Tag Archives: libertarians

Flying High in New Hampshire

15 Monday Mar 2021

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Flying High in New Hampshire

Tags

, ,

The LP in NH is still smoking MJ promoting flying cars?!

There’s a boldness to New Hampshire, a willingness to roll the dice, and I’m tuned into it because I live here in a small town, and I bump up against the spirit of innovation all the time. Once, I was in a quandary over how to get my aging Subaru past inspection, even though one taillight was dangling inside its cracked housing. The attendant at my local dump had an idea: “Just Super Glue the f— out of it, brother,” he said. I did, and it worked.

Back in 2001, a few libertarian visionaries latched onto New Hampshire’s possibilities and resolved to launch what they called the Free State Project, aiming — in the words of their guru, libertarian theorist Jason Sorens — to “establish residence in a small state and take over the state government.” While the takeover is pending, the FSP has surpassed its initial goal of luring 20,000 partisans. Among the emigres was Ammon, the Pal-V sales rep, who moved here with his wife Susan in 2009.

The Free State Project is as dead as anything else the pot party touches, as seen by more Massholes moving to the Granite State than free-trading atheists. But, the idea of a $400,000 operational flying car might work. Again, I’ve been waiting a LONG time, though I will believe it when I fly it.

What Principle? Breaking Libertarian

22 Friday Jan 2021

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on What Principle? Breaking Libertarian

Tags

, , ,

I was once one, kind of. While I never joined their Party (or any other), I did for the longest time consider the libertarian philosophy superior to the perceived alternatives. What was I? A conserva-tarian? Something like that – a traditionalist who embraced freedom. In many ways, that’s still me and, in many ways, some libertarian values are still noble, virtuous. But, as a Party and as a core set of principles, the LP and the associated doctrine are both meaningless, misguided, and as dead as communism or conservatism.

The world is and has been a battlefield of good versus evil, as currently represented by nationalism v globalism. I recently described libertarianism as a friendly face for globalism as sold by and to stoners. That’s a little rough, but it is accurate.

Christian Nationalism is the only representative brand that makes sense to and for me, for my People. Former libertarian Vox Day has taken that path; recently, he heralded another former libertarian for also doing so:

Atheism is the bedrock of Libertarianism.

The iron clad belief that there is only the self and that there is no one to stand in judgement over your life but the self that you created. This is the foundation for that entire school of thought. Atheism is not an optional extra if you are a true capital “L” Libertarian, it’s required.

Thus we hit the fundamental flaw; if there is only the self…then why have children? The future belongs to those who show up and Libertarians breed like progressives. One child per couple leads to extinction in four generations.

And then there is the Libertarian mindset.

In general, he’s right about the atheism, which couples well with globalism, which is a soft selling of satanism. (If you just missed the “In general,” then pack up and leave my blog). It all goes the same way and serves the same master.

Let’s take a deeper look. Immediately after the January 6th peaceful protest against democracy theft and nation-wrecking at the Imperial Capital, the LP released this statement:

On Wednesday, January 6, as the U.S. Capitol building was being breached, Libertarian National Committee Chair Joe Bishop-Henchman issued the following statement:

“This is not patriotism. This is not protesting. This is reprehensible violence and aggression and needs to stop now. We hope safety for all those who work in the Capitol.”

Since the party’s founding in 1971, a core belief that has bound Libertarians together is the principle of non-aggression in the pursuit of political and social goals. To achieve membership in the national party, prospective members must affirm their pledge to such effect.

When all else fails, all legal avenues fail, what else is left but (peaceful, in this case) action? In honesty, the standard libertarian response is to smoke a joint. They shun action. But, then, there’s the hindering “pledge.”

“YES, sign me up as a member of the Libertarian Party. To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”

No thanks. Such certification is unAmerican, anti-Western, and anti-Christian, in addition to being unmanly. The peaceful protest in question happened in a city named after a general who went to war against his own king. Would the LP have had Washington sit on the banks of the Delaware smoking dope? (Yes).

What do they, the LPers, say today?

The Libertarian Party (LP) is your representative in American politics. It is the only political organization which respects you as a unique and responsible individual.

Our slogan is that we are “The Party of Principle”, because we stand firmly on our principles.

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference into their personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

– WHAT IS THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY? (ABOUT)

Missing the concept of nationalism, these otherwise decent folks miss the character of “Americans.” I hate to say it, but they are disingenuous in that regard: they know who the American People, the Posterity, really are. A look at the first picture on their Platform Page reveals as much – Libertarians are almost exclusively White Europeans, a little better off and softer in general than the average, though they will readily deny the same is true (“b-b-but, we have that one black kid!” – the fact of “that one” escapes them). This exclusivity helps explain why libertarianism is popular nowhere else in the world, another fact they would likely deny.

They roundly deny reality, even as many of their positions are universal and admirable. Some, however, are dead giveaways of misunderstanding or, worse, deception. Just a few terminal examples from the LP Platform:

1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Any person of conscience can just stop here. What “good-faith” is there on the side of those who murder babies? Only in the inverted sense of serving satan could such an argument continue. This fits well with the above observation about general libertarian atheistic, nihilistic solipsism.

2.0 ECONOMIC LIBERTY

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

“Free trade” sounds dandy and, if it were limited strictly to people of the demographics of the LP, then it might be doable. Here on Earth, however, it is now a proven failure. Things were outside the libertarian scope of understanding in 1971; they are completely different fifty years later. Were full free-trade implemented, then half of all people under the age of forty would have to move internationally in order to find ANY employment of any kind. This is globalism, the destruction of people, families, communities, and nations. By the way, communism is actually better in this regard because, while it seeks to control a nation, sometimes by very heavy-handed tactics, it does not intend to destroy the nation. This is why, after decades of Soviet communist control, Poland emerged as Poland. By comparison, the United States, after decades of globalism, emerges into mass, multi-party civil war with very little of the old American (British/Euro) Nation left in it. More along those lines in a moment.

2.7 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Markets are not actually free unless fraud is vigorously combated. Those who enjoy the possibility of profits must not impose risks of losses upon others, such as through government guarantees or bailouts. We support ending federal student loan guarantees and special treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy proceedings. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

This statement, while simple, is admittedly better than anything from the Uniparty. However, while dancing around it, faithlessly, it completely misses the point. All usury is fraudulent. All usury is a sin, a form of slow, partial (or sometimes complete) murder. They can say “free” and “muh Constitution” all they like; there is no money at all in the dying USA, such having been replaced exclusively by fake debts based on nothing. As with abortion, do they find a “good-faith” view on this pro-murder side? According to Murray Rothbard and a few other, late libertarian leaders, the answer was “yes,” in that one may freely contract for things like student loan murder. That is as utterly wrong as their lazy, tactic defense of infanticide: fraudulent contracts are void, and one cannot contract legally for fraud and criminal activity.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Here we go again, with Free Trade, coupled with her hideous stepsister, migration. Mass migration is war. In fact, it is worse than violent open warfare, because it slowly, permanently changes or destroys the nature and character of nations. Someone made the distinct nations pursuant to His plan for mankind. We are assured they will even exist in Heaven. Those who actively seek to corrupt or destroy the separate nations seek rebellion against the will of God.

That rebellion is precisely what led the nation wreckers to change US immigration law in 1965, setting about the largest, least compatible movement of peoples in recorded history. It is only to be expected that there has been a marked decline over the past fifty-five years. Briefly put: some people are more compatible than others. Viewing the matter through the bleary-eyed rubric of libertarian economics, which ignores much else, similar European people are a slight benefit to the US. East Asians are likewise beneficial, or else a breakeven proposition. All others, constituting the vast majority of new arrivals, are a massive gross and net drain on the US economy.

More importantly, non-Westerns bring cultures and values that do not belong in the US and do not fit well (or at all) with those of the Americans (a “race” defined, by the way, in the Declaration of Independence, the Holy Constitution, the debates and discussions thereon, early naturalization laws, and the 1828 Webster’s dictionary). In short: import the third-world, become the third-world. This explains why the US now resembles the third-world.

By way of analogy, that it might be better to read sober – thus passing over most libertarians, it would be like the hyper-majority White LP membership with their “principles,” etc, being overrun by Black socialists, who upon obtaining sufficient numbers, then rewrite the LP’s Platform to exclude dope and mandate political violence. Here, I should mention the old adage that a libertarian is really just a Republican who wants to smoke dope. (Har, har!)

