Better, Yes

07 Sunday Mar 2021

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Better, Yes

Tags

America, libertarian, Murray Rothbard, nationalist, political theory

Tho Bishop wrote not so much an attack on nationalism, Christian or otherwise, as a call for paleolibertarianism as a better alternative to modern globalism masquerading as leftism. He’s right – it would be better.

Written in 1994, one of the last journal articles he ever published, Rothbard’s analysis has tremendous relevance to revived discussions on nationalism both in America and abroad. The breakup of globalist institutions, such as the European Union, should be the top political aim of any “conservative” movement wanting to restore traditional social bonds and civil society—even if the underlying motivations for the secessionist cause are not purely “libertarian.”

The greatest flaw with the uniquely American nationalist crowd—a natural extension from those who still idolize Abraham Lincoln—is the failure to appreciate that there is no singular American nation. The most exciting aspect of the modern political stage is a growing acknowledgment of this issue.

In conclusion, history is not shaped merely by great men but is instead molded by the prevailing ideology of a time. Ultimately, however, the strength and lasting power of a movement depend upon the rigor and strength of its intellectual inspiration. The modern American right has succeeded in acknowledging many of the institutional causes that have given rise to the rule of the “evangelical left,” but the aim of replacing them with simply another variety of progressive statism is unlikely to result in their desired ends.

To truly threaten the modern progressive state, America needs a Rothbardian right.

Much of what Rothbard believed would be immeasurably better than the liberal-conservative charade today. It’s good to see people open to the idea of necessary secession and separation. However, there’s still a lingering confusion about the state versus the nation and, more importantly, about the preeminence of identity before culture and politics. There certainly was an American nation, an American People in the United States, years ago, before it was subsumed by malicious policies – some of which modern, or post-modern libertarians champion.

But, the hour is very late. The old America is subsumed even though a Remnant survives. That Remnant deserves a nation-state of their own. And they, we are currently under attack – this is a war, civil and external – on all fronts by multiple parties. Plainly put, an ideology that foremost promotes non-aggression is not particularly useful in a war. Rothbard’s ideas, many of them, would be ideal for future rebuilding. But the future isn’t now. Today, we need strong, utterly strong, and relentless nationalists. For the Christian American Remnant, it would be best if these strongmen were also strong in the faith. While it would benefit from dispensing with the lies of the globo Uniparty, and benefit even more from some well-placed Rothbardian Natural Law-based ethics and ideals, what America needs most is hardcore, uncompromising Christian Nationalism.

The Idol vs. The Engine

27 Friday Oct 2017

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on The Idol vs. The Engine

Tags

anarchy, capitalism, government, liberalism, political theory, statism

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.

quote-i-n-a-place-with-absolutely-no-private-or-personal-life-with-the-incessant-worship-of-christopher-hitchens-41-20-28

“We’re all career-sadists, now.” – Unknown Politician.

Death at the Academy

23 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Other Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

America, college, culture, debt, education, freedom, government, internet, law, learning, Mississippi, political science, political theory, Second Amendment, students, stupidity, The People, University of Georgia

I used to want to teach law or political theory at the university level. Now I do not. Well, honestly part of me still does. However, I have come to the conclusion it isn’t going to happen anytime soon. For years – a decade or so – I had a search running at Higheredjobs.com. I recently turned it off.

After maybe 100 failed inquiry letters and several first (and last) interviews I realized there is a disconnect between me and the academic system. It’s a good thing. I would not fit in. I imagine being the only non-communist on the faculty might be uncomfortable. Less comfortable would be my students. As I have chronicled here modern university students are large toddlers, less concerned with learning than feeling safe.

There’s a new and better educational model anyway. It uses independence and technology for a new take on the classical school experience. Socrates and Aquinas would approve if they were still around. In their respective ancient days only those who desired to learn furthered their education beyond a rudimentary level.

Times had changed by the 1970s when my father was teaching at Mississippi State. The emphasis was primarily on learning but the post hippy culture was creeping in. Serious students mingled on campus with party animals. In the corners social revolutionaries plotted the future of safe spaces, inclusion, and sustainability (still not sure what they sustain – certainly not education). I remember the pretty girls and the copious amounts of coffee and cigarettes consumed by the faculty.

