Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘sovereignty’

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : US diplomats act like imperial governors riding roughshod over sovereignty of national governments

Posted by M. C. on January 14, 2020

What few people knew at the time was that such levels of control over the composition of foreign governments had become standard practice for US embassies all over the world.

More shocking than Nuland’s bad language, however, was what the conversation was about. The US government officials were discussing how to put their men into power in Ukraine – which of the three then opposition factions would dominate, who would take the lead (Arseniy Yatsenyuk) and who would be excluded (Vladimir Klitschko). Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

Nations within a Nation: Real Sovereignty for American Indians | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on July 8, 2019

JD: Do Indigenous people think total sovereignty is too extreme? Is the current situation working, where many reservations are de facto welfare state wards? Is there a better answer to the question of “stolen land” than giving it back? I suspect many tribes would benefit financially and create a better standard of living for tribal members without too much upheaval.

Pipeline Observer Magazine recently interviewed Jeff Deist on the subject of tribal land and sovereignty in North America. Interview by Clayton Reeder, originally published in May 2019.

Pipeline Observer: The Ludwig von Mises institute in Alabama is the world’s most popular free market think tank, promoting the “Austrian School” of economics.

Writing on the website, Jeff Deist recently added a novel perspective to the endless debate about fair treatment of Indigenous people in North America.

Deist proposed addressing the “stolen land” issue by abandoning the reservation system and ceding vast tracts of federal land to Indigenous tribes and giving them complete sovereignty. This would create “nations within a nation.” Tribes could keep, use, sell, or develop the land as they wished.

This would mean no state or provincial or federal taxes or regulations. Government agencies would have no jurisdiction there at all. Armies of bureaucrats would no longer administer resource rights and land use. The bands would have full ownership and control within their own territory.

We asked Deist to elaborate on these ideas so that we might consider them in relation to our own country’s divided interests, especially about oil and pipelines.

PO: Ludwig von Mises said democracy means “self-determination, self-government, self-rule.” Do you think Indigenous North Americans have democracy in this sense?

Jeff Deist: Mises elevated self-determination to an ordering principle of liberalism. In other words, without a healthy degree of self-determination, no society can be truly liberal in the right sense of the word. [Indigenous people] in the U.S. and Canada certainly do not enjoy a healthy degree of self-determination, despite all of the political rhetoric. With their relatively small numbers, [Indigenous people] are not a political force either as a voting bloc or lobby, at least at the federal level—so what good is democracy to a tiny minority? Tribal sovereignty—real sovereignty in the Misesean sense, the right to organize politically outside the jurisdiction of any federal, state, or provincial government—should be acknowledged sooner rather than later. Otherwise all the talk about North America as stolen land is empty.

PO: When it comes to Indigenous North Americans, many people understand that there are problems with the status quo. Naturally, conservatives and the left tend to see the issue differently. For example, many conservatives support abolishing the reserve system and having Indigenous people be more like “regular” citizens. The left often sees themselves as the real advocates for Indigenous people, saying they need more fiscal support from the state in order to have more autonomy. Your idea is quite different. Why are your suggestions better?

JD: Should [Indigenous people] trust the governments of Canada and the U.S.? It’s absurd on its face. Tribes should be free to form nations within nations, and those nations can be as connected or disconnected from the rest of North America as those tribes see fit. Certainly, there should be trade, travel, diplomacy, and communication between these tribal nations and the rest of the world, including North America. Certainly, tribal members should have a say in determining the degree of connection and should be granted U.S. and Canadian citizenship to live outside tribal lands as “regular” Americans or Canadians if they choose. And, of course, the tribes themselves should issue passports and control their own borders. It’s bizarre to give so much lip service to tribal history, traditions, and practices while simultaneously pushing either assimilation or dependency….

JD: Do Indigenous people think total sovereignty is too extreme? Is the current situation working, where many reservations are de facto welfare state wards? Is there a better answer to the question of “stolen land” than giving it back? I suspect many tribes would benefit financially and create a better standard of living for tribal members without too much upheaval. Many might wish to remain closely engaged with the U.S. or Canadian government and accept continued regulation and transfer payments (i.e. welfare becomes foreign aid). Others might become radically independent and create true nations within a nation. But either way, if we believe in self-determination—if we really believe in a liberal ordering of society—we should stop trying to “fix” [Indigenous] problems and simply grant tribes sovereignty and land.

Be seeing you




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Democracy Is Fighting to Survive the Rise of Western Authoritarianism –

Posted by M. C. on June 3, 2018

EU official Gunther Oettinger said that it was “not acceptable” for Italians to vote for anti-establishment parties and threatened Italians with financial destabilization that would “teach them how to vote.”

Democracy in the US began it’s slow death about the time of the Whisky Rebellion.

Paul Craig Roberts

The European peoples whose governments were paid to sell out the sovereignty of their nations to the EU are experiencing great difficulties in being permitted to govern themselves.

As the result of Italians’ frustration with the self-serving elite who have ruled Italy for decades, the recent democratic elections in Italy brought to power two anti-establishment political parties, Five-Star and Lega (League), that have solid majorities in both houses. However, the Italian president, an operative for the EU, attempted to appoint the prime minister independently of the election results, tried to himself appoint a “technocratic cabinet” that would ignore the democratic outcome, and succeeded in blocking the anti-establishment winners of the election from forming a government for three months…

Previously, in the wake of the international economic crisis brought on by the “banks too big to fail,” the Italians and the Greeks attempted to govern themselves democratically, but it was not permitted. The European Commission appointed Mario Monti, a banker, to be Italy’s prime minister. Monti, a member of Goldman Sachs Board of International Advisers, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, and a member of the Bilderberg Group, was appointed by the elite, not elected by the people. His cabinet did not include a single elected politician.
(See my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism.)

Greece suffered the same fate of having an unelected banker appointed prime minister of Greece. Later when the Greeks succeeded in electing an anti-establishment government, the EU used economic threats and punishments to prevent the Greek government from governing.

In the US the Democratic Party, presstitute media, and the security agencies have made a strenuous effort to overturn the election of Donald Trump. They have failed to evict him from office, but they have turned him away from his goal of normalizing relations with Russia and withdrawing militarily from the Middle East. In effect, Trump has been forced into the position of being the agent for what he campaigned against…

The Western elites despise democracy. They tolerate it only as a cover for their self-dealing when it can be manipulated to serve their interests. The Russians who want to join Western Democracy are clearly lacking in understanding.

Considering the seeds of crisis that the self-serving policies of the Western elites have sowed, the responses to the crises will be calls for and acceptance of authoritarian rule. It is entirely possible that the democratic era is approaching its end.

Be seeing you



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »