Slavery vs. Citizenship: What’s The Difference?

September 10, 2012

What Does It Mean to Be A Slave?

By Eric Peters

Debating the merits of a particular government policy or proposal with authoritarian-minded political opponents is pointless – if you’re hoping to persuade, at any rate. Far better to ask them a few apparently simple questions – and force them to confront the disquieting answers about the authoritarian nature of the political and social system they support.

For instance, you might ask what their view of slavery is. Is it morally wrong to own another human being? Probably, they will say it is wrong. Now ask: What does it mean to be a slave? Usually, they will tell you it means being the property of another. Now ask the killer follow-up: What does it mean to be the property of another?

Point out that it means having control over another person’s life – control of his actual person, his body. His mind, even.

To be in a position – to be entitled – to use violence to enforce compliance.

A slave is not at liberty to act as he wishes to act. He must do as he is told – and if he does not, he can expect physical punishment and that punishment will not be considered assault. The slave must accept his punishment.

There is no appeal, no recourse. He must bow low and submit – or risk the repercussions, which ultimately include death.

His only hope is escape.

The slave, most obviously, owns nothing – because he controls nothing. He may be allowed to use things. But the owner of these things – himself included – is someone else. Someone else gets to say yes – or no. When – and where. How – and how much. The slave has no real say – in that he is never in a position to say no. Not without consequences raining down upon him.

He merely obeys. Because he must obey.

The fact that his hands may hold the scythe does not mean the scythe is his. The fact that the effort of his body cuts the wheat does not mean the wheat is his. He is permitted to keep a portion. In principle, because in fact, the slave owns nothing that may not be taken away from him. At any time, for any reason. And he is powerless to do anything about it.

The slave’s dwelling, the clothes he wears – even his very body – are subject to arbitrary control against his will by another person or persons. This is the essence of what it means to be a slave.

Be sure your opponent accepts these points – which he must accept, because to not accept them is not unlike refusing to accept that 2 + 2 = four.

Now ask him whether he (or anyone else he knows) is free to determine the course of his own life. Or do others set down terms and conditions which he must obey?

Is he free to do business with whomever he chooses to do business? Or is he told exactly with whom he must do business – and under what conditions?

May he travel freely? Or is he required to travel with permission – and only under certain conditions? Must he carry ownership papers with him wherever he goes? And is it not true that if he is caught without these papers, he is subject to arrest and imprisonment for that reason alone?

Is he free to raise his children as he considers best? To teach them as he sees fit? Or must he teach them things others decree he must teach them?

Is he even free to choose whom to marry? Or must he submit to the authority of others in even this most personal of life’s choices?

Is he free to defend himself when accosted by strangers? Or must he submit to these strangers, if they wear a certain type of outfit? (Did not the overseer also wear a certain type of outfit?)

May he own things?

More precisely, is he permitted other than conditional use of things? For instance, that which he may think of as “his” home. If it is in fact “his,” then surely that means no one else has legal claim to it and cannot take it away from him once he has paid the original seller in full. Ask him about the large payments he must make to others every year, forever, in order to be allowed to remain on “his” property. Remind him that plantation slaves also had homes – in the sense that they were allowed conditional use of dwellings. Dwellings ultimately owned by someone else. The slaves were permitted to use these dwellings so long as their labor provided enough return to the true owners of the dwelling. A slave who refused to work – who declined to make payments in the form of his labor then (and tax payments now) would soon discover who the true owner of “his” dwelling really was.

Just as today.

Ask whether he is compelled to give up whatever portion of the fruits of his labors others decide they are entitled to – and how this differs from the slave in the field being forced to pick cotton for the benefit of others . . . .

Ask him what he thinks will happen if he declines to hand over the fruits of his labor… .

Ask whether he is at liberty to do as he wills even with his own poor body. May he freely choose to treat his body’s ailments as he sees fit? Or will he be chained and jailed if he treats himself in other than the “lawful” manner?Ask whether he knows that he may be forcibly taken from his home if he declines to be “treated” in the manner prescribed by others.

Who, then, owns his body? His very person? If I have the power to compel you to do – or not do – then is it not a fact that to some degree at least, I am your owner?And in that case, are you not a slave?

