Be seeing you
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Get Ready
Posted by M. C. on April 14, 2021
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: IRS, Tax | Leave a Comment »
The Rutherford Institute :: Rule by Fiat: When the Government Does Whatever It Wants | By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead |
Posted by M. C. on April 14, 2021
“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” — Ayn Rand
By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead
Rule by brute force.
That’s about as good a description as you’ll find for the sorry state of our nation.
SWAT teams crashing through doors. Militarized police shooting unarmed citizens. Traffic cops tasering old men and pregnant women for not complying fast enough with an order. Resource officers shackling children for acting like children. Homeowners finding their homes under siege by police out to confiscate lawfully-owned guns. Drivers having their cash seized under the pretext that they might have done something wrong.
The list of abuses being perpetrated against the American people by their government is growing rapidly.
We are approaching critical mass.
The groundwork has been laid for a new kind of government where it won’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation, or even if you’re a citizen. What will matter is what the government—or whoever happens to be calling the shots at the time—thinks. And if the powers-that-be think you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides.
In effect, you will disappear.
Our freedoms are already being made to disappear.
We have seen this come to pass under past presidents with their use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements.
President Biden’s long list of executive orders, executive actions, proclamations and directives is just more of the same: rule by fiat.
Now the Biden Administration is setting its sights on gun control.
Mark my words: gun control legislation, especially in the form of red flag gun laws, which allow the police to remove guns from people “suspected” of being threats, will become yet another means by which to subvert the Constitution and sabotage the rights of the people.
These laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, are yet another Trojan Horse, a stealth maneuver by the police state to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible populace.
Nineteen states and Washington DC have red flag laws on their books.
That number is growing.
As The Washington Post reports, these laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.”
In the midst of what feels like an epidemic of mass shootings (the statistics suggest otherwise), these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.
Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.
Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.
With these red flag gun laws, the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “stop dangerous people before they act.”
While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.
We’ve been down this road before.
Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
See the rest here
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: executive orders, militarized police, Red flag laws, swat team | 1 Comment »
Why big business loves Black Lives Matter – spiked
Posted by M. C. on April 14, 2021
No one should be surprised that BLM’s co-founder is buying million-dollar mansions.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/04/13/why-big-business-loves-black-lives-matter/
Fraser Myers
assistant editor
One reason Black Lives Matter is so difficult to talk about, and it elicits such a vast range of reactions, is that no one can pin down exactly what it is.
No decent human being could disagree with the assertion that the lives of black people matter – and if they don’t currently, then they should. But to agree with the claims made by protesters, activists and campaigners marching under the banner of ‘Black Lives Matter’ is a different question entirely.
Do you agree that US police forces are committing a ‘genocide’ of black Americans? And, if you do think this is happening, do you agree that actions that go beyond peaceful protest are justified in addressing this? Is it enough not to be racist, or must society be reorganised to be actively ‘anti-racist’?
And when we talk about the Black Lives Matter protests, do we mean the peaceful or the violent elements? The summer of Black Lives Matter in 2020 brought vast numbers of non-violent protesters out on to the streets. But it also gave rise to the most destructive rioting in US history. The ‘fiery, but mostly peaceful’ riots reportedly caused between $1 and $2 billion in property damages (as measured by insurance claims) – far in excess of the 1992 LA riots.
Then there is the friendly, corporate face of Black Lives Matter. BLM has been embraced by big businesses of practically every sector. Last summer, companies fell over each other to advertise their BLM-friendliness. Whether it was McDonald’s changing its name temporarily on social media to ‘Amplifying Black Voices’ or the CEO of JPMorgan Chase ‘taking the knee’ in front of an open bank vault, BLM and big business became best buddies.
And when big corporates open up their wallets to a cause, their money has to end up somewhere. Last week, the Dirt, a blog focusing on property owned by celebrities, revealed that Patrisse Khan-Cullors, co-founder of Black Lives Matter, had recently bought a $1.4million compound a short drive from Malibu. As the New York Post pointed out, this followed a string of property purchases, including four high-end homes, worth at least $3.2million (Khan-Cullors was reportedly also eyeing up a place in an elite enclave of the Bahamas, but it is not known if she bought it).
See the rest here
Fraser Myers is assistant editor at spiked and host of the spiked podcast. Follow him on Twitter: @FraserMyers.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Big Business, Black lives matter, Patrisse Khan-Cullors | 1 Comment »
Why ‘Public Health’ Is the Health of the State – LewRockwell
Posted by M. C. on April 14, 2021
The reasons for this can be understood by reading the following passages from Randolph Bourne’s famous essay where I have substituted the words “pandemic” or “public health” (in brackets) for the word “war”:
“The republican state has almost no trappings to appeal to the common man’s emotions . . . . The moment a [pandemic] is declared, however, the mass of the people . . . with the exception of a few malcontents, proceed to allow themselves to be regimented, coerced, deranged in all the environments of their lives . . . . The citizen throws off his contempt and indifference to government, identifies himself with its purposes . . . and the state once more walks . . .”