There’s much more, but most of it fits with the whimsical, reality-averse nature of the foregoing. The only paradigm that serves the West is one that honors the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. A first step would be to admit who and what “the West” is.

For all my libertarian friends, especially those who have recently announced their rerun to the big-L Party, please snuff out the doobies, sober up, and reread this piece. To my disaffected Republican friends, hinting of finding a greener political pasture, the LP isn’t it. To all, given what has unfolded during this election cycle, consider that (without resort to the use of force – or supernatural intervention) no political party outside the confines of the globalist Deep State is likely to ever again field successful national candidates or make policy. The days of free, fair, and honest elections and politics, are, like the American Nation and its monolithic, high-trust, homogenous character and values, things of the past.

Hey! In part, I was only kidding. You free-trading, free-loving libertarians go right ahead and light one up. You might as well.

Feeling Left Out

01 Tuesday Dec 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Feeling Left Out

Tags

, , , ,

Almost every Libertarian I have ever known has been good and decent. Here, a good and decent Libertarian writes a good and decent article about how his party was left out once again in the 2020 election (which the AP has called for Joe Biden if you didn’t know). Nothing from any big-L Libertarian would be complete without mentioning dope; this one does not disappoint.

Voters, “perhaps those with a libertarian streak, in red and purple states such as Arizona, South Dakota, Mississippi and Montana voted to relax their drug laws and reject the status quo,” Zachary Siegel noted for NBC News.

Libertarians “got almost everything they wanted,” Liz Mair wrote in The New York Times in a piece that anticipates Republicans holding the Senate.

The weed is legal! Hooray! Why the long faces about the grip of the Uniparty? When Tulsi Gabbard and Ron Paul have no places and little support in the mainstream, then, yes, libertarianism is dead on arrival. Light one up and chill out, maaaan. Or, understand that civil nationalism, R, D, or L, is dead too. If it’s us versus them, then it’s nationalists versus globalists. And the globalists still have everyone thinking in terms of right, left, and dope.

Only a Political Theory

14 Monday Sep 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Only a Political Theory

Tags

, , , , ,

And not really a competent one at that. So much I noted this weekend in my impromptu discourse on the failure of libertarianism. Today, someone else almost agrees with my differentiation between the political and the cultural:

Libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.

The people in the LP have some almost (non) religious hangup about nonviolence. Their long list of anti-principles is great as to and between civilized people living harmoniously. However, that’s not the history of the world and especially not the current state of the dying US. A political theory that takes no stand, stands no chance.

Libertarianism, along with modern titular liberalism and conservatism, is an offshoot of the Enlightenment, a grand attempt to outwit God or to fool the people into believing that such a feat is possible – even good. All of it is now openly laid bare as a failure. As Karl Denninger noted on Friday, the age of reason is over. It has been for a long time.

We live in an age of witchcraft, driven by technology.

The age of reason has failed and we stand on the edge of a new Dark Age.

Read the whole thing. It’s most apropos that he frames the narrative in terms of the Hoax of 2020, which I’ve been all over from the start. Does anything that’s happening this year strike you as remotely reasonable? “Reason” isn’t because it has been delinked from the truth. The talk of a dark age is disconcerting but accurate: I’ve been making mention of the same for years, here for example in 2017.

Call the age what you will, fun times are here – with more on the way.

The Decline and Fall of the Libertarian Party

13 Sunday Sep 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

I decided to make time to expound upon yesterday’s post. And, WP reminded me that, back in 2016, I made what was possibly my last exploration of the national LP alternative – a long shot then which, beyond the pondering, I had nothing to do with. And, back then, a friend, whom I’ll label as a neocon(?) pointed out that the LP’s platform was at best a pleasant fantasy. He was right.

Again, it was Charles Burris’s article at LRC that got me thinking about all of this.

The possible future viability of the LP ended in 1988. It blew it for both objective and subjective reasons. Objectively because of many missed opportunities related to the end of the Cold War and dynamic changes in American political culture during the Bush-Clinton-Bush years were ignored; and subjectively due to internal LP organizational disputes, poor leadership and the widespread delusion of selecting former GOP “libertarian sounding” congressmen or governors as presidential candidates would be the mainstreaming expedient to fast track electoral success.