The control need not be vicious or even mean. The owner of a beloved dog is no less the owner of the animal by dint of the fact that he treats it kindly and tends to its needs. The dog is not at liberty to come and go as it pleases. It is allowed to use certain items – an old sofa, for example – and not other things. It does not own anything.

It is owned.

Neither did the plantation slave own anything. And many had benevolent masters – for example, Thomas Jefferson – who tried to treat them with kindness, as they saw it. Who saw themselves as parents of subnormal adult children in need of guidance – and restraint. This benevolent treatment, however, in no way made the slaves other than slaves.

Behind the gentle guiding hand, always the whip.

As it is today – with the exception that today’s slaves are unaware of their condition and imagine themselves to be free. Its subtlety is its genius. Instead of individual plantations, there is one consolidated plantation called “our country.” But we are owned nonetheless.

It is immaterial that we are not normally chained… if the chains may be put on at the first hint of disobedience.

That we are allowed use of more (and nicer) things than the slaves of the past does not in any way change the fact that they are just as owned (because just as controlled) by someone else – and may be taken away at any moment, if the true owners so choose.

Our cotton fields are the cubicles of the modern office; our overseers called by different names. But their job is what it has always been: To make sure we toil, submit and obey. And if we do not…

Well, we all know the answer to that one.

Copyright © 2012 Eric Peters Autos

Advertisements

The Attitude of an Anarchist

September 9, 2012

by Tom Finnigan

Editor’s Note: This is the finest description of anarchy I’ve seen. Enjoy, but embrace anarchy.

Anarchy is about attitude as much as philosophy. Below is a contrast between a conservative attitude toward government and the anarchist’s attitude toward government. Do you have the attitude of an anarchist?

Conservatives show deference toward political authority; anarchists show defiance toward political authority. Conservatives respect politicians; anarchists revile politicians. Conservatives see voting as their patriotic duty; anarchists see voting as a waste of time. Conservatives feel an emotional attachment to democracy; anarchists think democracy is a farce. Conservatives think the Constitution is sacred; anarchists think the Constitution is a dead letter. Conservatives would feel honored to meet the President; anarchists would feel like showering after meeting the President. Conservatives love Ronald Reagan because he believed in smaller government; anarchists despise Ronald Reagan because he enlarged the government. Conservatives see sex scandals as an embarrassment to the nation; anarchists see sex scandals as entertainment for the nation.

Conservatives take pride in U.S. history; anarchists deconstruct U.S. history. Conservatives are moved when they hear the National Anthem; anarchists just want to start the game already. Conservatives pledge allegiance to the United States of America; anarchists declare independence from the United States of America. Conservatives think unity is important; anarchists think unity is dangerous. Conservatives detest draft dodgers; anarchists admire draft dodgers. Conservatives grieve for soldiers killed in wars; anarchists grieve for civilians killed in wars. Conservatives disparage conscientious objectors; anarchists are conscientious objectors. Conservatives think dissent is unpatriotic; anarchists think dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Conservatives ridicule conspiracy theorists; anarchists are conspiracy theorists.

Conservatives fear an out-out-of-control population; anarchists fear an out-of-control government. Conservatives think drugs are destroying society; anarchists think the war on drugs is destroying society. Conservatives respect government law; anarchists respect natural law. Conservatives think it’s wrong for people to pick and choose what laws they want to obey; anarchists feel a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws. Anarchists might help a teenager trying to score some beer; conservatives would threaten to call the cops. Conservatives worry about what their neighbors do behind closed doors; anarchists worry about what cops and prosecutors do behind closed doors.” Conservatives think everyone should pay their taxes; anarchists think no one should pay their taxes. Anarchists feel excited about breaking the law; conservatives feel guilty about breaking the law. Conservatives feel safe in the presence of law enforcement; anarchists feel threatened in the presence of law enforcement. Conservatives grieve for the federal agents killed during the Waco siege; anarchists grieve for the civilians killed during the Waco siege.

Conservatives fear instability; anarchists fear tyranny. Conservatives value order; anarchists value freedom. Conservatives think about what’s practical; anarchists think about what’s right. Conservatives want to take over the State; anarchists want to smash the State. Conservatives want reform; anarchists want revolution. Conservatives fear extremists; anarchists are extremists. Conservatives take interest in elections, budget proposals, and constitutional amendments; anarchists take interest in secession, nullification, and civil disobedience. Conservatives worry about what would replace the existing political order; anarchists are willing to roll the dice.

The attitude of an anarchist can be summarized as follows: contempt for politicians; rejection of nationalism; disrespect for the law; and a willingness to make radical changes to the status quo. If you share these attitudes, you might be an anarchist. If you reject the philosophy of anarchism, you should still consider adopting the attitude of an anarchist if you want liberty. Attitude is more important than philosophy when it comes to rousing the masses from their slumber. Eastern Europeans did not erupt against communism because they had recently learned about Mises’ economic calculation argument. They did it because they were tired of living in a police state and weren’t going to take it anymore. The attitude of an anarchist says, “Don’t tread on me.” It is inspiring. It is contagious. It is the hope of humanity.

Tom Finnigan lives in Atlanta, Georgia.

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com.


Why Do We Obey?

August 13, 2012

by Eric Peters
EricPetersAutos.com

Editor’s Note: The same level of mind-numbed obedience found in most people today can be used to the benefit of secessionists. Once the American economy goes in the tank, and people get hungry, the people will be much easier to lead. Cynical? Sure. But pragmatic too.

If some random guy ordered you to submit to his will – or else – most of us would at least consider it assault. Many of us would try to escape – or defend ourselves. Very few would quietly submit. And almost no one would submit willingly.

But when exactly the same thing is done to us by a person wearing a uniform, most of us not only submit and obey – we do so without even questioning the rightness of the thing.

The uniform – and other totems of officialized authority – confer legitimacy upon the illegitimate. It is a startling thing. It reveals that most people are incapable of grasping the concept of a moral principle – that something which is wrong when committed by an unsanctioned individual is just as wrong when committed by a sanctioned individual – or a group of them.

If it is wrong to kill, then it is always wrong to kill. If it is wrong to steal, then it is always wrong to steal. Neither killing no theft nor any other intrinsically wrong act becomes not-wrong because it’s sanctioned, approved or euphemized by the state, or by a politician, or by a bureaucracy. Stalin reportedly once said that a single death is a tragedy, but a million deaths a statistic. Nothing could be further from the truth. A million single deaths is an atrocity – as much as a single individual death is a tragedy. And you are no less the victim of theft if the theft is done by a collective or its purported agent – under color of law, or via the ballot box.

Theft is theft. The essential nature of the thing is not altered by how it is done – or by whom.

There may be shades of grey in many aspects of life – but not when it comes to questions of basic morality. Your life is yours – and it follows that you are entitled by right to be at liberty. Else your life is not yours, but rather the chattel property of someone else – to whatever extent that other person (or persons) exercises control over your life, and against your will.

Similarly, it follows that if you own your life, then you also own the fruits of the labor of your body and mind, of that which is you. To say that random others – what collectivist psychopaths refer to as “society” – have a moral claim to the fruits of your labor is merely another way of saying you are owned, wholly or in part, to the extent you are forced by threat of violence to hand over the fruits of your body and of your mind. You are either free – or you are slightly more (or less) enslaved.

There is no in-between. It is impossible – a contradiction in terms.

A free man is beholden to none – except those he freely chooses to be beholden to. An enslaved man has no such free choice. He is beholden to whomever “society” – that is, to whomever wields political power over him – decrees. At best, he may plead to be slightly less enslaved, or to have the fruits of the labor of his body and mind forcibly distributed against his will to random strangers or groups of them, or projects or causes, he finds somewhat less disagreeable. But he cannot refuse; he is not permitted to say no. He is bound by a “social contract” he never signed, by consent he never gave. By debts and obligations assumed on his behalf by people he has never met, much less entrusted with proxy power.

In a word, he is a slave. The question is merely of the degree to which he is enslaved – and to what extent he is aware of his condition.

The system we have – that we suffer daily – cannot permit people to think along such lines, of course – because it would be its undoing.