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/04/thomas-dilorenzo/why-public-health-is-the-health-of-the-state/
One of the most remarkable articles written about the growth of government during the twentieth-century is “War is the Health of the State” by Randolph Bourne. Published in 1918, Bourne’s essay explained how it is human nature to mostly ignore the state because the state during peacetime has “almost no trappings to appeal to the common man’s emotions.” War, however, is the all-purpose tool of the state to stir up the public’s emotions in a way that motivates it to hand over to the state virtually unlimited powers, abandoning all constitutional constraints – and to subsequently relinquish most of their supposedly cherished freedoms.
But the state has other tricks up its sleaves in its never-ending quest for totalitarian control of society. And do not delude yourself: All states aspire to become totalitarian by nature – it’s only a matter of time.
Wars are very expensive; they generate antiwar movements, fierce political opposition, and sometimes assassinations. And they can go very, very badly. As both Napoleon and Hitler learned when they foolishly invaded Russia.
Other kinds of less risky (to the state) “emergencies” will often suffice as totalitarianism’s propaganda/brainwashing strategies. As the world has learned in the past year, a “public health emergency” (or the perception of a fabricated and phony one) can do the job just fine without the messiness and expenses of war. The reasons for this can be understood by reading the following passages from Randolph Bourne’s famous essay where I have substituted the words “pandemic” or “public health” (in brackets) for the word “war”:
“The republican state has almost no trappings to appeal to the common man’s emotions . . . . The moment a [pandemic] is declared, however, the mass of the people . . . with the exception of a few malcontents, proceed to allow themselves to be regimented, coerced, deranged in all the environments of their lives . . . . The citizen throws off his contempt and indifference to government, identifies himself with its purposes . . . and the state once more walks . . .”
Every single word of this is a perfectly accurate description of how Americans have behaved ever since the “public health” bureaucrats declared a pandemic. It was shocking how immediate millions of people so immediately agreed to be regimented, coerced, and deranged in all aspects of their lives. Of course, the fact that all of the dictates by the local government mini-Mussolinies were enforced by armed police also helped to “convince” Boobus Americanus that he must genuflect to the state.
Bourne continues:
“[Public health] is the health of the state. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the government coercing into obedience the [numerical] minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense. The machinery of government sets and enforces the drastic penalties; the minorities are either intimidated into silence . . . . Minorities are rendered sullen . . .”
Those Americans who “lack the herd sense” regarding the Hitlerian dictates of Anthony Fauci and his ilk have been fired from their jobs, canceled from Facebook, Twitter, etc., and generally demonized as enemies of human civilization. “Minorities” have been literally silenced by the “Tech giants” with no “persuasion” at all involved. Well-known drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine that could have saved untold numbers of lives were effectively banned, and the common sense approach of boosting one’s immunity with vitamins D and C and zinc (and a half hour of vitamin D-generating sunshine a day) were either ignored or denounced as snake oil by the state, the television networks, the laughingly-called “media” in general, and many others who have prostituted themselves to the pharmaceutical industry.
Once the “public health” bureaucracy declared a pandemic, millions of Americans instantly turned into mental infants, eager for the D.C. bureaucracy to become their real mommies and daddies and protect them from the big bad coronavirus wolf. As Bourne explained:
“There is . . . in the feeling toward the state a large element of pure filial mysticism. The sense of insecurity, the desire for protection, sends ones desire back to father and mother . . . . It is not for nothing that one’s state is still thought of as Father or Motherland. The [pandemic] has shown that nowhere under the shock of danger have these primitive childlike attitudes failed to assert themselves . . .”
Anthony Fauci, who went to medical school sixty years ago; never actually practiced medicine himself; who has been a tenured federal bureaucrat for more than half a century; and who parades around in public wearing two masks despite having been vaccinated, became every American’s all-knowing, protective “father.” His Stepford wife-ish, half-body scarf-wearing sidekick, Dr. Deborah Birx, became everyone’s stand-in for “mother.” Every state and local government in America did exactly what these two bureaucratic weasels demanded that they do. “Listen to Dr. Fauci,” Joe Biden has repeatedly demanded. Anyone asking for a second opinion was either ignored or smeared as an enemy of society. There are myriad stories of doctors who did offer second opinions who were fired or punished in other ways. (For giving a speech in which she argued that the CDC death count numbers were not reliable since they conflated death with COVID and death from COVID, a physician friend of yours truly was banned from referring her patients to the hospital she had been associated with. Today, the CDC admits that only 6 percent of the half million or so “COVID” deaths in the U.S. can be legitimately called death from COVID).
