!!! Government’s century-long meddling in healthcare has done nothing but drive prices into orbit. Leave patients and doctors alone.
How about NO TAXES!!! Taxes support governments. The money is always better off in the hands that earned it. Leave people’s money alone.
To end welfare (all of it – farm subsides, bank bailouts, etc), ABOLISH IT!!! If you pay folks not to work, many won’t. The same goes for corporations, bankers and ranchers. Leave the economy alone.
Want people to work? Leave that to them and leave them alone.
I have a military answer too: A MILITIA!!! A militia is just citizens protecting their own. A standing army wastes money and lives invading other nations. Leave the world alone.
There. I solved everything. I could have done it in three words: eliminate the government.
PERRIN LOVETT 
You must be logged in to post a comment.