Instead, people are conditioned – from infancy and not just by the state, but by everything all around them – to accept that the immoral can be transmuted into the moral via the miracle of group assent, or the fiction thereof. That murder and theft are not merely permissible but acceptable when they are performed by people wearing special outfits, who have been anointed in some way by a group.

In this way, the outrageous becomes all right. Most men worthy of the title would tell another man to go pound sand if he told them to “buckle up for safety.” And they’d punch him in the nose if he pursued the issue. But when the order-barker is wearing a uniform, most men’s testicles seem to shrivel – and they submit and obey. They quail before The Law. They do as they are told. But that is understandable. When one is facing an armed opponent – one armed with an army – it is foolish bravado to do other than submit and obey.

What is troubling is their acceptance of servility – of the implicit rightness (alleged) of what is done to them. And – much worse – of what they often do to one another. Rather than see the thing clearly, for what it is – and rebel in mind and spirit at least – the representative specimen will not only agree that it is all right – he will often insist the same (and worse) things be done to his fellow man. He is told what to do, therefore he will tell others what to do. His life is not his own, therefore, he will make damn sure no one else’s life is their own, either. He is forced to hand over his property, the fruit of the labor of his body and mind? Damn straight others will, too.

The great tragedy of our time is not that human liberty is dying. It is that so many of us are willing accomplices in its murder. All too many fail to chafe at what is being to others because they fail to grasp that it is thereby done to them as well. Or will be, in time. That it is our mutual interest as human beings to defend human liberty, everywhere and always.

Freedom is in fact free. It is collectivism – authoritarianism – whose costs are incalculable.

Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities and Road Hogs (2011). Visit his website.

Copyright © 2012 Eric Peters


Is Secession Sedition?

April 2, 2012

By Russell D. Longcore

I have heard people tell me that they are afraid of secession because of what happened to the Confederate States of America. They have also heard that the act of secession is an act of sedition.

Well, is it or not?

The definition of the word “Sedition” is:

1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. Archaic, rebellious disorder.

Looking at the first definition, we find “Incitement” means encouraging, stimulating or provoking to action. DumpDC certainly does all three of those through pointing out to readers the abject folly and criminal behavior of the Washington DC gang. We take comfort that we are fellow travelers with men like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison…all seditious writers of the mid-18th century. We qualify with definition number 2, since we write and speak to promote such discontent of rebellion. Number 3 doesn’t define us, since we are not archaic or disorderly.

But remember…sedition is not illegal. But if it was…should sedition cease? Did the Founders cease their rebellion against King George when their actions were deemed unlawful?

There is 18 USC 2384 (which is still law) that reads:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

The colonies were owned by King George, and the colonial secession was indeed an action to possess the King’s property.

But DumpDC does not promote the overthrow, putting down, or the destruction of the United States Federal Government. We do not wish to levy war against Washington. We do not wish to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States. We do not wish to take or possess any property of the United States.

We. Just. Want. To. Leave.

If a state leaves the Union, it is no longer subject to any Federal law or Court. It is no longer subject to any Federal taxation of any kind. It is no longer subject to the myriad regulations from all the three-letter agencies of the Federal Government. The seceded state is as sovereign as France, Canada, Mexico, China, or Switzerland.

The 18 USC 2384 statute brings up an interesting point: Who owns the states? Does the Federal Government own the states? If it does, then secession would indeed be an effort to take or possess property of the United States. But if the states are not owned by Washington, they are ALL free to affiliate with whomever they choose, or affiliate with no other political entity. Remember…the Northern victory of 1865 did not settle the question of whether or not a state could secede from the Union. It merely defeated the CSA army in the field. Nothing in the Constitution changed regarding secession.

Secession is the only solution to restore personal liberty and property rights on the North American continent. Who will be first?

Dump D C: Six Letters That Can Change History.

Copyright 2012: Russell D. Long core. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Constitutional Quizzery

March 12, 2012

by Tom Baugh
StarvingTheMonkeys.com

(Edtitor’s Note: Tom shows the path to secession. Attaboy, Tom!!)

Despite a continual degradation of liberty in these united States, the patriot blogosphere continues to be energized with sentiments such as “keep your hands off my Constitution”, “let’s restore the Constitution”, “if you don’t like my Constitution then you should get the hell out”, or “I can’t wait to kill all the people who don’t like my Constitution”. Or variations of this same theme.