As with war, the state attempts to crush all dissent when it comes to its “public health” emergencies. As Bourne further wrote:
“[D]issent is like sand in the bearings. Any difference with ‘unity’ turns the whole vast impulse toward crushing it . . . . the herd becomes divided into the hunters and the hunted, and the [pandemic] becomes not only a technical game but a sport as well.”
Ah, “unity,” the new mating call of the Party of Biden. Dissent from Unity’s Official Truth, and you will in fact be hunted down, possibly lose your job, or have your life destroyed.
Now, for any readers who still believe the government lie that “we are the government” and, therefore, the government would never manipulate us in these ways, I recommend another online essay, this one by economic historian Robert Higgs entitled “The Song that is irresistible.” In that essay Higgs states the truism that:
“States, by their very nature, are perpetually at war – not always against foreign foes, of course, but always against their own subjects. The state’s most fundamental purpose, the activity without which it cannot exist, is robbery . . . which it pretties up ideologically by giving it a different name (taxation) and by striving to sanctify its intrinsic crime as permissible and socially necessary” (emphasis added).
Or as yours truly has written on numerous occasions: The purpose of government is for those who run it to plunder those who do not.
The state also “sanctifies” mass murder, by the way, thinly disguised by calling it “war” and by enlisting legions of intellectual prostitutes to dream up myriad excuses and rationales for its mass murdering sprees. Mainstream “Lincoln scholarship” would be the most egregious example of this kind of intellectual whoremongering (and warmongering).
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: pandemic, public health, Randolph Bourne, totalitarian, war | Leave a Comment »
State Legislatures Are Finally Limiting Governors’ Emergency Powers | Mises Wire
Posted by M. C. on April 14, 2021
Ironically, in many states, the covid-19 shutdowns—which many governors used to essentially turn their state governments into institutions of one-man rule and rule by decree—may end up precipitating a widespread movement to limit executive powers in state governments. The fact that a great many residents of New York, Ohio, and California have apparently had enough of their governors may be a harbinger for the future.
https://mises.org/wire/state-legislatures-are-finally-limiting-governors-emergency-powers
Last week, Indiana governor Eric Holcomb vetoed a bill that would limit gubernatorial authority in declaring emergencies. The bill would allow the General Assembly to call itself into an emergency session, with the idea that the legislature could then vote to end, or otherwise limit, a governor’s emergency powers. Although both the legislature and the governor’s office are controlled by Republicans, the legislature has apparently wearied of the governor’s repeated renewals of the state’s emergency status in the name of managing the effects of the covid-19 virus.
The legislature could still override the veto. In Indiana, an override requires only a majority vote.
If the legislature does so, it won’t be the first state to override a governor’s veto on this front. Last month, the Republican-led Ohio legislature voted to override Republican Mike DeWine’s veto of Senate Bill 22, which gives lawmakers the authority to cancel any gubernatorial health orders that last longer than thirty days. The bill also creates a legislative oversight panel.
These two states, however, offer only a small sampling of what state legislators have planned during 2021’s legislative session. In fact, lawmakers in forty-five states have proposed more than three hundred measures this year designed to expand legislative oversight over governors’ emergency powers.
Ironically, in many states, the covid-19 shutdowns—which many governors used to essentially turn their state governments into institutions of one-man rule and rule by decree—may end up precipitating a widespread movement to limit executive powers in state governments. The fact that a great many residents of New York, Ohio, and California have apparently had enough of their governors may be a harbinger for the future.
One can only hope so, since this is a debate that is long overdue.
States have long expanded the administrative powers of governors and lengthened their terms in office. So we now have a nation full of politically and administratively powerful state governors who think it perfectly reasonable to declare year-long states of emergency, shut down businesses at the point of a gun, and order law-abiding citizens to stay in their homes. In many states, legislatures could do little, and did do little.
In response to any efforts to curtail their powers, governors will naturally protest, claiming—as Mike DeWine did—that to limit the governors’ powers would upset the “balance of powers” or otherwise constitute a threat to public safety. No legislator should fall for this ruse. It’s high time that governors be reined in and stripped of the many powers which governors of yesteryear could only dream of wielding. Just as executive power at the federal level constitutes one of the gravest dangers that the US regime can pose, the same is true at the state level.
State Legislators Move to Rein in Governors
The idea that governors must be trusted with emergency powers has long rested on a presumption that these powers would be limited in time and scope.
The covid-19 business closures, mask orders, and stay-at-home orders, on the other hand, have made it abundantly clear that state governors will enthusiastically embrace emergency orders that last many months, with governors freely renewing their emergency powers again and again and again. Moreover, governors have wielded their power arbitrarily, often apparently deciding to implement shutdowns on a whim, with no established metrics for how many covid deaths or infections would trigger more business closures. Governors have handed over public health decisions to unelected bureaucrats who often meet in secret and with no public accountability.