But first, the almost-accurate joke version of what did the LP in – marijuana. Regardless of their other stated positions, the one thing almost all (L)ibertarians were (and are) after is the high of THC. Glassy-eyed, they speak of taxes, non-aggression, foreign policy, etc, and then always return to legalizing weed. Excuse me! Decriminalizing it. Big difference. I don’t know if they’ve been sober this century, but, the non-enforcing feds and just a couple of holdout states aside, pot is practically legal from coast-to-coast. Mission accomplished, guys! Great job. What else do you have? That’s right, nothing.

This, and a few other things, is what killed the Free State Project in NH. That’s where a libertarian, trans-whatever, satanic priest(est??) just got him/her/itself on the ballot as a Republican’t for Sheriff in Keene. Congratulations, again, pot-heads: you opened the gate, and the crazies and half of Massachusetts moved in. Good job!

Seriously, now: Burris is almost right about the causes. In fact, he is right tactically and in part strategically. However, he missed the logistical point. Like most LP national candidates, Hon. Ron Paul had no chance with only 46 states allowing him on the ballots and a 0.5% total vote tally. Even if he had won and became our 41st President – and wouldn’t that have been better than what we got??? – it most likely would not have made a difference. That is because RP (as great as he is) and the entire libertarian “philosophy” was wrong for the country, then and now.

We’ve been under attack as a people and a nation for, take your pick: 50 years, 100 years, 150 years, or longer. By 1988, the damage was done and it was time for emergency restorative action. This had very little to do with practical politics, economics, or smoking dope, which is what you-know-who almost exclusively focuses on. Excepting the green leaf, I made the same mistake for years.

But, the real issues, critical in 1988, and terminal now, are and were purely cultural and spiritual. There was no political fix, though back then, the right fix would have helped, given the honest people a chance to recover. And “right” means a return to Western nationalism, not libertarianism. The LP never even offered a glimpse of a realistic alternative.

What could have worked? Christianity, first and foremost. (I hear the calls that one cannot legislate morality. True, but one can legislate against immorality). The mass expulsion of non-Westerners would have gone a long way – including, and especially, those who gave us so much cultural degeneracy and usury. Terminating, by any means necessary, the debt-based economy. Retaking the besieged institutions and expelling the walking siege engines. If this sounds a little like a revolution, then it should be obvious that, even as they quote the rhetoric of the bold men of the 1776 original, the party with an oath against action was never the party for the job.

Neither, certainly, was the GOPDNC uni-party. Perhaps Carlin was correct when he said, “this is the best we can do…” The LP had no real answers. A pseudo-philosophy that only appeals to certain members of the dwindling Posterity was doomed from the start. If the demographics had adhered to those of the holiest and most-revered Constitution, the Declaration, and the laws, circa 1790, then said philosophy could have formed a potential basis for guidance (in my mind, so long as it was subordinated to a pursuit of Natural law in the exclusively Christian sense). But that, none of it, happened.

I imagine that I have at least a few ever-optimistic, possibly high, libertarian-leaning friends who would still say that the argument could be made that libertarianism is still the future savior of what’s left of the US. I’m not trying to be mean, but go to any preschool or a psych ward and one will hear all kinds of arguments being made.

If you’re a libertarian, with an “L” large or small, then know that, as with most people, what’s happened isn’t your fault – at least the majority of it. Should you want to do your part to salvage something out of the collapsing ruins, then: 1) cease and desist with the MJ!, and: 2) bend a knee to Christ and then rise, hard right.

The Libertarian “Response”

11 Saturday Apr 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on The Libertarian “Response”

Tags

, ,

Much like conservatives, when it comes down to it, libertarians have few if any principles.

“Libertarian though I may be, this is the right thing to do but, my goodness, we ought not to allow this situation to endure one moment longer than is absolutely necessary to save lives and preserve jobs,” he said last month. “We are implementing tonight in this bill at least a dystopian society.”

Libertarian principles of self-reliance and minimal government have been around for centuries. But they are being tested as never before in a time when much of the world, and many of their adherents, see a clear role for government restriction on basic liberties.

Blah, blah, blah – we all know where this is going: they’ll recommend more weed.

Anarchy Is Better Than No Government At All

30 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

2000px-BlackFlagSymbol.svg

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.

Political Party Time!

24 Sunday May 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Political Party Time!

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I hate politicians.  In Christian terms it is wrong to hate any man.  Politicians are less men than rodents.  Thus, I feel exonerated in my feelings.  Elections are exercises in stupidity and herd-think.  Presidential elections are the worst.

H. L. Mencken summed it up best: “All of the great patriots now engaged in edging and squirming their way toward the Presidency of the Republic run true to form. That is to say, they are all extremely wary, and all more or less palpable frauds. What they want, primarily, is the job; the necessary equipment of inescapable issues, immutable principles and soaring ideals can wait until it becomes more certain which way the mob will be whooping.”  Mencken, 1920.

The difference between 1920 and 2015 is that, back then, there were people pretending to be true patriots.  At some point they dropped the pretense and proceeded from a desire for pure, unadulterated power.  The mob of the American people conveniently ignore this fact.  The television is just too entertaining to disagree with.  The country sinks lower into the sewer of politics.

A political “party” sounds like a fun time until one realizes the term refers not so much to an event as to a lowest, dumbest degenerates ever assembled under the sun (in truth, like all roaches, they prefer the darkness).  Washington warned against them. Mencken ridiculed them.  The people, ever plumbing the depths of stupidity, embrace them with jealous fervor.  It’s “us” Democrats against “them” Republicans and visa versa.  Spare the sane the idiocy of it all.

America is dominated by two predominate political parties.  They are nominally referred to as conservatives and liberals.  As I see it they both liberally dispense what may be conservatively described as bullshit.  The people seem to like it.

Third parties exist, apparently to provide comic relief for the big two.  I experimented with what I thought the most honest of these alternatives, the Libertarians.  Given the choice I would gladly be ruled by Libertarian politicians than those which currently plague us.  However, given power, I am sure they would be corrupted by the mainstream of political discourse.  Anarchy is the only happy solution.  The people do not like happy solutions.  Thus, we are suck with the rats and the roaches.

These parties care nothing about you.  They’re priorities are: bankers, Israel (Likudniks), and anyone else.  Not you.  Not me.

I am sick of this G*****ned nonsense and what it to f**king stop.  Okay? There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans!  They respect and represent neither democracy nor any republic.

fiscal-irresponsibility

(Different approach, same results.  Google.)

An illustrative story from the popular news presses:

If the God-fearing Republicans exist to save us from the Godless, communist Democrats, then why are Republicans Rallying to Save Obama’s Secret Trade Deal?  You can read more about this phenomenon here and here and here.

I’m not entirely sure what this new “secret” trade deal means for America.  But, first, it’s secret.  That means bad when it comes from Washington.  Second, it’s a trade deal. NAFTA and CAFTA, etc. have given American the SHAFTA.  I remember being lied to about NAFTA.  The dirty manufacturing jobs of old, they said, would give way to a new world of high-paying service jobs which would benefit everyone.

In truth, we have lost the industrial work, pay and all.  In exchange we have gained menial minimum wage employment serving hamburgers and such.  Robots and immigrants and Indians now do the productive work for real pay.  What a change.

I’m sure the new law – sure to happen – will be more of the same.  It supposedly grants the President new powers concerning foreign trade.  I understand Obama caught wind of a few, final high-paying jobs left in American and is determined to stamp them out. The displaced workers will receive healthcare and cell phones for the bargain – at a cost.

A few Democrats and Rand Paul (son of the mighty Ron Paul), realizing the potential liabilities of robbing the people of their last shot at the American Dream, have stood in the way.  Paul filibustered against the deal in the Senate.  His speech fell of deaf and stupid ears.  The President will get his way, supported by the “conservative” opposition.  Trade will be geared ever towards non-American interests.  Americans will lose jobs.  Reality TV will continue to be popular among the uneducated rabble.

Just remember this when the election rolls around and the Bush/Romney/Christie machine makes the usual patriotic rumblings.  Remember it when Hitlary bashes the GOP for being unsupportive of freedom.  Blah, blah.  Sounds like the same old BS to me.

Remember, if you can, how the various Democratic Congresses and Bill Clinton ran up the national debt, creating new and useless government programs along the way.  George Bush, the dimmer, was elected to change all that.  He promptly created new agencies and doubled the debt while commencing new wars everywhere.  His Excellency, Barack Hussein Osama, was elected to reverse course.  Dutifully, he doubled the debt again while continuing and adding to the wars.  Now he wants to finish off the trade work began by Clinton and Bush the Vomiter.  I see a conspiracy.