Times kept changing. By the advent of my tenure at the University of Georgia the counterculture was taking control. Still, those that wanted to learn could but it was frowned upon. I fell somewhere between the studious and the partyers. The pretty girls still got my attention. Things were worse in law school. There I joined, fully, the ranks of the studious. As a rebel of demented mental ability I sought out the fundamental theories and origins behind the law. I largely did so in secret and on my own.

Today the inmates run the asylum. Beyond math, science and engineering real learning is frowned upon. There’s a lot of frowning. Tell a pretty girl she’s pretty and you may be brought up on charges. Coffee still seems safe but nicotine is verboten. Say things like “I like guns” or “taxes are too high” or “people should work for a living” and the student crybabies will melt and the faculty will launch into hysterical tyrades.

To be a white man on campus results in treatment once reserved for the likes of Hester Prynne. Pride in Western tradition, morality and common sense are treated like leprosy.

The schools (as they are still called) waste resources on sports, safe spaces, counseling, women’s studies, black studies, gay black women’s studies and a host of other nonsense.

These are the universities mind you. From Harvard to Notre Dame to my beloved UGA the failure of education has spread like a cancer. The lower, primary schools (especially those run by government – most) are in even worse shape.

Notre Dame professor Dr. Patrick Deneen says even the best colleges, like his, are “committing civilizational suicide.”

“What our educational system aims to produce is cultural amnesia, a wholesale lack of curiosity, history-less free agents, and educational goals composed of content-free processes and unexamined buzz-words like ‘critical thinking,’ ‘diversity,’ ‘ways of knowing,’ ‘social justice,’ and ‘cultural competence.’

Our students are the achievement of a systemic commitment to producing individuals without a past for whom the future is a foreign country, cultureless ciphers who can live anywhere and perform any kind of work without inquiring about its purposes or ends, perfected tools for an economic system that prizes ‘flexibility’ (geographic, interpersonal, ethical).”

Frightening but accurate. What happened? What are the sane and the responsible to do?

Gary North did a fantastic job laying out the history and demise of American education. His conclusion is simple and right – “close the schools.” They have failed. They do the opposite of what was once intended. They are beyond the point of redemption. Close them all.

The public schools are in group two. They are likely to die, no matter what. The only economically relevant question today is this: “How long will voters authorize the tax money required to keep them on life support?”

– North, March 19, 2016.

He mentions the modern, better alternative, guaranteed to deliver real learning – the online education. The Kahn Academy is the largest school in the world with 25 million students. It’s free to anyone. There are others like it. They are beginning to take a bite out of traditional, failed schooling.

MIT boldly put nearly all of its courses online for free, for anyone. Some books will need to be acquired. There will be a small expense associated though many, many books are completely free on Kindle. Any ambitious young person with a laptop and a very basic comprehension of English and fundamental math can literally educate themselves at little to no cost and at their own pace.

There are a host of other opportunities online like Udemy. It’s an outfit or concept like this I may end up going with. Or I might just publish books and/or create my own e-classes in topics that interest me. The sky is the limit.

Educrats and silly professors are panicked because of this increasing competition. No time wasted waiting on the lowest common denominator to catch up. No boredom. No anti-western indoctrination. No crushing student loans of money illegally printed out of thin air.

No need to wallow amid a bunch of weak socialists in a dangerous environment. I recently noted the progress of Georgia’s H.B.859, a bill that would allow free people to legally carry firearms at state colleges. At present these schools are gun free zones – the type of places where the majority of violence occurs. It happens because criminals have a monopoly on force in such places. The bill would tilt the tables in favor of ordinary people.

As such, it is opposed by criminals and school faculty and staff lacking common sense. UGA law professor Sonja West wrote a hysterical piece for Slate decrying self-defense. Using backwards antidotal evidence and shaky psuedo legal reasoning she conveys her central thought: she does not like guns. At least not guns in private hands. It’s just terrible people might have a legal fighting chance to repel attacks; the Second Amendment be damned.