While such emotional reactions probably feel good to the reactionary spouting them (who is, by the way, trying to articulate perfectly legitimate concerns about something having gone terribly wrong in this country), they ignore some simple facts about the Constitution itself. Without going into all the details about the facts which support a Hamiltonian power grab (Boston T. Party does a fine job of this all by himself in his Hologram of Liberty”), splitting hairs about “of” or “for”, or devolving into yet another academic Spooner tug-fest, we can let the Constitution speak for itself.

First, however, I would like to slice and dice some of the founding documents so that we can see Constitutional reality. For our purposes here, the founding documents can be divided as follows:

a. The Declaration of Independence (DoI).
b. The seven articles of Constitutional power.
c. The Bill of Rights (BoR).
d. The remainder of the amendments to the Constitution.

Pop Quiz (which should be a breeze for those Constitutional scholars so confident of their patriotism that they would easily exile or execute those with whom they disagree, freedom of speech notwithstanding):

Question 1: Of these four divisions, two are about liberty, one is about centralized government control, and the remainder patches holes discovered in that power over time. Can you name which is which?

Question 2: Of these four divisions, which is the one that most patriot types have in mind when considering ideas such as “oathkeeping” versus “oathbreaking”?

Question 3: For the division given as the answer to the previous question, what enforcement provisions exist to ensure the rights described therein are protected?

Question 4: Other than individual cases which don’t amount to a hill of stacked crap, when throughout the entire history of the nation have those rights been protected in any crisis of any magnitude (hint: Katrina), crises being the only time in which preservation of rights is essential?

OK, I could go on and on, but I run the risk of losing some of those who are starting to get a nagging, uncomfortable feeling. Let’s get rid of the nagging and make sure it is a full-bore deliberate uncomfortable feeling instead, and grade those papers. Get out your red pens, gang.

Answer 1: This first question should be easy. Only the DoI and BoR are about liberty. I think we can all agree that the concepts in those two documents are essential to a free people. In contrast, the seven articles of Constitutional power delineate the power structure established by, and powers granted to, the central government. The other amendments primarily patch holes in that framework when too much actual liberty threatens to squirt out at the seams.

Answer 2: Again, an easy question. Most patriots, especially military veterans, have in mind the BoR when thinking warm fuzzy thoughts about Constitutional oaths. But you can be sure that high office holders are instead only thinking about all that power vested in their offices when they take an oath. Both groups are correct, but only one of them carries the day in any meaningful way, which brings us to…

Answer 3: There is no enforcement language whatsoever for the Bill of Rights. Any prohibition without enforcement is merely a suggestion. Or propaganda, depending on your point of view. And so …

Answer 4: Whenever your rights bump up against the power of the high office holders or their mid- to low-office minions, you lose. Every time. Wherever or whenever you think Americans have been free in the past, it is just because the feds (read as “enforcers for the elites”) hadn’t gotten around to walling that place off yet. The tyranny has always been lying there dormant, waiting to be used, and leaks through the cracks in times of crisis. But now, it’s all crisis, isn’t it?

Now, the usual patriot answer is that “wee the people” have somehow let down “wee the people” by not marching on DC with our NRA-sanctioned sporting arms and straightening out “thee the people” in those high offices. Again, this sounds good, but the fact it has NEVER happened, and NEVER will, is due to one simple provision in all of that power stuff we usually skip over while paging one-handed over to the good stuff in that Bill of Suggested Rights If They Aren’t Too Inconvenient When They Matter Most.

Bonus Question:

Care to guess which one provision totally pulls the rug out from under any patriot movement based on purely Constitutional principles? For additional credit, what other provisions support this view?

(tick tock tick tock)

Don’t feel bad, it took me years to get this one, too…

(tick tock tick tock)

Hint: It’s in Article II…

(tick tock tick tock)

Another hint: Look in Section 2 of that Article.

(tick tock tick tock)

Let’s read it together:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”

Catch that?

