King Numbers' New Clothes

"besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect." -- James Madison; 'Monopolies Perpetuities Corporations'

Since the establishment of a free government by the people, the First_Estate and Second_Estate have tried to reassert their parasitical grasp upon the governing body. That governing authority, the Third_Estate, will have to make the tough decision necessary for survival. Eventually the dupe comes around and confronts the confidence-man who has ruined his household. So must the Third Estate turn out these two FRAUDS into the street--warning that if it does not desist the law will be called into action!

The tribute demanded by the Second_Estate--the Aristoi--is the most obvious and damaging incursion upon FREE competition of commerce, that has ever been known to such a system as claims that distinction. The looting of the Third Estate by this fraudulent impostor, who claims some special merit above the rest of society, is one of the most popular of all superstitious fantasies know to man (the other to be discussed presently). That some such merit may be attained by birth is taught to the young in fairy tales, that poison their subconscious minds even after their attainment of age. This becomes an intrinsic part of ones system of prejudices such that a candidate's true merit is not even suspected even before one of privileged birth is elected to high office. Much of the conspiracy of aristocracy is made possible by a system of prestiged institutions by which the members of that group may tell their own from the common riff-raff of humanity. That they promote their own to public offices is simple in that they are able to exert their vast resources behind the promotion, should come as no surprise--given that the prejudices of childhood are confirmed by such works of deceit. Once the Aristoi has installed its own agents into the gears of the governing machine, it is only necessary to appeal to those prejudices to convince the bulk of the people that it is justifiable to exact bounties for the benefit of the impostor class, thereby advancing the illusion. The continuance of such a fraud of course, naturally leads to the impoverishment of the dupe, regardless of those natural qualities that should advance the wealth of the dupe above such a defrauder.

As revolting as such grotesqueties are, a greater horror yet is to be found in the priestcraft of the First_Estate . The notion that one may be represented by another before his Creator, is a delusion that excites the superstitions as well as that lack of morality which one easily falls into when one is detached from the accountability inherent in ones individual actions. That such damage is done to the conscience of society, is but part of this confidence scheme. The other is of course that its existence further drains the coffers--to which funds have been collected, with no other plausible purpose in a free society--than to benefit society itself. This is advanced by those who run such a leisurely and unproductive system of fancy, and by the Aristoi who depend on such a system to degrade the mind to such a superstitious and prejudiced state that it willingly accepts their superiority, and actuates that minds own inferiority. Once rendered pliable by such conditioning, it gladly accepts the "moral authority" of the so-thought elites.

In the present state of government in the United States, both frauds are freely propagated in order to preserve a perverse sort of order for the puppeteers to manipulate the strings of the Third Estate. When the Second Estate breaks character in the great theatrical production that is perpetually played out--a financial panic--there must be an equal degree of melodrama accompanied by smoke and mirrors to disguise the misstep. That such an event leaves the bulk of the people reeling is but a happy consequence, which emboldens the perpetrators to abandon the slow bleeding of the burdened beast and begin taking vast bites of its flesh. Nonetheless the scheme may not be admitted to, lest the system be set aright by popular fervor. Instead a few scapegoats-some punished, and others demonized--will be offered up to the wrath of the beasts ragings.

The First Estate presents a fraud more obvious still. That they enjoy the privilege afforded to true charitable organizations, while offering a degree of utility so negligible that it is often forgotten that the privilege enjoyed are accompanied by the expectation of so significant utility as to justify their special status. This exhibits itself in the collection of "Tithes" bolstered by coercive preaching, and reinforced by the "itemized deductions" allowed to those who indulge in such superstitious practices, and to those of means who wish to support such institution for either their own superstitions, or to maintain a society pitiably at their mercy. In addition, it is increasingly the case that our founding principles and the enumerated law of the land are cast aside in favor of what are referred to as "Faith-Based Initiatives," which not only encourage religious patronage, but directly subsidize religious institutions that espouse ministerial functions similar to those provided by functions of government, whether or not it can be conclusively proven that the amount given is consistant with the utility provided.