The hoplophobia and mania runs deeper at the Red and Black, UGA’s leftist student newspaper: “Donald Trump may be the 21st-century equivalent of Mussolini, but the real threat to democracy is right here in Georgia.”

That’s all I really need to quote. Having worn out the Hitler label the lefties are turning to Mussolini. The poor argument is that guns threaten democracy. Democracy is about as big a threat as one might contrive. Free people with guns are a check on violence and tyranny, democratic or otherwise. Pitiful.

There was a death at the academy. Learning died. Now the schools themselves are headed to the graveyard. I hope you will share this information with a young person and said person’s parents. Help save them from wasting time and money and from exposure to whimps, communists, and freedom haters. Help them learn and explore their world freely.

All But Dissertation

24 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by perrinlovett 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 …

Let’s Be Frank

20 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes, Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on Let’s Be Frank

Tags

America, Arda, founding fathers, Frank the Frog, J.R.R. Tolkien, Middle Earth, Numenor, political theory

When last you read I promised a big story by hook or by crook. Well, it has to be by crook. Or, maybe by hook. Not sure. Anyway, all you get for now is a short preview. I’m busy revising, editing and discussing movie rights. Seriously, it is a comparative political piece about Tolkien’s Numenor and America. Here goes:

This essay concerns the rising peace and glory and downfall of Tolkien’s Numenor as compared to the rise and fall of republican America…

…the author is aware the details and history of Numenor are both idyllic and fictional. There are, however, many similarities between that mythical tale and the, albeit romantic, history of the great republic of the United States of America. Much of what we remember of America’s founding and glory is largely fictionalized as well. Thus, this short work is philosophical and perhaps even religious in nature.

…the story of the downfall of Numenor, the ancient island home of the “Men of the West” of Tolkien’s Arda, the Edain/Dunedain, is included at the end of the Silmarillion book but are separate from and independent of the story of the Silmarillion – so says Christopher Tolkien, Silmarillion, Forward…

First I will set up the historical and physical commonalities of the two subject Nations. My good readers are, no doubt, steeped in the history and geography of America. Many are familiar with Tolkien and Middle Earth (at least and insofar as The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are concerned, thank you, Peter Jackson). Numenor and the allegedly murky (a slanderous allegation) Silmarillion might require additional explanation…

That’s all for now. The real thing is coming soon.

One more thing! Frank the Frog, in anticipation of his possible election bid, will shortly hereafter release his autobiography, Frankly Speaking. Frank will share his insight on foreign policy, dispel rumors about his alleged firefly addiction, discuss growing up tough surrounded by hawks and snakes (perfect prep for politics), and much much more. Get over to Amazon and reserve your first edition copy now.

(It’s as if a little green founding father hoped out of the history book to grace us modern Americans with his wisdom.)

Natural Origins of Self-Defense

21 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

10 Commandments, 11th Commandment, aggressor, American, Aristotle, banksters, Bible, Catechism, Catholic Church, Cato, Christ, Christians, Chuck Baldwin, Cicero, civil government, Codex Justinianus, Confucius, Constitution, criminal, David Kopel, Declaration of Human Rights, Declaration of Independence, duty, Eastern, Exodus, God, government, Hitler, Hobbes, Jesus, John, John Locke, justice, King George III, law, leviathan, Liberty, man, Matthew, Michael Grant, money-lenders, murder, Natural Law, Nicomachean Ethics, NRA, On Duties, oppression, Paul, Peter, Plato, political science, political theory, Pope John Paul II, Proverbs, religion, rights, Roman Empire, Roman Law, Roman Republic, Romans, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Second Amendment, self-defense, society, Summa Theologica, sword, The People, The Republic, Timothy, tyranny, U.N., victim, vigilante, weapons, Western

This is the first in a new series, an expansion of my both my Natural Law column and Second Amendment and related columns. Here, I briefly examine the ancient and eternal theories behind the basic rights which gave rise to the doctrine enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Legal practitioners and law and political science scholars, along with the general public, many politicians, and the media, often make the common mistake of looking only to the text of the Constitution (State or federal) or recent court cases in order to gain perspective into the meaning and/or application of the Second Amendment (and related State protections). While government protection of our rights is vital (the only reason for government), rights do not come from government.