The people, bloated by beer and television see nothing.  They hear nothing.  They say nothing.  One of the new fools (or an old fool) foisted upon us by the elite will be the next President.  Business will continue as usual.

Spare me your partisan rhetoric this year and next.

 

A Successful Sunday

10 Sunday Mar 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today I spoke to the Augusta, GA Libertarian Party about citizen-police encounters, especially when the citizen is armed.  What a great group!  You can view my presentation materials here: https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/march-10-2013-libertarian-party-event-bullett-points/.  It’s a shortened version of How to Interact With the Police, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/how-to-interact-with-the-police/. I think How to Interact may be one of my most popular posts yet.  After the great reception today and some of the feedback I got, I think a follow-up of some sort may be in order. 

I decided to where a suit and tie to the event today. 

0310131318

(Who the hell is the thin dude???)

Unless they’re Christmas ties, I generally do not like ties.  They remind me of upside-down silk nooses.  I only don ties when I go to court.  In fact, today when I revved up I ditched the tie and jacket.  But, I had to wear them.  You see, for many years I have had a closet full of really nice suits I couldn’t fit into.  I think the one above is an Austin Reed, if that means anything.  Thanks to my exercise program and diet, which I think I will patent and hawk on TV, not only do those suits fit – they’re a little loose!  My fat suits may need serious surgery.

0310131319

(Me.  Thin.  In a suit.  With no cigar or beard…  Yes, really me.)

I brought my daughter along for the fun.  She did great until I went on a little too long – she got up and told me it was time to leave…  Thank you, sweetie!!!  We had strawberries and a visit to her little friend’s house as a reward.

0310131321

(Daddy’s little helper.)

I love talking to and with libertarians, big or small “l.”  They are the few who prefer liberty, as Sallust suggested 2000 years ago.  And, as a rule, they are informed, engaging, and very very nice.  Today was no exception.  I fielded questions throughout the presentation, questions that greatly contributed to the overall topic.  I also discussed the possibility of addressing other groups.  I even offered to “debate” any communist or other hack they could dig up at Augusta State (GRU U) on the subject of gun control.  It seems there is still doubt as to what the Second Amendment really means, even after Heller, Parker, and MacDonald, and a slew of other cases.  I intend to write a clarifying post soon – particularly as to what part the people play with relation to the militia and where the militia stands with regard to the Imperial military (totally different birds).

I always learn something at these types of events, even when I’m the presenter.  Speaking of the militia, today I learned that federal and state law enforcement, in conjunction with the MARINE CORPS!, has been conducting hypothetical war games in our area – against the Georgia militia!  These exercises take place next door in South Carolina.  I think I will write both governors and the interloper in the White House and ask if they would like the Georgia Militia to actively participate!  I will lead the effort, if mr. Deal will allow it and appoint me as a Colonel or General or something.  Men, I may be calling on you soon.  If nothing else, I will demand to know why the USMC is drilling against the people of our state.  Have they killed off all “tha taaarrists”???

The news:

Maybe we are the terrorists now.  According to Washington’s puppet, Hamid Karzai, the U.S. is colluding with the Taliban.  Remember them?  They were our allies in the 1980s, who betrayed us on 9/11 and now, after 12 years of war, have become our allies again?  I’m confused too.  Kind of like al-CIA-da – the terror group developed by Washington during the cold war, who became our enemies in 2001, only to get our help in Libya, Syria, etc.  Foreign entanglements, gotta love em.

In other news, Atlanta is now being called the “Detroit of the South” – that can’t be good.  More and more suburbs are seceding to get away from the crime, corruption and financial burdens of the Big Peach.  I have heard rumors that northern Fulton County may split and reform Milton County or whatever it was called 90 years ago.  Peachy.

More rumors – the RepubliCONS, all hyped up on something, are vowing to budget Obamacare away sometime in the future.  I have a shiny nickel that says they don’t.

That’s all for now.  Many thanks again to Amanda, Rocky and my gracious hosts today.  They even gave me a trio of books I have not read before – one about Bastiat!  This looks to be a great week.  I’m planning some terrific columns and maybe a site upgrade or two.  See you tomorrow!