It appears many legislators have learned something from the experience.
About half of [the 45 states considering bills to limit governors’ powers] are considering significant changes, such as tighter limits on how long governors’ emergency orders can last without legislative approval….
Though the pushback is coming primarily from Republican lawmakers, it is not entirely partisan.
Republican lawmakers have sought to limit the power of Democratic governors in states such as Kansas, Kentucky and North Carolina. But they also have sought to rein in fellow Republican governors in such states as Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana and Ohio. Some Democratic lawmakers also have pushed back against governors of their own party, most notably limiting the ability of embattled New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to issue new mandates.
In Ohio, the new legislation that will limit DeWine’s power also explicitly “limits local health officials’ power to require people to quarantine or self-isolate without a specific medical diagnosis and allows Ohioans to sue over the constitutionality of any state emergency order in their home county.”
Efforts to rein in governors’ powers are not limited to legislative action. The state supreme courts in Wisconsin and Michigan have both handed down rulings limiting the governors’ powers, and a recall election designed to end Gavin Newsom’s lockdown fetish is—so far—moving forward.
Most efforts to limit governors’ power, however, are likely going to have to come at the legislative level. The federal courts have made it clear they’re not willing to do much to limit emergency powers, and state supreme courts have also proven to be mostly unresponsive.
A Long Trend of Increasing Governors’ Powers
If legislatures do move to limit governor’s powers, however, it would be only a small reversal in a long and well-established trend toward increases in gubernatorial power.
In the early years of the United States, state governors were thoroughly limited by the legislatures. In many cases, governors were appointed by the legislatures themselves, and terms of office were one or two years in length. Although states then moved toward popular election of governors—thus making them more independent of the legislatures—the legislatures also moved to reduce the governor’s administrative power by making more offices elected rather than appointed by the governor.
Thus, during the first half of the nineteenth century, up until around 1850,
the governor’s appointing power, and as a result his control of the administration was at its lowest point. The general result of the development up to that time made the governor’s position less important than at first; and his legislative authority was of greater importance than his administrative authority.1
This changed during the second half of the century, however, and in a lengthy 1912 analysis for the Michigan Law Review, John Fairlie concluded:
In the period since 1850 the position of the State governor has been strengthened to a notable extent, not so much by changes in the State constitutions, as by the expansion of State administration and a considerable increase in the appointing power of the governor conferred by statute. Many new State offices, boards and commissions have been established; and these positions have been filled on the nomination of the governor usually with the consent of the senate. This increase in appointing power has added to the governor’s control over the State administration; and the increased administrative control has added to the influence of the governor in other directions…. The general result has been to emphasize decidedly the importance of the governor’s office; although his authority still falls much short of that of the President of the United States.
In other words, increasing the number of administrative agencies and offices constitutes a de facto increase to a governor’s power. Coupled with new opportunities to appoint political allies to bureaucratic offices, the effect is sizable indeed.
It’s also notable that Fairlie’s words were written in 1912. Needless to say, the administrative power of governors, exercised through appointed bureaucrats, has not exactly been reduced since 1912. Moreover, over the past century, the number of state governors enjoying four-year terms instead of two-year terms has nearly doubled, further increasing the governors’ independence from both the voters and the legislature.
Unfortunately, limiting gubernatorial power will do nothing to directly limit federal power or the US president’s vast executive power, which dwarfs that of the states. This is part of the reason why Americans largely ignore their state governors and their offices. They have, until recently, seemed relatively invisible. Yet, the covid-19 lockdowns have unexpectedly brought into clear view the fact governors do in fact wield immense power over the daily lives of Americans, and many do so in an aggressive and arbitrary manner. Now is as good a time as any to strip these governors of more than a little of their much-abused power.
- 1. John A. Fairlie, “The State Governor. II. Administrative Powers,” Michigan Law Review 10, no. 5 (March 1912): 370–83.
Author:
Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and Power&Market, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: emergency powers, Eric Holcomb, Governor, State Legislatures | Leave a Comment »
Two Front War? Three Fronts? What’s Biden’s Game in Taiwan, Iran, and Ukraine?
Posted by M. C. on April 13, 2021
The Biden Administration is becoming even more bellicose toward Russia and China over “crises” in Taiwan and Ukraine. Meanwhile US-backed Israel is attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. During the Cold War the hawks always pushed for the ability to fight a two-front war. Can a US military already bogged down for 20 years fight a THREE front war? Will someone in Washington display some common sense?
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Iran, Taiwan, Three Fronts, Two Front War, Ukraine | Leave a Comment »
“Significant Proportion Of Brits” Say They Have Enjoyed Lockdown, New Poll Finds | ZeroHedge
Posted by M. C. on April 13, 2021
However, pro-lockdown sentiment is also undeniably driven by the fact that the government has covered 80% of people’s wages via a furlough scheme that has given many endless hours of free leisure time.