My examination here is theoretic in nature and, thus, seeks out existential sources which provide both definition and supporting argumentative and empirical evidence which are fixed throughout history and across all geographic areas. Of course, as my ultimate view is towards the American experience, I will pay closer attention to sources from Western civilization.

The Bible is replete with approval of self-defense. “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 1 Timothy 5:8. This would seem to encompass the responsibility to keep one’s family safe to the extent possible. “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” Exodus 22:2-3. This provision is the basis for the common-law doctrine against burglary, originally extended to night-time attacks. The matter of daylight adds an interesting perspective. Again, this passage addresses a thief, not a would-be murderer of rapist. It is divine commentary on the value of human life over mere possessions when an opportunity exists to examine the intent of a criminal. While it is not a prohibition against using force to deter a thief, the provision indicates the Lord’s wish that force not exceed the attendant circumstantial need.

Paul continues this theme of limited aggression in Romans 12:19: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'” Again, God does not seem opposed to immediate use of force to deter violence but, once danger has passed, he commands that we leave judgment to him. This is backed by the Old Testament: “Do not say, ‘I will repay evil’; wait for the Lord, and he will deliver you.” Proverbs 20:22. Again, for Christians, after the fact of a crime, the matter is God’s to handle. This is the basis for a general prohibition against vigilante justice.

In Romans 13, often mis-cited as a justification for any and all government action being divine, Paul extolls the virtues of political agencies instituted in God’s Name. When such an entity exists, then it has God’s authority to pursue prosecution of criminal matters. I refuse to accept that this concept applies to all governments – I doubt God approved of Hitler’s action, for instance. Rev. Chuck Baldwin, http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/, has extensively commented on this subject – http://www.romans13truth.com/.

Jesus Christ, himself, tacitly endorsed armed defense: “And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” Luke 22:36. I say “tacitly” because of the caveats Jesus placed on the use of force, essentially limiting it to only urgent circumstances. Christ urged us to “turn the other cheek” when possible. Matthew 5:39. He also admonished Peter to sheath his sword while repairing the injure Peter had inflicted with his sword. John 18:11. Jesus, while defending the 10 Commandments, issued an 11th: “love one another.” John 13:34. The Son’s words places strict constraints on the Father’s allowance of the use of force. It does not foreclose the concept.

(The ultimate Defender. Google.)

Jesus only once resorted to the use of force, personally. When He discovered the money-changers (the banksters of their time) abusing the Holiness of the Temple, Jesus violently drove them away. John 2:15. This underscores the possibility of defense as an immediate solution, without resort to formal authority or the eventual actions of the Lord. The Church has formally detailed both the right to such defense as well as the moral duty of such action in need. “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”): 2265 (emphasis added)(see also CCC: 1909).

The Church also commands dignity be afforded to the human body, generally: “This dignity entails the demand that he should treat with respect his own body, but also the body of every other person, especially the suffering” CCC: 1004. While this backs the general prohibition against unlawfully harming others, it also reminds the Believer to respect even his enemy and attempt to limit his forcible response to criminal activity as far as possible to minimize harm.

“… [I]n the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self.” Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangeliun Vitae (The Gospel of Life), 1995.

The eminent scholar, David Kopel, has documented the general agreement among Eastern Religions along these ideas. In his review of Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism, Kopel explodes common myths that these religions do not allow for proper use of self-defense. David B. Kopel. “Self-Defense in Asian Religions” Liberty Law Review 2 (2007): 79, 80-81 (http://works.bepress.com/david_kopel/20).

Kopel’s expose is excellent. He also touches on the Eastern version of Baldwin’s critique of Romans 13: “Although Confucianism, like most other religions, has been used by tyrants to claim that revolution is immoral, Confucius himself ordered a revolution against an oppressive regime.” Id, at 163. Only the “religion” of the State would decree that the government is above the Natural Law.

Commenting on Exudus 2, above, Saint Thomas Aquinas said, “it is much more lawful to defend one’s life than one’s house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kills another in defense of his own life.” Aquinas, Summa Theologica.

“If a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists, ‘it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.’ Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s life than of another’s.” Id.

Plato noted that when one acts in true self-defense, taken as a natural right, one may actually do the criminal perpetrator (in addition to the victim and society) a service: if the criminal survives, he may reflect on his wrongdoing positively. Plato, The Republic, The Problem of Justice. Plato’s great student, Aristotle, agreed. Aristotle noted that a true case of self-defense is not necessarily a voluntary action. Thus, any suffering from the act of defense may be attributed to the aggressor and not the defender. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.

The possession of weapons and their defensive usage, though regulated, was allowed in both the Roman Republic and the Empire. “We grant to all persons the unrestricted power to defend themselves, so that it is proper to subject anyone, whether a private person or a solider … to immediate punishment in accordance with the authority granted to all [up to, and including, death, if warranted].” Codex Justinianus 3.27.1. The Romans regarded the right to use weaponry in defense as implicit to the right itself.

The mighty Cicero opined: “There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.” Cicero, “In Defence of Titus Annus Milo,” Selected Speeches of Cicero, Michael Grant translation, 1969. Again, the esteemed David Kopel gives excellent analysis to this ancient Natural Law position in The Sword and the Tome, America’s 1st Freedom, NRA, 2009.

Cicero’s titanic predecessor, the black-robed Cato, made an interesting analogy along the lines of Jesus’s act of retribution noted above (as noted by Cicero himself): Cato was asked by an ambitious Roman, “What is the most profitable about property?” Cato answered, “To raise cattle with great success.” The young man then asked, “What is the second most profitable?” Cato answered, “Raising cattle with moderate success.” The inquirer pressed again, “The third most profitable?” “Raising cattle with little success.” Finally, the young man cut to his presupposed profession, “How about money-lending?” Cato answered (somewhat in advance of Jesus), “How about murder?” Cicero, On Duties.

I by no means equate money-lending or banking with murder but it appears the subject was considered by multiple ancient sources. It seems the evil of the banksters in as eternal as natural law. Defense against the predation of this wicked class may be something to consider.

Later political theorists expounded the virtue and necessity of self-defense. John Locke described self-defense as the first among Natural Rights. Locke, Second Essay on Civil Government. Hobbes concurred in this assertion, regardless of the state of any society. Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651. Even the craven and generally useless United Nations begrudgingly attempted to acknowledge this fundamental truth: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” Universal Declaration of Human Rights, U.N. General Assembly, Article 12, December 10, 1948.

In the earliest American tradition, we find acknowledgment of the Natural Law (before the adoption of the Second Amendment). The Declaration of Independence (1776) begins: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” (Emphasis added). The Declaration then enumerates the crimes of King George, among them many of which might be defended against under the doctrine explained herein.

(In case of emergency only. Google.)

Again, self-defense is a God-given, eternal right. It is also a duty, one to be exercised only in dire need and with a grave sense of responsibility. As with all matters of Natural Law, man-made legislation must attempt as closely as humanly possible to approximate the divine purposes of the Law. In the next installment of this series, I intend to examine more ancient legislation regarding weapons and self-defense, specifically Roman Law.

Politics

27 Wednesday Feb 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

academic, Alex P. Keating, America, Amerika, anarchist, budget, bullshit, Congress, conservative, Constitution, coroporations, D.C., debt, Debt Clock, democracy, Democrats, Dennis Kucinich, drones, due process, Emperor Palpatine, entertainment, evil, faction, Family Ties (TV show), Federal Reserve, finance, Founder's Almanac, George Washington, government, Greek, H.L. Mencken, Heritage Foundation, history, illegal, insurance, interest, libertarian, libertarians, Liberty, lies, media, Medicaid, Medicare, military-industrial complex, Minority Report, money, Obama, ObamaCare, office, P.J. O'Rourke, parasites, Parliament of Whores, political parties, political theory, politician, politics, poly, ponzi scheme, Presidency, Rand Paul, Republican, Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Social Security, special interests, States, stupidity, tariffs, taxes, television, terrorists, the children, The People, three branches, ticks, War, Washinton, welfare

“Politics” comes from ancient Greek roots. “Poly,” of course, means “many” and “Ticks” are little blood-sucking parasites. Thus, “politics” means: many little blood-sucking parasites. I really wish I could attribute that definition to my own genius but I feel overly honest today.