Even beyond this, legislation has been passed to hand the First Estate the reigns not only of those who freely indulge in the superstitions, but also the reigns of those who cannot afford the higher education necessary to eke out a subsistance in our heirarchal society. For as such conditional assistance is provided to some--in exchange for their labor being given to the middleman of the State, and then to whomever the State seed fit--increasingly more will necessarily follow, due to the increased cost that accompanies increased demand for such an education. There also is now discussion afoot to make such service--as might well put one in the hand of a sect that offends that individuals conscience--COMPULSORY for all, through a civilian DRAFT!

Indeed, if ever the time had presented itself to cast off the engorged parasites that are the First and Second Estates, the time is now. One must simply spread the word, and think independently of the fairy tales of youth, realizing that it is in the individual's power--and therefore as good as ones destiny--to govern oneself in every manner practicable! Wake up and realize the robes that the theives have girded you in are nothing at all, and that they expose your shame before such fools who dare not admit the truth they see!

The time has come to ralize the hope Thomas Jefferson expressed for all mankind, during the last days of his life:

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."--Thomas Jefferson (to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826)

Republican In Name Only

I would like to dedicate if I can, this work--by the same author as our Constitution--to those who insist that we are most safe when spied upon, ought to be ready to be whisked off to such a place where our "sufferings are unknown or forgotten", and believe that the secret (terrorist warnings) to our safety ought to be withheld from us, even when it results in 3000 deaths! Yes... to the republican politicians :P

WHO ARE THE BEST KEEPERS OF THE PEOPLE'S LIBERTIES? -- by James Madison

Republican---The people themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.


Anti-republican--The people are stupid, suspicious, licentious. They cannot safely trust themselves. When they have established government they should think of nothing but obedience, leaving the care of their liberties to their wiser rulers.


Republican--Although all men are born free, and all nations might be so, yet too true it is, that slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant--they have been cheated; asleep--they have been surprised; divided--the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson? That because the people may betray themselves, they ought to give themselves up, blindfold, to those who have an interest in betraying them? Rather conclude that the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it, as well as obey it.


Anti-republican--You look at the surface only, where errors float, instead of fathoming the depths where truth lies hid. It is not the government that is disposed to fly off from the people; but the people that are ever ready to fly off from the government. Rather say then, enlighten the government, warn it to be vigilant, enrich it with influence, arm it with force, and to the people never pronounce but two words--Submission and Confidence.


Republican--The centrifugal tendency then is in the people, not in the government, and the secret art lies in restraining the tendency, by augmenting the attractive principle of the government with all the weight that can be added to it. What a perversion of the natural order of things! To make power the primary and central object of the social system, and Liberty but its satellite.


Anti-republican-The science of the stars can never instruct you in the mysteries of government. Wonderful as it may seem, the more you increase the attractive force of power, the more you enlarge the sphere of liberty; the more you make government independent and hostile towards the people, the better security you provide for their rights and interests. Hence the wisdom of the theory, which, after limiting the share of the people to a third of the government ... establishes two grand hereditary orders ... inveterately hostile to the rights and interests of the people, yet by a mysterious operation all combining to fortify the people in both.


Republican--Mysterious indeed! But mysteries belong to religion, not to government; to the ways of the Almighty, not to the works of man. And in religion itself there is nothing mysterious to its author; the mystery lies in the dimness of the human sight. So in the institutions of man let there be no mystery, unless for those inferior beings endowed with a ray perhaps of the twilight vouchsafed to the first order of terrestrial creation.


Anti-republican--You are destitute, I perceive, of every quality of a good citizen, or rather of a good subject. You have neither the light of faith nor the spirit of obedience. I denounce you to the government as an accomplice of atheism and anarchy.


Republican--And I forbear to denounce you to the people, though a blasphemer of their rights and an idolater of tyranny. Liberty disdains to persecute.

The Road to Work Camp

The recent push for national civilian service began during the aftermath of 9/11. In October of 2001--perhaps in justifying the "Call to Service Act" of 2001--One U.S. Senator wrote these words:


"...causes are all around us. Thousands of schools in our poorest neighborhoods are failing their students and cry out for talented teachers. Millions of elderly Americans desperately want to stay in their homes and out of nursing facilities, but cannot do so without help with the small tasks of daily life. More and more of our communities are being devastated by natural disasters. And our men and women in uniform are stretched thin meeting the vital task of keeping the peace in places like Bosnia and Kosovo.
...

"I believe AmeriCorps needs to be expanded and changed, in ways that do not alter those aspects of the program that make it effective, but that build greater espirit de corps among members and encourage a sense of national unity and mission. There is no doubt that this can be done because some smaller programs within AmeriCorps are already doing it. One example is City Year, an AmeriCorps effort that began in Boston and is now operating in 13 American cities. City Year members wear uniforms, work in teams, learn public speaking skills, and gather together for daily calisthenics, often in highly public places such as in front of city hall. They also provide vital services, such as organizing after-school activities and helping the elderly in assisted-living facilities. Another example is AmeriCorps' National Civilian Community Corps, a service program consciously structured along military lines. NCCC members not only wear uniforms and work in teams, as City Year members do, but actually live together in barracks on former military bases, and are deployed to service projects far from their home base. This "24/7" experience fosters group cohesion and a sense of mission. AmeriCorps' NCCC members know they are part of a national effort to serve their country. The communities they serve know that, too."
...

"Only about 1,000 of AmeriCorps' 50,000 members are a part of NCCC. City Year accounts for another 1,200. Congress should expand these two programs dramatically, and spread their group-cohesion techniques to other AmeriCorps programs. Indeed, the whole national service enterprise should be expanded, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that every young person who wants to serve can serve. Though this will require significantly more funding, the benefits to our nation will be well worth the investment. At the same time, we must encourage the corporate sector and the philanthropic community to provide funding for national service, with federal challenge grants and other incentives."
...

Success, wealth, celebrity gained and kept for private interest---these are small things. They make us comfortable, ease the way for our children, and purchase a fleeting regard for our lives, but not the self-respect that, in the end, matters most. Sacrifice for a cause greater than self-interest, however, and you invest your life with the eminence of that cause.
Americans did not fight and win World War II as discrete individuals. Their brave and determined energies were mobilized and empowered by a national government headed by democratically elected leaders. That is how a free society remains free and achieves greatness. National service is a crucial means of making our patriotism real, to the benefit of both ourselves and our country."

These are excerpts from 'Putting the "National" in National Service'...

by John Sidney McCain
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.mccain.html
what a campaign slogan... "Service"

Redding v. Safford-- why isn't Chris Hansen reporting on this?

The so called "strict constitutionalists" on the Supreme Court are obviously pretty selective in what is relevant in constitutional matters...

It is clear to me that Brown v. Board holds that the 14th Amendment applies to schoolchildren (they being the subject of that case).

The Fourteenth Amendment states: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This by precedent incorporates the Fourth Amendment against the states (Mapp v. Ohio).

The Fourth Amendment does provide for the search of the OUTER layers of clothing in some circumstances (terry v. Ohio) citing: "the officer never put his hands beneath the outer garments"“The sole justification of the search ... is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.”

Justice Douglass dissented:“To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment.”

Bear in mind that such a case was involving Police officers, and that Ibuprophen is by no means the equivelent of a gun of a knife!It need hardly be stated that those areas of the body regarded as "the private parts" are among those in which the civilian not under order of a court of law (warrant) certaintly has an expectation of privacy.

As to the damages sought, it would seem to be a Catch 22 for the defence of Safford; either they may claim that the fourth amendment does not apply because they are not police (although they are public servants--so it ought to be assumed that they are under the same constraint regarding Warrants) but then they are clearly liable to be sued for their private conduct.

At the state level, there is of course the matter of Age of Consent. As her mother was never notified until after the fact... and of course there isn't a state in the Union in which a 13 year old may give consent to the solicitation of an adult to expose her private parts. I don't know about AZ, but here in civilized states that constitutes Statutory Rape!

from http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-479_Respondent.pdf

"Having turned up no evidence to suggest anymisconduct by Savana, Wilson nonethelessimmediately ordered Romero to take Savana to thenurse’s office. Id. Savana did not know why she wasbeing marched into the nurse’s office. As the doorslammed and locked behind Savana, id. at 16a, theschool nurse, Peggy Schwallier, was in the bathroomwashing her hands, id. at 23a. At that point, Romeroexplained that they intended to search Savana forpills. Id. at 16a. The two school officials thendirected Savana to undress. Id. at 23a. With bothofficials staring at Savana, she took off her pants andher shirt. Id. The officials did not notice any pillshidden in Savana’s clothing, on her body, or underher panties or bra. Id. at 14a. Still, they toldSavana to pull out her panties and bra and to movethem to the side. Id. at 23a-24a. This order forced Savana to expose her genital area and breasts to theschool officials."