Oh, you know, that little part where it says that if you want to have a militia, that the President owns it? And, by extension, the only valid militia is that of your State, which the President owns, too (check history, the real one, not what you learned in public school, for numerous examples before you argue the feel-good patriot-fantasy to the contrary). So, in effect, my patriot friends, by swearing to the sanctity of the Constitution, you have handed over your one means of enforcing compliance with that Bill of Rights fantasy. See also that militia stuff buried within the Article I, Section 8 laundry list, as well as in Article IV, Section 4.

These provisions of centralized Constitutional power are why there has never been, and will never be, any meaningful resistance to increasing national control and encroachment of every issue of life for each one of us. We are on a one-way path to oblivion, since our best means to resist has been carefully crafted to be meaningless from the start. Sure, form a militia, which, by the way, is the absolutely and ethically correct (albeit unlawful) reaction to our circumstances. But, after doing so, then all of your oathkeeping Constitutionalist buddies, you know, the ones in the officially sanctioned police and military militias, will demand that said local and/or private militia then answer to the President, and by extension to the elites who actually run this country. Said powers, will of course, demand that said militia disband and go home.

Despite Second Amendment propaganda, you have no Constitutional recourse of last resort to oppose with force the laws of the (capital letter) United States, including laws such as NDAA. Which means, of course, that any local militia opposition fantasies are strictly un-Constitutional, by definition.

Checkmate on the first move. Well, actually, before you even get to move.

My friends, despite what you want to believe about this nation, no form of government which criminalizes the right of any person to band together with his neighbors for armed mutual defense, against enemies foreign or domestic, can hold any validity in the mind of a free man.

Forget arguments about anarchist this, or Constitutionalist that, or any other ist you choose, this prohibition is the central nugget. By placing militias under the control of the Chief Executive, and providing for the use of that force to enforce compliance with laws, even, or especially, those laws which blatantly violate the Bill of Rights, we all lose.

Within two years of taking office, the first President showed exactly what central power was all about, by raising an army of 12,000 men to put down tax resisters in the Whiskey Rebellion. Review that little bit of history at your leisure. Note that the same founders who were aghast at a tea tax, and threw that famous Tea Party, didn’t take too kindly to the same behavior being applied to their tax against Appalachian corn tea out in the sticks (Yeah, I know, there’s that whole “no taxation without representation” slogan. But, who do you think gets more representation? You out in the sticks, or the elites with their checkbooks? If you think your vote actually means anything, or lets you make a meaningful or informed decision, you haven’t been paying attention to reality lately).

As you may recall, the private militias which had formed in the hinterland for mutual defense against that first major national tax were labeled as treasonous and enemies of the state. And the rest of the nation just lapped that rationale up. Just as the North lapped up a similar labeling of the breakaway South. And just as contemporary citizens lap up the idea that militia types are somehow dangerous to law and order as more than half of them wait for their government checks. See the pattern?

Your absolutely correct and noble desire to form a local militia to protect yourself against unconstitutional behavior is itself unconstitutional. Embrace that fact. The first step to recovery is to admit that you have a problem, and we, my friends, have a big problem right there in black and white.

This is the document to which the Constitutionalists swear, and then wonder about the results in endless frustration. Lacking a constant brimming threat of imminent militia action, the national government has run amok, and will continue to run increasingly amok, all within Constitutional bounds.

As it was designed to do from the start for reasons you’ll discover once you open your eyes to see reality for what it really is.

Sadly, we are taught, and many of our Constitutionalist brethren believe, that the only alternative is anarchy and chaos. Anarchy and chaos is, of course, the natural end result of the path we are on. And sadly, there is no way back the way we’ve come, for a variety of reasons too numerous to list here. It is going to go all the way down, like it or not. Eventually, the US will run out of blood (regardless of even an inevitable draft someday) and treasure (regardless of how many nations from which we “democratize” valuable natural resources) necessary to pay the bondholders who own this country. Eventually, that little thing known as “the full faith and credit” runs completely dry no matter how many drag themselves up to wearily salute the tattered flag of the banksters’ state.

The question is, what then? What do we put in place to make sure the same juggernaut won’t be revived the next time around?