(Emperor Palpatine, the ultimate politician. Source: Google Images.)

Wikipedia says “politics” is “the art or science of influencing people on a civic, or individual level…” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics.

I have studied politics (formally and informally) since around 1980. In those days, everyone in the South tended to be Democrats, party-wise. My parents were proud Democrats at the time and were horrified when Ronald Reagan won the Presidency. I watched on. As the years progressed, I decided I was a “conservative” and, therefore, a Republican, much like Reagan.

I watched Family Ties back then and might have been influenced by the antics of Alex P. Keating. Then came the Rush Limbaugh era; I listened everyday after high school while working as a runner for a local law firm. I knew Rush was right. Well, something in my subconscious had doubts. In college I drifted into libertarian thought and have remained there ever since. As the years pass I become closer and closer to a full-blown anarchist.

During this time, while I descended from a believer in minimal government to a dreamer about no government, reality took a turn for the worse. The whole of my dear country seems to have gone the other way! Whereas we had a big government when I was a child, now we have a GIGANTIC monstrosity of a government that seems to grow geometrically ever second.

Hence my disconnect from the world of practical politics. It is patently obvious that there is no discernible difference between the two major parties in America – they both lead to bigger and more controlling governance. Over the years I supported several politicians in various ways – both Republicans and Libertarians (I have Democrat friends too). My support usually faded away with my short, rambling attention span. I have never been a member of any party. I am proud of that; I hate political parties.

(Politicians soliciting contributions. Google Images.)

In his Farewell Address to the nation, President George Washington devoted nearly two pages to warning the people about party politics. He began: “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.” Thereupon he listed the many dangers of “faction” at the expense of Public Liberty. He closed with a thought on excessive party politics: “A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.” See: The Founder’s Almanac, pp. 309 – 310, The Heritage Foundation, Washington 2002. Given Washington’s fame and standing you would think more people would have listened; they did not and American “democracy” became an all-consuming conflagration.

H.L. Mencken wrote in the Minority Report (1956): “Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – both commonly succeed, and are right.” Mencken defined “democracy” as “the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Every election since has proved him right on both counts.

The most excited I ever got about any election(s) was in 2008 and 2012 supporting Ron Paul. I knew then Dr. Paul was an anomaly in American politics. My fellow citizens chose a different path and now Dr. Paul is retired. With him, at the end of 2012, went Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Washington is now devoid of any statesmen whatsoever and the only small impediments to Total Government are gone. I would like to believe Dr. Paul’s son, the other Dr. Paul, will follow in his father’s hallowed footsteps; I don’t think it will happen.

I have decided to waste no more time following the stupidity (which worsens daily) of field level politics. My personal academic concentration is now centered on political theory or philosophy and the history thereof. A good friend of mine says that America is finished, like a $500 car in need of $5000 worth of repairs. For our generation I fear he may be on to something. Still, I hold some hope for the future.

My fledgling professional academic career is and will be focused on educating younger persons about the mistakes of faith in politics and government, the evils resulting from such faith, and alternatives to the status quo.

Perhaps the most honest book ever written about American politics is Parliament of Whores by P.J. O’Rourke (1991). The title says it all. Inside the reader will discover, among many other witty things, a whole section of chapters entitled, The Three Branches of Government: Money, Television and Bullshit. Perfect.

Government and politics in general, particularly in America, really do center on O’Rourke’s three “branches.”

Money in politics is not necessarily the root of all evil, but it certainly is the tool of all evil in politics. It takes a lot of money to get elected to national or state office in the first place. Savy politicians set up campaign funds legally designed to break or sidestep any campaign finance laws in the way. Then the ticks turn around and suck blood from any source to fill their funds. Sometimes they contribute a little of their own money but most of it comes from “donors.” People all over give a little here and there to help some bozo get elected; once elected the bozo ignores the little people. The big bucks come from the special interest groups, they get the politician’s attention post-election.