The girl who ratted her out got a lesser sentence:


"Wilson then told Romero to escort Marissa tothe nurse’s office to search her clothing. J.A. 13a.
Romero, aided by Schwallier, asked Marissa toremove her socks and shoes, raise up her shirt andpull out the band of her bra, take off her pants, andstretch the elastic on her underwear.
(Unlike their execution of the strip search of Savana,the school officials did not ask Marissa to take off her shirt.)"

One might be led to conclude that because providing information earned a less sever intrusion, that the search was not for the sake of discovery but rather was inteded as a punishment--thereby violating the eighth amendment as well.

Public Allies or Public Enemy?

According to wikipedia.org, "Public Allies is an American non-profit, largely taxpayer-funded organization, dedicated to youth leadership development" that is affiliated with Americorps.

opensecrets.org shows Americorps subsidiary "Public Allies" to be lobbying for Charles Rangel's Military/Civilian Draft legislation (H.R.393).

See links:
www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lookup.php?type=b&lname=H.R.+393www.opensecrets.org/lobby/billsum.php?id=16746&lname=H.R.393www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000964

In Americorps.gov's website (http://www.americorps.gov/about/ac/history_timeline.asp) they list the chronology of ideas on National Service in which they mention "The Moral Equivalent of War." (?!) by William James. For those who are unfamiliar with these ramblings, I will present a short but bitter dose:

"Martial virtues must be the enduring cement; intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command, must still remain the rock upon which states are built... Men are now proud of belonging to a conquering nation, and without a murmur they lay down their persons and their wealth, if by so doing they may fend off subjection. But who can be sure that other aspects of one's country may not, with time and education and suggestion enough, come to be regarded with similarly effective feelings of pride and shame? Why should men not some day feel that is it worth a blood-tax to belong to a collectivity superior in any respect? Why should they not blush with indignant shame if the community that owns them is vile in any way whatsoever? Individuals, daily more numerous, now feel this civic passion. It is only a question of blowing on the spark until the whole population gets incandescent, and on the ruins of the old morals of military honor, a stable system of morals of civic honor builds itself up. What the whole community comes to believe in grasps the individual as in a vise. The war-function has grasped us so far; but the constructive interests may some day seem no less imperative, and impose on the individual a hardly lighter burden."

So that's what these people believe i... i-in... ahem... sorry I threw up a bit in my mouth.

http://www.americorps.gov/about/ac/history_timeline.asp

Abolishing Abolition?

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."--13th Amendment U.S. Const.

H.R. 1444 (sponsored by Jim McDermott or WA 7th district) contains language that was originally included in the Give Act/Serve America Act. It was removed from that legislation prior to its passage. The sloughed-off residue is presently sitting in committee. The language of particular interest to fans of the 13th Amendment is as follows, comcerning the duties of the commission to be formed by the legislation:

SEC. 4. DUTIES...

...(5)The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

(6)Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

Needless to say, in order to skirt the 13th Amendment such service will have to be tied to the Nation's Common Defense--by way of Charles Rangel's draft legislation (co-sponsored by McDermott--see also blog entry Workfare State) probably attributed to some jingoism that is deemed necessary.


As James Madison rightly said--and our recent history has proved:

"The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad"

and on another occasion...

"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted"

The Workfare State

"X and Y generations... are ready to do great things. But we don't ask anything of them. They have not been challenged."--Joe Biden

The idea of a workfare state is a simple one. Supplement programs that are currently wholly funded through general taxation--and start new programs--by adopting compulsory or semi-compulsory civilian service. According to the Obama administration's transitional website, these would include:

• a Classroom Corps to help underserved schools


• a Health Corps to serve in the nation's clinics and hospitals


• a Clean Energy Corps to achieve the goal of energy independence
  
• a Veterans Corps to support the Americans who serve by standing in harm's way

Obama and Biden will call on citizens of all ages to serve. They'll set a goal that all middle school and high school students engage in 50 hours of community service a year, and develop a plan for all college students who engage in 100 hours of community service to receive a fully-refundable tax credit of $4,000 for their education. Obama and Biden will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

According to the policy wonks who have dreamed up such things (see links) the latter would hopefully lead to the former. Here's what the Democratic Leadership Caucus/Progressive Policy Institute had to say:

"Universal service. If adopted, these five steps for taking voluntary national service to scale would move us closer to the ideal of universal service. By bringing tens, and eventually hundreds, of thousands of willing citizens together to meet the great challenges of our time, we will hasten the day when it will become routine for Americans to ask each other: What did you do for your national service?"