We’ve learned from this little quarter-millennial experiment that only a system in which universal local militia service is codified can protect you in any meaningful way or preserve civilization in any recognizable form. Only the Constitutional prohibition of the universal local militia renders immune from the consequences of their misbehavior tyrants at all levels, from the greenest cop to the highest office holders, including the generals who will one day come to crush your own private Whiskey Rebellion. It is for this reason that the proponents of the Bill of Rights struggled to check what they saw back then as a Hamiltonian juggernaut aimed at the throats of the individual citizen. A struggle which has now proven to be in vain.

As I said before, no form of government which criminalizes the right to band together with his neighbors for armed mutual defense, against enemies foreign or domestic, can hold any validity in the mind of a free man.

But that freedom comes with a price. And one facet of that price is that the individual citizen would have to participate, to man and woman up, to not delegate their responsibilities to unknown, faceless others. In a world in which even an invalid grandmother can spot targets out her farmhouse window and call for fire, the typical sandal-wearing 911-dialing man-mouse would become an endangered species. And civilization would thus lurch forward for the better as it crunches over the bones of those who gladly trade liberty for insecurity. Including those bones of those nobly misguided patriots who fear the prospect of local or regional warlords (read as “militia leaders”) so much that they eagerly not only accept, but actively promote, the yoke of the greatest warlord class in history in exchange for protection from those lesser shadows.

Does this mean our situation is hopeless? No, our situation is hopeless only so long as self-defined patriots think that restoring the Constitution, as written, is a viable path. As I have said many times, there is nothing broken with the Constitution that needs restoring; it is working fine and dandy, just as it was designed to do, which is to protect the elites from the rabble, foreign and domestic, who might otherwise take exception to unremitting theft and corruption under the color of twisted law.

The only valid path for us now is to stand aside while it all crumbles away. Let those who continue to fantasize about a republic which never was throw themselves into that self-defeating breach. Save them if they are willing to learn, but let them go if they won’t. Eventually, evolution will do what it always does, which is to correct error and reward, in its painful way, reality and truth.

A day will arrive when the last gasping pure Constitutionalist, bewildered to the end while defending his oppressors, has been crushed in the gears of the machine designed to feed the elites. Only then will those elites be stripped of the power to protect themselves from their victims. Stripped how? By local militias who refuse to yield more blood or treasure to their service. Universal service in militias under local control, my friends, is the only way forward. We’ve seen where the road leads without those local militias.

So, plan for that inevitable outcome. Organize your patriot militias, not to vainly restore the perfectly intact Constitution, nor to defend it for the benefits of the elite who have owned this country from inception, but to replace it when this house of cards finally collapses under its weight, preserving yourselves and your neighbors within that storm. Then, on the other side, let’s work together to restore the principles of liberty and put teeth into the rights of man with meaningful consequences enforced by local militias, unfettered by those who rightly fear them.

© 2009-2012 Starve Monkey Press, Inc. All rights reserved.


What If Democracy Is Bunk?

February 28, 2012

by Andrew Napolitano

(Editor’s Note: The answer to this entire article filled with questions is secession. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Secession is the ONLY ANSWER to the tyranny that surrounds us like the air we breathe.)

What if you are only allowed to vote because it doesn’t make a difference? What if no matter how you vote, the elites get to have it their way? What if “one person, one vote” is just a fiction created by the government to induce your compliance? What if democracy is dangerous to personal freedom? What if democracy erodes the people’s understanding of natural rights and the foundations of government, and instead turns elections into beauty contests?

Andrew Napolitano

What if democracy allows the government to do anything it wants, as long as more people bother to show up at the voting booth to support it than to oppose it? What if the purpose of democracy is to convince people that they could prosper not through the creation of wealth but through theft from others? What if the only moral way to acquire wealth – aside from inheritance – is through voluntary economic activity? What if the government persuaded you that you could acquire wealth through political activity? What if economic activity included all the productive and peaceful things we do? What if political activity included all the parasitical and destructive things the government does?

What if governments were originally established to protect people’s freedom, but always turn into political and imperialist enterprises that seek to expand their power, increase their territory and heighten their control of the population? What if the idea that we need a government to take care of us is actually a fiction? What if our strength as individuals and durability as a culture are contingent not on the strength of the government but on the amount of freedom we have from the government?