Aldous Huxley’s quote on how people would be trained to love their servitude seems particularly apt.
“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude,” wrote Huxley.
“The perfect dictatorship would have the appearance of a democracy, but would basically be a prison without walls in which the prisoners would not even dream of escaping. It would essentially be a system of slavery where, through consumption and entertainment, the slaves would love their servitudes,” he also warned.
by Tyler Durden
Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,
A new poll by the Sunday Times finds that a “significant proportion of Brits” say they have enjoyed lockdown, with younger people more likely to say they liked COVID-19 restrictions.
They survey gave respondents a range of answers to measure their like or dislike for lockdown. Over 16 per cent in total said they liked or strongly liked lockdown.
The figures are even more alarming when it comes to young people. 20 per cent of 18-24 year olds said they liked or strongly liked the lockdown, while 22 per cent of 25-34 year olds said the same.
A small but significant proportion of the population have enjoyed lockdown, according to a survey. Over 16% said on balance they’ve liked lockdown pic.twitter.com/ZKruzPVl62 — The Sunday Times (@thesundaytimes) April 11, 2021
An online poll even found that a majority of respondents say they enjoyed lockdown.
pic.twitter.com/Egap4a3xnU — Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 11, 2021
A separate opinion poll conducted last month by YouGov found that over half of Brits said they would miss “many” or “some” aspects of the lockdown.
Public opinion surveys also routinely find vehement support for the lockdown in general, with large numbers believing that it hasn’t been strict enough.
The figures are obviously deeply concerning in that they illustrate how compliant people have become in the face of the most authoritarian restrictions on freedom since World War 2.
However, pro-lockdown sentiment is also undeniably driven by the fact that the government has covered 80% of people’s wages via a furlough scheme that has given many endless hours of free leisure time.
Aldous Huxley’s quote on how people would be trained to love their servitude seems particularly apt.
“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude,” wrote Huxley.
“The perfect dictatorship would have the appearance of a democracy, but would basically be a prison without walls in which the prisoners would not even dream of escaping. It would essentially be a system of slavery where, through consumption and entertainment, the slaves would love their servitudes,” he also warned.
The UK is only destined to exit lockdown on June 21, when all restrictions are supposed to be lifted, although given that the government has shifted the goalposts so many times, there is widespread skepticism about whether or not this target will be met.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Lockdown, UK | 1 Comment »
Creating a Decentralized, Incorruptible System of Government | The Libertarian Institute
Posted by M. C. on April 13, 2021
If money can’t be printed endlessly, those who control the system can’t enrich themselves. You also wouldn’t be able to print tons of money and pump stock markets and other assets that rich people tend to own. The value of our money would be much more stable, and people would not lose wealth to inflation.
DLT would replace voting, using a proof of stake system where people get one vote per token and each person has one token. People could be given them when they hit a certain age (preferably older than eighteen), since younger people have less wisdom; let’s say age thirty. Tokens are non-transferable and therefore have no value.
The solution to the twin problems of government corruption and wealth inequality is the creation of a decentralized state based on distributed ledger technology (DLT), combined with a sound monetary system back by either gold or a hard-capped cryptocurrency.
Our current government was shown to be an oligarchy through a Princeton study in 2014. Since then, political donations through Super PACs have increased even more. Centralized governments always become corrupt over time, and the larger they are, the more risk there is. This happens for two reasons. First, when people have power, they become corrupted. Second, when governments centralize and increase power it permits those rich enough to use it for their own purposes. When a government is small, decentralized, and minimally controlled by humans, it is less likely to become corrupt.
Also, our current financial system of debt-based currency issued by a central bank has been shown to increase income inequality through inflation that benefits the rich and harms everyone else. The more money that is printed, the more wealth is stolen from everyone. This was made clearer recently since, according to USA Today, billionaires made over nine hundred billion dollars from the fiscal and monetary stimulus during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was all while everyone else suffered.
Wealth inequality has been made much worse since going off the gold standard. When wealthy people control a government, they tend to create systems that enrich themselves. Thus the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, and eventually, we went off the gold standard in 1971.
On the other hand, a government utilizing DLT would be much harder or even impossible to corrupt. Laws and political processes would happen through a transparent ledger with an immutable structure. The less centralized a government is, the harder it is for special interests to take it over, which has happened to every government in of history.
If money can’t be printed endlessly, those who control the system can’t enrich themselves. You also wouldn’t be able to print tons of money and pump stock markets and other assets that rich people tend to own. The value of our money would be much more stable, and people would not lose wealth to inflation.
DLT would replace voting, using a proof of stake system where people get one vote per token and each person has one token. People could be given them when they hit a certain age (preferably older than eighteen), since younger people have less wisdom; let’s say age thirty. Tokens are non-transferable and therefore have no value.