And how will it become UNIVERSAL? Representative Charles Rangel of NY has an idea. He has introduced legislation that has been sitting in the Ways and Means Committee since 2007. H.R.393 would require all those between the ages of 18 and 42 years of age to serve at Uncle Sam's pleasure, in either a military or civilian capacity.

...Just the first step to an organized and mobilized economy...

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion." --Friedrich A. Hayek

http://change.gov/americaserves/


http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=115&subid=145&contentid=253462


http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=115&subsecID=145&contentID=253462

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:7:./temp/~bd5Lae::/bss/d110query.html

Universal Micro-Credit?

"...both my husband and I were determined that the concept of microcredit would have universal relevance. We looked for ways to apply microcredit in America, taking the best of the principles and values that it represented, but making it sure that it could be put into practice in different settings."--Hillary Clinton (February 3, 1997)

Microcredit has gotten a lot of attention in recent years from politicians as well as celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and micro-lender Muhammad Yunus even won a Nobel Peace Prize. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, I will review briefly; An NGO such as Grameen Bank recieves funds from philanthropists, the UN, and the countries in which it operates. It then distributes these funds to individuals under the care of "solidarity groups." These groups see to it that the funds are repaid with interest. As the name suggests, the members of the group are cojointly liable for the repayment of funds. If a microcredit recipient does not repay the other members of the group have to cough it up. So there each member has a vested interest in seeing to it that a borrower repays whether or not that borrower is able to turn a profit from his/her enterprise. It is unclear whether the methods of ensuring repayment are monitored by the NGO, but suffice to say that high repayment rates show that whatever methods employed are highly effective. There have even been reports of borrowers having to turn to loan sharks in order to meet their solidarity requirements.

So one might ask: Why shouldn't we use such an effective lending system to solve our luquidity crisis? Well good news-- the new administration is all about microcredit! Take Treasury secretary Geithner. His father ran The Ford Foundation's microcredit program in Indonesia (One of his employees was one Ann Dunham Soetoro). Ray LaHood introduced microcredit legislation is Illinois. Hillary Clinton helped bring Yunus and microcredit to Arkansas.

So what does this suggest about how our credit liquidity problem is to be solved? Maybe we'd better get used to the idea of solidarity.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012235.php

Church and State

"Every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."--Thomas Jefferson, Jan 23, 1808

There has been a lot of churchy talk in politics lately. From President Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech which concluded:

"So let us pray together on this February morning, but let us also work together in all the days and months ahead. For it is only through common struggle and common effort, as brothers and sisters, that we fulfill our highest purpose as beloved children of God. I ask you to join me in that effort, and I also ask that you pray for me, for my family, and for the continued perfection of our union. Thank you."

...to his January 20th Proclamation:

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 20, 2009, a National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation, and call upon all of our citizens to serve one another and the common purpose of remaking this Nation for our new century."

To Tony Blair's coercively worded keynote address at Obama's Prayer Breakfast:

"I finish where I began: in the Holy Land, at Mount Nebo in Jordan, where Moses gazed on the Promised Land. There is a chapel there, built by pilgrims in the 4th Century. The sermon was preached by an American, who spent his life as an airline pilot and then, after his wife’s death, took holy orders. His words are the words of a Christian but they speak to all those of faith, who want God’s grace to guide their life. He said this:
'While here on earth, we need to make a vital decision ... whether to be mere spectators, or movers and shakers for the Kingdom of God... whether to stay among the curious, or take up a cross. And this means: no standing on the sidelines ... We’re either in the game or we’re not. I sometimes ask myself the question: If I were to die today, what would my life have stood for... The answer can’t be an impulsive one, and we all need to count the cost before we give an answer. Because to be able to say yes to one thing, means to say no to many others. But we must also remember, that the greatest danger is not impulsiveness, but inaction.'
It is fitting at this extraordinary moment in your country’s history that we hear that call to action; and we pray that in acting we do God’s work and follow God’s will. And by the way, God bless you all."

