Does This Mean War?

Today we are at war on more different fronts than a civilized people has ever been before in history. Americans are bombarded by their duties to fight different wars. There is the war on poverty, the war on hunger, the war on illiteracy, the war on drugs, the war on crime. Then there is the war on abortion, or for life; the war against guns or for the 2nd amendment. The alleged war by the left against religion, and the alleged war of the right against science. There is the war against domestic violence,a war on racism, sexism, and if you google it, you'll even find a war on animal cruelty. If you're ambitious enough, you could find a few dozen more wars that American culture is engaged in, and that the government has taken up.

But there is only one war here that I'm concerned with, it is the War on Terror. and the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Criminal Court in New York City. There are alot of people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reily, and and Sean Hannity who say because this man is a foreign national, and because the country is at war, he should be tried in a military court or tribunal. We might be engaged in a war on Terror, and on foreign soil, but that hardly constitutes a real war, the kind of war that constitutes a military tribunal for those apprehended. What is necessary for war is a declaration of war as required by the U.S, Constitution.

To be fair, lets take a look at how captured combatants of other wars are treated; In Just the last month a man who used to be on the FBI's 10 most wanted list was sentenced to 45 years in U.S. Federal Prison. The man is Diego León Montoya Sánchez of Columbia, charged with Drug trafficking. He was arrested in Columbia, by Columbian Authorities and extradited to these United States where he pled guilty before a Federal Judge in Miami, Florida.

Although the subject was arrested in another Country, the fact that he was never in any of United States personally, and despite the war on Drugs, It was never even considered that Montoya be tried in a military tribunal. You see, the United States is not at war in the legal sense of the word. The government, and various social organizations only use the terminology "The War On..." to draw out the vitality f the issue and the importance that people get involved., To united their side, and discourage opposition to whatever cause they have, in the logic that if you are opposed to the War on Drugs, or Terror, you are a supporter of drugs or terror. Lastly it creates a sense of defensiveness. Since in real, just wars, there is an enemy seeking to subdue us, take our property, and our liberty, the idea of a "war" on something causes people to commit for the long haul, despite the short comings and inherent failures of the war at hand, whether it be the war on poverty, or the war on drugs.

I don't know that I'm 100% comfortable with this guy getting jury trial in a Criminal Court. but the fact is, since we are not at war, and he is not a member of any military, I don't see how he could be tried in a Military Court.

... Except.... That the 9/11 attacks included the attack on the U.S. Pentagon... So since that was an attack on the Military Headquarters of the U.S. Government, perhaps he could be tried in a military court. Yet, still this military tribunal would only be able to try him for his role in the attack on the Pentagon and could not bring justice to the victims of Lower NYC and their families. That seems to be the sole jurisdiction of the Federal Court System.

A Reply to Buchanan's praise of Obama's Tariff on Chinese Tires

Here is Buchanan's article that was in the Lawton Constitution's opinion page last week:

http://buchanan.org/blog/globalism-vs-americanism-2192

Patrick Buchanan has come out in support of Obama’s tariff on tires, saying that its a good start. But Buchanan makes several mistakes throughout his column.

He starts off early in his article, blaming the Chinese tire industry for taking away market shares of the Cooper Tire company and causing the South Georgia tire plant to be shut down. But this isn’t at all the fault of the Chinese. It is the fault, if you could call it a fault, of the consumers. The consumers have let their preferences be known and have chosen Chinese tires over Cooper tires. Buchanan I know gives lip service to capitalism. And if it were not the Chinese, but Goodyear tires that were becoming more popular with consumers than Cooper tires, Buchanan wouldn’t bat an eye. He would rightly and logically conclude that Goodyear is producing a higher quality product at a lower price, and that the market has succeeded. But because it is not just the Lawton Goodyear plant that is producing more tires (producing about 2,000 tires a day) but also China producing more tires, Buchanan is crying foul, and throwing the concept of the free market under the bus. 2,100 men and women are out of work in Georgia, would it really help those people pay their mortgage if their job was replaced by men in Oklahoma rather than China?

Buchanan then looks at how the Chinese are able to produce a lower cost product; pointing out that workers are willing to work for much less in China, a result of the lack of labor unions, and government intervention in labor unions, since the plant he mentioned, in fact all tire plants in the United States, with the exception of the Goodyear Tire plant in Lawton, Oklahoma are union plants (though Buchanan fails to go into that), that the Chinese government does not meddle in the market by way of health and safety regulations, civil rights laws, and perhaps most damning, environmental regulations. But the problem here is not China, it is us, or more precisely our governments. To fix this the government should get out of the way and let the market operate, lift the crippling environmental regulations, and stop protecting labor unions.

But another factor is the Chinese Government, they do in fact, as Buchanan mentioned, manipulate their currency to benefit exporters and hurt importers, though this is also an example of government meddling in the market, the solution is not to have more government meddling, but for the United States to eliminate the Federal Reserve. It is quite easy for a government to manipulate its currency in regards to another fiat currency, it would be quite another thing however for China to attempt to manipulate its currency in relation to Gold, it would end in disaster for them, if they were foolish enough to try.