Under a one-to-one gold-backed DLT, It would also be possible to distribute small amounts of money when people stake their vote or participate in the system to encourage participation. There would be gold certificates if people want to use cash as well so that not everything is tracked. The main DLT system could also be private, but maybe there is a way to track things during criminal investigations. This would have to be very limited.
There could be a credit check system still, but it should be opt-in. A social credit system like the Chinese system would be banned in the new, more robust constitution. The goal would be to protect the rights that were guaranteed in the old Constitution but with more thorough and legal language. It would also have to specify that only people are people, not corporations.
Any citizen could propose a new law but would need a pre-determined number of people willing to sign on to start the process. Then the new law would go to a vote. New laws would be difficult to pass and require a large percentage of voters to agree to them (maybe 75%). The goal would be to not pollute the legal system with unfair or unnecessary laws. Laws that are created could also be removed over time with the same process.
Laws would be debated by constitutional lawyers, which would be selected, reviewed, and rated using the DLT system. The government would fund the lawyers as part of the system. Multiple lawyers could argue every law. This way, people would have much more information about what they are voting for and what it really means. This is a part that could become corrupted, so there would need to be systems in place to detect and eliminate corruption. The system of reviews, ratings, and dismissals should help.
It would be very difficult to change the constitution or to add new amendments, but it could be done using the same process. The threshold for these changes would be even higher. Constitutional changes would need more initial people to agree, and they would need, maybe, a 90% yes vote to pass. Constitutional lawyers would also argue for any proposed constitutional amendments.
People would vote in a series of local judges who would determine if someone broke the law. They could be rated, reviewed, and dismissed. There could also be elected state-level courts, who weigh in on laws to determine if they are constitutional. These judges would also be rated, reviewed, and could be voted out. If more than half of the states rule a new law to be unconstitutional, it would be dismissed. Alternatively, the law could go back to a vote to become a constitutional amendment but would then need a much higher percentage of the vote.
Such a system would require very few taxes because the government would be very limited in what it controls. Most of the country would be run through free-market operations. Sales tax could be collected, but there would be no other necessary taxes. The U.S. income tax was specifically created to fund the Federal Reserve’s monetary system and wouldn’t be needed in this case. Land and property should be privately owned, which means no taxes. There would also be no way to take property away from legal owners (which can happen if taxes are not paid).
Infrastructure could be run entirely through free-market operations or with partial state funding. If the government funds it, then people could propose projects and they would be voted on. Projects that pertain only to certain states would only be voted on by the people in that state and would only get state money. It would be possible to divide infrastructure funding evenly by each state’s population or even by county.
It would be very important to structure the military correctly. The Founding Fathers feared standing armies because they knew they could essentially enslave people and take their freedoms away. The military would have to be decentralized and based on a militia system.
There could be elected generals/commanders of each county and then one that controls each state. We also might need an elected, ten general counsel during wartime. Each general/commander would be voted in, rated, reviewed, and could be voted out.
Ideally, the nation would be non-interventionist and only use force to defend itself. Any defensive military action could be voted on by the people. If there are emergency military situations, the commanders and generals could vote on the DLT system. Missiles could be tied into the system and wouldn’t be able to be launched otherwise. The DLT system could be quantum encrypted and have nodes in space so that it can’t be taken down. The government could spend a certain amount each year awarded to businesses by the people to keep the military modernized.
There would be no standing military. Instead, it would be a militia that would be called up. You could have everyone train for it at some point in their lives and specialize in certain areas. Overall, it’s unlikely we’d need the military since the United States has a nuclear arsenal. It would be unlikely that anyone would attack the American homeland.
The initial laws would be designed to protect people. Everything would be legal unless it hurts someone else. The role of police would be to protect people and respond if called. They would not be searching for people to arrest and would have no incentive to do so. There would be no civil asset forfeiture.
It would be good to have a decentralized police service. No state cops, just local. Police sheriffs would be elected, would be reviewed, rated, and could be dismissed. An alternate system could be privately hired security. Either way, if the police can be personally sued and are rated, it should prevent much of the corruption.
We’d also have to protect people from companies. If a company sells toxic products or pollutes in a way that harms human health, they would be prosecuted. People could also sue them. You can have a free market system where you still protect people from businesses.
In this system, there would be far fewer criminals since the police wouldn’t be searching for people to arrest. People would decide through voting on the DLT system which prisons would get the government contracts. They could also be voted out. Private prisons could be sued, rated, and reviewed, which would help with the selection process. People in prisons would be given the choice to work in a free-market set-up. The goal of the prison system would be to reform people, not to turn them into slaves like the current system.