As to what end we are to be directed by this sermon, we need only look to Mr. Blair's contribution to the British Labour Party Platform, the re-wording of Clause IV:

"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning the religious faith of elected officials (even if that religion resembles Christian Socialism), I merely wish that our public servants would govern in a manner befitting the core values upon which our nation was founded. The Enlightenment which gave rise to our system of laws, placed value upon individual liberty first and foremost. This was a striking departure from the system which preceded it, in which an hereditary caste, and an accompanying caste of ascetic volunteers--and the preservation thereof--were the primary concern of government. A government in which the decisions over the fate and fortune of the individuals who composed the lesser castes of society were primarily in the hands of the former two castes. This government was based on a corrupt belief in a god who gave sacred authority to the first caste, divine right and privilege to the second, and little concern or mercy to the third. That fragments of such beliefs still exist is understandable, for even a god said to be immutable is able to conform to human understanding. But to begin again down the path to a hierarchical society with an ever-diminishing tolerance for individual variance from convention--and to enlist the service of a now more enlightened version of the same said god in order to accomplish it--is an abomination. That there is a benevolent Creator of our whole existence, I believe fully. But to recycle old traditions of barbaric understanding; to accept these as anything but parable to glean some understanding of ourselves, is folly. To apply such fatalism--such cowering defeat before the ghosts of ignorance--to the guidance of a civil government, is to turn backward down the dark path of history, even as the enlightened path lies just beyond us. Let us remember that progress can only occur when moving forward. Through the dismantling of artificial structures constructed by the ignorant. That our Creator loves his children so greatly that he gives them freedom from involuntary servitude, I have no doubt. That some may govern this land according to any other order, is surely both treason and disobedience!

Collective Capitalism

For those unwilling to accept Adam Smith's views on joint-stock companies (see The Real Laissez Faire) There is fortunately an alternative form to draw upon. It is described by the German economic theorist Karl Marx in Capital Vol. 3 as follows:

"Capitalist joint-stock companies as much as cooperative factories should be viewed as transition forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, simply that in the one case the opposition is abolished in a negative way, and in the other in a positive way."

The fact that such a collectivist scheme met with much the same corruption and suffering (by the end of the 19th Century) as those schemes practiced under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. should then come as no suprise--and such examples should help us to understand what makes our current system so completely unsustainable.

The Preocupation With Minutiae

The history books do us an injustice, and so do the newspapers today. If one bases ones knowledge of the world and our nations place within it merely on the basis of mass media and an inadequate education system, one would be led to believe that our independence from England was based upon not paying the stamp act, and that our continuing Independence is based upon the government procuring for us jobs and other trinkets through their benevolent housemanagement. Rather, then--as now--it was based upon a declaration. The Right of the individual in society to enjoy the guarantee of those rights which were endowed by the state of Nature. Life--that one's physical person is protected from harm, that one has the right to sustain oneself, and that if one is physically unable to care for oneself that this will be provided to such a degree as possible by other means. Liberty--the restraint of authority over the individual, to be limited to the protection of other individuals within society. The Persuit of Happiness--That one should not be arbitrarily restrained from persuing ones interests, except for the case of its infraction upon those rights of others. With exception to those functions of raising revenue for the function of government, and those of protecting society from outside invasion, these are the legitimate functions of republican government. The protection of property is but a subset of these three rights, and as such it should be acknowleged that the land of a nation, that said to be 'real' property ought to be acknowleged as nominally alloidal. With such understanding it should be thought absurd in the extreme if some other entity than the individual within society should be entitled to any right whatsoever. So too, one might wonder if justice could be achieved for the individual if large portions of the resourses within the borders of the state were owned collectively and allocated to such collectives under the administration of one or more employee. That there have been government that operated under the auspices of such an arangement--whether it be through Lenin's Soviet, or Mussolini's Fasci, or Lincoln's Corporation--should only strengthen our resolve against such a breeding ground for moral corruption. While the true market based upon a relationship between the parties to business exchanges does result in the invisible hand that acheives the greatest good for the economy as well as the necessity for moral self governance--and the opportunity to mantain control over the minutiae of life.

The Real Laissez Faire!