The United States Constitution

08 Friday Mar 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The United State Constitution is a historical anomaly.  The Constitutions of the several States are as well.  Our English predecessors had a Constitution of sorts as did the Romans long before.  These are however, rarities.  Many nations today have “constitutions” or charters which allege the rule of law, but which in reality are no different from the dictatorships and dominions of old.

Traditionally, most people have lived under one regime or another which ruled by the whims of men and the force they could exert.  Ayn Rand discussed this phenomenon, labelling it “Attila and the Witch Doctor.”  For the New Intellectual (1961).  Attila is representative of the ruling big man, a brute whose law” extends from the barrel of a gun or the tip of a spear.  The Witch Doctor is the “holy” man who finds some “divine” reason to justify Attila’s power and also placated the people to avert their suspicion or anger.

In 1775 the American colonists were under the rule of a gentler Attila, King George, III, who was constrained by Parliament and the English Constitution.  He even had a state-chartered church to serve as the Witch Doctor.  The next year the colonists declared their independence from England and instituted on earth thirteen new nations.  During the Revolutionary War these nations were united in Congress due to their dire predicament.  In 1781 the 13 states adopted the Articles of Confederation (the ratification process began in 1777) which tied them loosely together for mutual benefit.

Not being satisfied with loose ties, in 1789 the early Americans drafted a stronger document to commence a stronger central government – the Constitution.  The first ten amendments to the document, the Bill of Rights, came along in 1791. 

Constitution_Pg1of4_AC

(The Constitution.  Federal Archives.)

People like me are always rallying to the Constitution, its limits on government power, and it’s protection of individual rights.  When comparing the reality of modern American government to the government set forth in the original text of the Constitution, the two things seem polar opposites.  Thus, the constant call for a return to Constitutional government.  There is no doubt, from a libertarian perspective, the latter would be far easier to accept than the former. 

However, the problem I have finally come to terms with is that the two opposites are really the same thing – separated only by time.  Again, I quote Lysander Spooner: “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.”  “Unfit” is a harsh assessment, but it is probably the most intellectually honest view. 

I have personally sworn (affirmed) several oaths to support and defend the Constitution as an attorney.  Then, immediately, I have been told to look the other way as nearly every provision of the document is rendered moot.  The government these days does what it wants, end of discussion.  Its power is always on display.  If one or two of your rights happen to be respected, be happy.  The government will tell you it gave you those rights!  There is no respect for the letter of the Supreme Law.

In 2009, then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was asked by a reporter, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”  Mrs. Pelosi responded with indignation, “Are you serious?  Are you serious?”  She then put on the record that the question was not serious.  http://www.aim.org/guest-column/yes-nancy-pelosi-we-are-serious/.  The question was dead serious and the true answer is “nowhere.”  Truth gets in the way.

Rep.  James Clyburn clarified the issue: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html.  Jimmy was brutally honest.  Over the long-span of our Republic, a few pet phrases and ideas in the old parchment have been used to systematically justify the awesome growth of the federal government – the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, the general welfare clause, national defense, and taxation.  Today, when most of what the government does is illegal, they don’t even try to justify their actions.

This was hard for me to accept as an attorney.  Actually, I never did accept it.  In many (most) cases there absolutely nothing I could do for the interests of true justice and Constitutional fidelity.  However, I remain one of the few who will stand on principle to the point of Quixotic excess.  I do not fear being labeled wrong when I am right.

Here’s how the Constitution was supposed to work.  It was quite simply compared to today’s leviathan.

First, please read the Constitution.  Here’s a link: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html.  This is the official site of the Constitution, complete with pictures of the original text.  Make it a “Favorites” link on your browser. 

The Constitution created the federal government, divided into three branches.  The branches were listed in order of importance.  Article One defines and empowers the legislative branch, Congress.  The powers of Congress or the legislative authority it has are mainly derived from Section Eight though a few powers reside elsewhere (some have been added by subsequent Amendments).  The powers enumerated in the text are the only powers which Congress may legally exercise.  The Tenth Amendment says so.  The number of these powers is the subject of some speculation among libertarians.  Some count the individual sub-sections only.  Some delineate each power from the subsections – I follow this approach.  Some extrapolate reasonable relations between the individual powers.  However you calculate them, the powers are few in number.  Let’s say there are about 30.  That’s it!  Those are the only things the government is supposed to do. 