Since monopolies hurt people they would be illegal. By simply not having a system of patents, there would be far fewer monopolies. Also, when a government is smaller, there are less likely to be monopolies since many monopolies gain power through government connections and subsidies. People would be able to propose that a company is a monopoly, and then everyone could vote through the DLT system to determine if a company needs to be broken up.
The government shouldn’t be involved in education. When they are, they only use it to indoctrinate people with whatever ideology they want. The free market can handle education better. There would be some issues as far as the quality of education people get, but it’s better than the government telling you what to think.
A distributed ledger technology-based government would decrease corruption since the ledger could not be corrupted as people can be. Furthermore, the smaller the government is, the less damage it can do. This system would eliminate virtually every part of the government, including the president, Congress, the Senate, and every department, except anti-trust. Local governments would handle the police and protecting people. This type of government, in combination with sound money, would create the freest and most fair system possible.
Brian Terenna is a dystopian, sci-fi, dark fantasy author. He recently finished his third novel The Astral Hacker, which is part of a trilogy called “Cryptopunk Revolution.” He is an avid chess player, a vegetable gardener, and he meditates regularly.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: decentralized state, distributed ledger technology, standing military | Leave a Comment »
Socialism: A Youthful Passion, A National Problem by Carl Horowitz
Posted by M. C. on April 13, 2021
First, much of our formal education system, especially at “prestige” colleges and universities, is driven by an imprimatur of faculty and administrators who lean far leftward. It’s hard to imagine many Columbia University students and recent graduates, for example, possessed of much enthusiasm for capitalism even if they work for a capitalist enterprise.
Third, many journalists at leading newspapers, webzines, and cable news outlets are public relations agents for socialism. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., right now just might be the most photographed and quoted woman in America.
It is one of modern history’s more famous quotes: “If a man is not a socialist at 20, he has no heart. If he remains one at age 40, he has no head.” These words (and variations thereof) have been attributed to everyone from Disraeli to Clemenceau to Churchill. Whatever the true source, they convey a wisdom that frequently is going unheeded in America. And we risk becoming an ever more controlled and corrupt society.
Consider recent survey data.
This January, the public relations firm Axios released the results of a SurveyMonkey online poll of nearly 2,800 U.S. adults. Respondents were asked how they felt about capitalism and socialism. Capitalism produced a favorable response among 61 percent of all respondents, yet socialism was well-received among a sizable 39 percent. Fully 58 percent of persons ages 18-24 and 51 percent of persons ages 25-34 viewed socialism in a positive light; a positive view of capitalism among these age brackets, respectively, were 58 percent each.
This survey was no fluke. A Harris Poll conducted for Axios in February of more than 2,000 U.S. adults revealed very strong support for socialism among Millennials (born 1980-94) and Generation Z (born 1995 and after). These combined cohorts backed universal health care and tuition-free college, respectively, by 73.2 percent and 67.1 percent. Fully 49.6 percent said they would prefer living in a socialist country. Meanwhile, a Gallup Poll released last August showed that 51 percent of adults ages 18-29 had a favorable view of socialism, but only 45 percent felt this way about capitalism. The figure for capitalism, alarmingly, was down from 68 percent in 2010. CARTOONS | Tom Stiglich View Cartoon
Granted, socialism comes in a variety of forms. Some are more tolerable than others. But even the big bad wolf of socialism – Communism – is getting a reprieve among young adults. According to a survey released in October 2016 by the Victims of Communism Memorial, only 55 percent of respondents born during 1982-2002 believed that Communism is, or ever was, a problem. The respective figures for baby boomers and the elderly were 80 percent and 91 percent.
It may be that similar views prevailed in prior decades. After all, the impulse to “change the world” reaches full flower during young adulthood. That’s long been the case. Career, marriage, childrearing and homeownership supposedly bring the starry-eyed down to earth. But to what extent? Doubtlessly many young socialists of today will come to support capitalism. But just as likely, many won’t. Callowness can’t explain everything.
One would think the events of the last 100 years would have rendered support for socialism almost nil by now, with Venezuela the latest casualty. Yet the dream lives on. Quite possibly, the survey numbers reveal not simply a replication of a classic tendency, but the dawn of an era defined by the likes of Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren.
Why are so many young adults today, to say nothing of their elders, warming up to socialism? I briefly offer some explanations.
First, much of our formal education system, especially at “prestige” colleges and universities, is driven by an imprimatur of faculty and administrators who lean far leftward. It’s hard to imagine many Columbia University students and recent graduates, for example, possessed of much enthusiasm for capitalism even if they work for a capitalist enterprise.
Second, radicalism, especially at the national level, is rapidly supplanting the modern liberalism of the New Deal and the Great Society. Radicals, many of whom are seeking the Democratic Party nomination for president, routinely exploit public discontent over certain recent outcomes of capitalism (e.g., the 2008 stock market crash, auto industry bailouts) for the purpose of discrediting capitalism as a whole. And many in their audiences believe them.