Adam Smith is generally recognized as the father of Laissez Faire capitalism. Yet many who call for free trade and other non-regulatory measures fail to recognize--as Smith did--the most basic form of intervention within modern capitalism; the public issuance of joint-stock ownership in a company.

"To establish a joint stock company... for any undertaking merely because such a company might be capable of managing it successfully; or to exempt a particular set of dealers from some of the general laws which take place with regard to all their neighbours, merely because they might be capableof thriving if they had such an exemption, would certainly not be reasonable. To render such an establishment perfectly reasonable, with the circumstance of being reducible to strict rule and method, two other circumstances ought to concur. First it ought to appear with the clearest evidence, that the undertaking is of the greater and more general utility than the greater part of common trades. and secondly that it requires a greater capital than can easily be collected into a private copartnery."

Smith accepts that such conditions may be met by the banking trade or large projects such as canal building. One might add in modern times, perhaps aerospace manufacture and certain capital intensive technologies, but as far as those smaller manufactured items and durable goods Smith makes clear his beliefs:

"The joint stock companies, which are established for the public spirited purpose of promoting some particular manufacture, over and above managing their own affairs ill, to the dimunition of the general stock of the society, can in other respects scarce ever fail to do more harm than good. Notwithstanding the most upright intentions, the unavoidable partiality of their directors to particular branches of the manufacture of which the undertakers mislead and impose upon them is a real discouragement to the rest, and necessarily breaks, more or less, that natural proportion which would otherwise establish itself between judicious industry and profit, and which, to the general industry of the country, is of all encouragements the greatest and the most effectual."

So there you have it a compelling statement for non intervention when it would hinder entreprenuership--and a call for reducing to "strict rule and method" those sectors such as banking for which joint stock ownership is justified. Sounds like a sustainable recipe for crash-free capitalism to me. Laisser Passer Laisser Faire indeed!

Death of Liberalism part 2

Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright were the least of our worries! Meet Rahm Emanuel (Obama's pick for cheif of staff) He voted to make the patriot act PERMANENT, and his 2006 book Big Plan further reveals his strong disdain for individual liberties:

"It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

Although he assumes that only "Republicans will squeal about individual freedom," this Big Plan would require altering the 13th amendment which has--for the last century and a half--prohibited forced servitude. So now should those 18-24-year-olds who voted for Obama in record numbers expect to be enslaved building a business infrastructure as part of this new post-bailout corporatist economy?! Lets compare this take on "patriotic duty" to that of a true liberal--consumer advocate and former Presidential candidate Ralph Nader--in his essay We Need A New Kind of Patriotism:

"If patriotism has no room for deliberation, for acknowledging an individual's sense of justice and his religious principles, it will continue to close minds, stifle the dissent that has made us strong, and deter the participation of Americans who challenge in order to correct, and who question in order to answer. We need only to recall recent history in other countries where patriotism was converted into an epidemic of collective madness and destruction. A patriotism manipulated by the government asks only for a servile nod from its subjects. A new patriotism requires a thinking assent from its citizens. If patriotism is to have any 'manifest destiny,' it is in building a world where all mankind is our bond in peace."

related links:

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m11d6-Obamas-chief-of-staff-choice-favors-compulsory-universal-service
http://growingvertical.com/2008/11/rahm-emanuel-and-13th-amendment.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nader/NewPatriotism_RNR.html

The Death of Liberalism

I should start off this obituary by noting the overall rightward shift in the Democratic Party. For those who haven't heard Howard Dean is out and Tim Kaine is in as Chairman. Howard Dean is the former presidential candidate who I would have voted for, if only he had met the height requirement. Tim Kaine is the Third Way (mixed socialist-hierarchal capitalist economic thought--not to be confused with 'third entry' although metaphorically speaking the result is the same) conservative former Virginia Governor. While Howard Dean was a moderate on civil-libertarian issues like gun ownership, Tim Kaine is moderate in that he is a social moderate and as one Virginian blog puts it:

"Kaine kept his pro-business promise, even to the extent of re-appointing a
member to the state water control board who had been cited twice for violating
the state’s clean water laws he was sworn to uphold. Next, Kaine fully embraced
a new coal fired power plant in the Virginia coalfields and stood firm as his
liberal base accused him of being owned by the power plant applicant, a slave of
coal."

This is bad news for those of us who wanted a clean break from Bush's policies. Way to keep it real, DNC.