What if we’re seeing civil unrest around the world precisely because government is out of control? What if the cocktail of big government and democracy brings dependence and destruction? What if big government destroys people’s motivations and democracy convinces them that the only motivation they need is to vote and go along with whatever the government does?

What if the Republican primaries we’re seeing unfold aren’t actually as democratic as they may appear to be? What if the results you have seen from the states that have voted thus far don’t match the composition of the delegates those states send to the Tampa convention this summer because the polls aren’t what counts, but what counts are the secret meetings that come after the voting? What if Joe Stalin was right when he said the most powerful person in the world is the guy who counts the votes?

What if the greatest tyrant in history lives among us? What if that tyrant always gets its way, no matter what the laws are or what the Constitution says? What if that tyrant is the majority of voters? What if the tyranny of the majority in a democracy recognizes no limits on its power?

What if the government misinforms voters so as to justify anything the government wants to do? What if the government bribes people with the money it prints? What if it gives entitlements to the poor, tax breaks to the middle class and bailouts to the rich just to keep all of us dependent upon it? What if a vibrant republic requires not just the democratic process of voting, but also informed and engaged voters who understand first principles of limited government and free-market economics, and the divine origin of natural rights?

What if we could free ourselves from the yoke of big government through a campaign of education and information and personal courage that leads to a revolutionary return to first principles? What if the establishment doesn’t want this? What if the government remains the same no matter who wins elections?

What if because of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, because he isn’t campaigning just for votes as his competition is, because he is educating the population and winning the hearts and minds of a once free people and inspiring them to fight for their freedom once more, freedom wins? What if we can be free again? What will it take to make that happen?

© Copyright 2012, Andrew Napolitano


AWA: Americans With Attitude

October 19, 2011

by Bob Moriarty

(Editor’s note: The penultimate paragraph is one of the most sobering I’ve read in many months. And it’s nearly impossible to argue with the author’s conclusions. Blood will likely be spilled, and that may just be the beginning of the end.)

It doesn’t take long to overthrow a government. Algeria took a couple of months, Egypt took only three weeks. As of now, the Occupy Wall Street event is in its fourth week. It took three weeks of total silence for the news media before they even began to pay attention.

The Revolution probably started on September 24th as Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna of the New York Police Department casually took out a pepper spray canister and blasts some young women already in the custody of the police. It was all caught on camera as he slithered away.

The mainstream media has yet to really come to grips with the protest. Neither Wall Street nor Washington DC has yet to come to terms with the protests that have now spread all over the country.

It’s true there is no coherent and single message coming from the protestors. All revolutions begin as an unorganized mob of people each with their own agenda. What neither Washington, nor Wall Street get is that Americans are finally waking up. Sure, lots of people were talking about the dangers of derivatives years ago and the stealing going on in Wall Street. But Americans had it pretty good and as long as the paychecks came in, everything was just fine.

Paychecks have stopped for 23.1% of Americans now unemployed; many will never again hold a well-paid job. Those jobs have been shipped overseas and today some 46 million Americans are on food stamps. You can take your pick as to what has caused this attitude adjustment on the part of Americans. An incredible 22.5% of mortgages are underwater. Do the owners of those houses really believe prices will recover or are they hanging on like a cat trying to climb a chalkboard?

Americans have an attitude. It’s going to get worse until we have a massive revolution in the way this country is run. Objectively speaking, it is a no win situation. The government has made promises they cannot possibly honor. Many jobs have been lost forever and Americans are going to go through a long and painful process of adjusting to living with less, in many cases, a lot less.

The 1% doesn’t get it and every time a Rove or Bloomberg or Cantor open their mouths, it becomes more obvious. Americans are pissed and they will continue to multiply on the streets until we have a change of government and attitude.

We can count on the government and police to overreact. They always do and it always makes the change far more violent. The police will start shooting protestors with no reason. Protestors will go home, pick up some of the 194 million guns in the United States and come back and start shooting cops.

This is all very predictible and the outcome is predestined. $195 trillion dollars worth of debt exists in the world and only $150 trillion dollars worth of assets exist. We have to write down the debt and start over with an honest financial system. You cannot have honesty in government without honesty in money.

Bob Moriarty is president of www.321Gold.com.

Copyright ©2001-2011 321gold Ltd. All Rights Reserved