Third, many journalists at leading newspapers, webzines, and cable news outlets are public relations agents for socialism. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., right now just might be the most photographed and quoted woman in America.
Fourth, large-scale immigration, especially by Asians and Hispanics, is creating a generation of new voters whose resentment of the white majority and capitalism are of a piece. Ethnic identity can’t so easily be disaggregated from ideology.
If America goes socialist, it will not happen all at once. And it won’t involve five-year industrial plans, farm collectivization, wholesale government takeovers of businesses or other Soviet-era relics. What it would involve is a gradual adoption of populist-Left hobby horses such as “free” college education, health care and day care, plus Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez’ scatterbrained Green New Deal. There also would be large-scale transfer payments from whites to “people of color” under the guise of reparations. A better recipe for inefficiency, divisiveness and corruption hardly can be imagined. More than ever, economic success would be determined by political connections and an erosion of the rule of law.
“We are born free, and we will stay free,” remarked President Trump during his State of the Union address in February. “Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.” Those words caused gnashing of the teeth among those who want Trump out of office. But the debate between capitalism and socialism will be around long after he leaves. For defenders of capitalism, there is much teaching to be done. And for young America, there is much to learn.
Carl F. Horowitz is senior fellow at National Legal and Policy Center, a Falls Church, Va.-based nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting ethics and accountability in American public life.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Generation Z, Green Socialism, Millennials | Leave a Comment »
‘Global Taxes – Global Stagnation’ – Ron Paul’s 12 Apr. Column
Posted by M. C. on April 13, 2021
The goal of those supporting global minimum taxes enforced by a global tax agency is to prevent countries from lowering their taxes. Lowering corporate and other taxes is one way countries are able to attract new businesses and grow their economies. For example, after Ireland lowered its corporate taxes, it moved from being one of the poorest countries in the EU to having one of the EU’s strongest economies. Also, American workers and investors benefited from the 2017 tax reform’s reduction of corporate taxes from 35 percent to 21 percent.
https://mailchi.mp/ronpaulinstitute/globaltax?e=4e0de347c8
Apr 12 – Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has proposed that governments around the world require payment of at least a uniform “global minimum corporate tax.” A motivation for Yellen’s push for a global minimum corporate tax is fear that the Biden administration’s proposed increase in the US corporate tax will cause some American corporations to flee the US for countries with lower corporate taxes.
President Biden wants to increase corporate taxes to help pay for his so-called infrastructure plan. The plan actually spends more on “progressive” priorities, including a down payment on the Green New Deal, than on infrastructure.
Much of the spending will benefit state-favored businesses. For example, the plan provides money to promote manufacturing and electric vehicles. So, the idea is to raise taxes on all corporations and then use some of the received tax payments to subsidize government-favored businesses and industries.
The only way to know the highest valued use of resources is by seeing what goods and services consumers voluntary choose to spend their money on. A system where the allocation of resources is based on the preferences of politicians and bureaucrats — who use force to get their way — will be less efficient than a system where consumers control the allocation of resources.
Thus, the greater role government plays in the economy the less prosperous the people will be — with the possible exception of the governing class and those who make their living currying favor with the rulers.
Yellen’s global corporate tax proposal will no doubt be supported by governments of many European Union (EU) countries, as well as the globalist bureaucrats at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). For years, these governments and their power-hungry OECD allies have sought to create a global tax cartel.
The goal of those supporting global minimum taxes enforced by a global tax agency is to prevent countries from lowering their taxes. Lowering corporate and other taxes is one way countries are able to attract new businesses and grow their economies. For example, after Ireland lowered its corporate taxes, it moved from being one of the poorest countries in the EU to having one of the EU’s strongest economies. Also, American workers and investors benefited from the 2017 tax reform’s reduction of corporate taxes from 35 percent to 21 percent.
Yellen and her pro-global tax counterparts deride tax competition between countries as a “race to the bottom.” In fact, tax competition is a race to the top for the countries whose economies benefit from new investments, and for the workers and consumers who benefit from new job opportunities and new products. In contrast, a global minimum corporate tax will raise prices and lower wages, while incentivizing politicians to further increase the minimum.
A global minimum corporate tax will also set a precedent for imposition of other global minimum taxes on individuals. This scheme may even advance the old Keynesian dream of a global currency. The Biden administration is already taking steps toward a global currency by asking the International Monetary Fund to issue more special drawing rights (SDRs).
Global tax and fiat currency systems will only benefit the world’s political and financial elites. In contrast, regular people across the world benefit from limited government, free markets, sound money, and reduced or eliminated taxes.
—
Read more great articles on the Ron Paul Institute website.
Subscribe to free updates from the Ron Paul Institute. Copyright © 2021 by Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: EU, global minimum corporate tax, Global Taxes, Janet yellen, OECD | Leave a Comment »