Today we are trapped under tens of thousands of laws and countless regulations which cover literally everything imaginable.  The regulations are issued by various agencies, supposedly to implement the laws Congress passes.  You can find this mind-boggling collection of verbosity at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR.  Don’t make too close of a study; the regulations change constantly.  In my view none of these rules are valid as they are not the expressly permitted work of Congress.  However, the agencies that make them have armies of men with guns to ensure compliance.

Article Two concerns the executive, The President. The President’s authority is even more minimal than Congress’s.  He is supposed to only attempt to enforce the valid laws Congress passes, run the day-to-day operations of the government, and prosecute wars as declared by Congress.  That’s about it. 

Of course, today the President is a virtual government unto himself.  The executive’s ability to take “emergency” action and the constant acquiescence to these actions by the other branches, have made the President the most dangerous part of the central government.  He issues Executive Orders, which were originally only supposed to concern policy implementation within his administration, but today are taken as Acts of Congress (without Acts of Congress).  My view is that almost all of these Orders are invalid.  There again, the President is in charge of all those armies of armed men and the regular military too.  He usually gets his way.

Article Three concerns the federal Judiciary.  This article only established the Supreme Court.  It left another power to Congress to create and empower inferior courts of different kinds.  Originally, legal matters were supposed to be handled by State Courts for the most part, with the Supreme Court deciding differing outcomes from different States when a controversy arose.  Many libertarians think the judiciary has become too powerful.  Perhaps it has.  Most attorneys take the opinions of the courts to be divine.  I do not, for the most part, agree.  Congress has the ultimate authority over law in this nation and has the power to override a contrary court decision.  Congress also has the express authority to limit the jurisdiction of the courts, meaning Congress can prohibit a court from reviewing certain matters.  Congress rarely uses this power.

The rest of the original articles explain various concepts, procedures, and guarantees.  Perhaps the most important feature of the remaining articles is in Article Five – the procedure for adding Amendments to the Constitution.  This has been done 27 times since the original charter was enacted.

The Bill of Rights, those first 10 amendments, was added as a cautious afterthought.  The rights therein were acknowledged as Natural Law in origin and eternal.  In 1789 all ten were taken as a given.  The Founders assured everyone, including each other, that due to its explicitly limited nature, the new government would never be a threat to individual liberties.  There was no point in adding statements of protection.  But, in 1791, suspicion gave way to action, and several core rights were definitely stated and protected.  They have been poorly defended of late.

The remaining seventeen amendments were added over the course of years.  Most granted the government more power.  Only one of those has ever been repealed – the 21st Amendment, the only one ratified following State Convention origination, repealed the 18th Amendment, which outlawed alcohol.  In my estimation, of all the Acts of the federal government in its entire history, none were more cruel than the 18th Amendment.  During a period of dramatically increasing federal power and erosion of individual liberty, the government decided to take away the People’s ability to legally drink their serfdom away.  Thank God it was erased after only 14 years.  True to form though, the government could not simply end prohibition, rather, the ability to regulate alcohol was passed on the States.  The ATF and your State’s revenue department bear witness to the enduring character of legislative folly.

In conclusion, while the Constitution may be revered as creating a government of limited powers, it still created a government.  That government has vastly exceeded its authorized power to the detriment of our Liberty.  I would like to see a return to The Articles of Confederation or some other less powerful central state.  This is not likely to happen.  The best alternative would be to simply adhere to the Constitution as written, no more.  This is equally unlikely to occur.  As is, we will have to wait until time takes its toll on the remains of the Republic.  This process may not be pleasant for us.  Plato described the cycle of the theoretical state about 2500 years ago – we would appear to be somewhere near the end.  Aristocracy gives way to timocracy (rule of land owners).  Timocracy becomes oligarchy (the rule of an elite).  Oligarchy degenerates into democracy.  Democracy can also be called “ochlocracy” or mob rule.  Ultimately this paves the way for a despot to seize power.  The cycle then repeats. 

We can really only hope that someday, a future generation will learn from our mistakes and correct them.  History says that correction won’t last long.