Money flows into Washington, D.C. and the several State capitals by the dump truck load. Giant corporations and the super rich constantly brib ..er.. give to elected officials in all kinds of ways. Sometimes they support a pet project of the tick’s (charity, etc.), sometimes they provide booze and hookers, they give kickbacks and favors, and sometimes they just give plain old cash in brown- paper grocery bags. The amount of money flowing into the Capital is astounding, but it pales in comparison to the money flowing out.

This year, like last year, the federal government will spend something like 3.5 Trillion dollars per its official “budget.” I just put “budget” between quotation marks because Congress hasn’t put forth an actual budget, as required by the Constitution, in years. Alarmingly, the vast majority of federal spending is on UnConstitutional programs. The government spends a huge percentage of that money out of debt. Fully a third of the budget is borrowed these days. Check out the U.S. Debt Clock for a good fright: http://www.usdebtclock.org/. In fact, I believe the borrowed sum exceeds the amount paid by individual taxpayers. Corporations also pay for a larger portion of the budget than do the individual taxpayers. However, as with any business expense, corporations pass their taxes along to customers via higher prices for their goods and services. So the People ultimately pay those taxes as well. Aaaaand, guess who guarantees the huge debts run up by the ticks? Yes, taxpayers again. So, Ma and Pa America have to pay for all the illegal, unnecessary spending of the government, even when they receive no representation for their money.

Like I said, most government programs are not grounded in the Constitution and are therefore illegal. Of the $3.5 trillion spent, Medicare and Medicaid get about $800 billion. They are not in the Constitution. Social Security, the third rail of tick-dom, gets a similar amount. Not in the Constitution. Our never-ending, foreign, undeclared wars of aggression get a slightly smaller amount. Being undeclared and indefensible, they to are also illegal. The total of interest on the national debt, federal pension costs, and various welfare programs get a similar amount of funding. Like undeclared warfare, specific welfare is also illegal. As none of the programs are needed there is no need for all the federal employees vested in those pensions. If the government didn’t spend so damn much money there would be no debt and, thus, no interest. The “legitimate” functions of the federal government are mostly unnecessary anymore, and those that are should really only cost us a few hundred billion dollars per year at most. That could easily be covered by tariffs and import fees – as the government was supposed to be funded and was funded for years without trouble.

I could go on and on with the money stuff but we still have television and bullshit….

Television is really representative of all major media, both news and entertainment, in this nation. Whether you get your news on TV, from the radio, or from a print medium, it’s all the same. The government puts out a line of crap and the media runs with it. Very seldom in America are we treated to any critical reporting anymore. Remember those special interests? They own the media nearly completely. Towing the line is part of the overall scheme.

This scheme extends into non-news entertainment. Reality shows, pro sports, pop music and other trivial pursuits are the modern bread and circuses of Amerika. While you drunkenly watch 300-pound men decked out in pink play with a ball, the government is stealing you blind and destroying your country. The ticks laugh at you too.

Bullshit. It’s a crude term but it accurately describes everything I’ve been writing about. It’s also all you ever get from the government. Mostly everything you hear, see, or read from the government or its pet media are outright lies. Very little the ticks do is honest or important so they have to concoct wild stories to get you to go along – provided you even pay attention, most people do not. For instance, when Washington goes to war the ticks always say it’s over something noble like “keeping the world safe for democracy” or “fighting the ‘terrorists’.” Saying they want to keep profits high for the military-industrial complex (a special interest) doesn’t sound as good. When President Obama announced ObamaCare, he didn’t say he wanted windfall profits for the insurance and finance companies of America (special interests). He said it was all to help the children, or the less fortunate, or you and me. Bullshit!

And when the government and the ticks tell the truth, it’s truly frightening. The Whitehouse says it will use drones to kill Americans without Due Process. You better believe they will! When Congress authorizes an illegal ponzi scheme like Social Security or an illegal monopoly like the Federal Reserve (the biggest special interest of all), they do so openly and with impunity.

My point is … well, I’ve already made it – I do not like modern, practical politics and for good reason.

The next time you come into contact with a tick, instead of giving it money and voting it into office, get out the tweezers and the alcohol. I’m Perrin Lovett and I approve this message.