Buchanan goes on to blast Cooper Tires for moving plants to China. But why? does he consider Toyota as a traitor to Japan for building plants in the U.S.? (no one likes a traitor even if the traitor defects to his own side.) No, he doesn’t, It is the nature of men to act in a way that best serves their interests. Instead of spinning my own clothing or growing my own food, I turn to a cheaper alternative, the grocery store, and the mall. Labor is no different, or does Buchanan expect us to not hire the cheapest bid to cut our grass? Why shouldn’t Cooper move to China if they can get a better deal?

“ Welcome to 21st century America, where globalism has replaced patriotism as the civil religion of our corporate elites.”

But this is to confuse patriotism with nationalism. Patriotism is only the desire a man has for his country, his brethren, and himself to be free. Free from taxes, from extortion, crime, and perhaps most accurately, to be left alone. It is nationalism that insists that all consumer goods be made in his home country, that his government be powerful, that his government exert her will over other governments and people far and wide.

Yet even still I don’t know of any religion that our corporate elites hold, I can not even address this point except to say that all men, from the smallest child, to the most powerful corporate elite, act in his own self interest and in a way which, in his judgement will most benefit him.

Buchanan goes on to illustrate a lack of understanding of self sufficiency independence,

“What has this meant to the republic that was once the most self sufficient and independent in all of history?”

Being independent does not mean that I built my own house and car, that I spun my own clothing or created my own electricity for lighting, or even that I cut my own grass. Rather it is a matter of being able to produce something, or give some service in trade so others will be willing to provide those goods and services to me. if I were not self sufficient, I would not be able to supply myself with these goods, either directly or through trade. The same model that I put forward for an individual also applies to the aggregate of American individuals, i.e. to the country.

We are still independent, but Buchanan has confused political independence with economic independence. Under Buchanan’s concept, consider how utterly non self sufficient a brain surgeon must be, Who can not operate perform brain surgery on himself, and since that is his only talent, he can not change the oil on his porsche, pilot his private jet, sew his thousand dollar suits, or cut firewood to heat his 10,000 square foot home!

Addressing the “trade deficit” is the next leg of Buchanan’s article. But again one has to question the premise. What exactly is a trade deficit, perhaps more importantly, what is a trade? A trade, as it should be obvious to any 10 year old boy trading baseball cards, is exchanging what one values less for what one values more. Tom values Jim’s Nolan Ryan card more than he values his own Greg Maddox and Barry Bonds card, while Jim values the Maddox card Barry Bond’s card more than his Nolan Ryan. The two boys agree to a trade. And through my magic of deception, I have made the trade deficit disappear!
But there is no deception. That is what a trade is. Consider another example. your own “trade deficit” with your local grocery store. If you have never sold anything to your grocery store, Buchanan would say you are running a trade deficit in the amount of dollars that you spend annually at the store. But how preposterous is this? Would you really be better off eating a $100 bill each week than trading it for nourishing food? Of course not. There is no trade deficit here. The fact is that the act of trading negates a trade deficit.

As Buchanan raises the question of dependence on China again, think about your own dependence on your grocery store... Are you dependent on your grocery? No, you trade with him, but you are not dependent. If he goes out of business, or stops carrying the type of tea you prefer, you go to another store. Its that simple.


Now Buchanan gains strength towards the end, saying that we should reciprocate, that since they have tariffs on our goods, we should put tariffs on their goods. But this is probably not the way to go.

The fact is that besides hurting producers of another country, it also hurts consumers of the home country. This, more than any other issue is what lead to the war between the states. As the Confederate Constitution was ratified March 11th 1861, creating a virtual free trade zone by article one section eight of the new Constitution, in the north shortly before the Morrill tariff was passed, putting a tax of 47% on goods entering in the remaining United States. Naturally the monied elite could not stand to see a tariff of such magnitude put on them while the south would have a bare 10% tariff on goods entering the newly formed republic, and papers across the North changed their tune and called for blood.

Likewise WWI had at its root trade. and Woodrow Wilson admitted that the war was fought to prevent Germany from gaining economic supremacy.

It is admirable that Buchanan is such an outspoken opponent of unnecessary wars, yet it is sad he doesn’t realize that tariffs, and trade wars, are the leading cause of wars.

It does not help our case for China to remove its trade restrictions when we put our own on them. And the result, if we do so, is that the American consumer is the one who gets hurt.

Lastly I’ll address Buchanan’s view on taxes where he says, “ As they rebate value-added taxes on exports to us, and impose a value-added tax on our exports to them, let us reciprocate. Impose a border tax equal to a VAT on all their goods entering the United States, and use the hundreds of billions to cut corporate taxes on all manufacturing done here in the United States.”

Apparently Buchanan is not for cutting taxes, but transferring taxes from one group to another. He is right that corporate taxes should be cut, because they are passed on to the consumer, but does he fail to realize that taxes on foreign goods are also passed along to the consumer?

On Glen Beck's Common Sense

June 23th '09

Over the last couple years Beck has been moving more and more towards the concepts and principals of Libertarianism, and over the last couple months Beck has rightly been railing against the out of control spending of the central government, and hailing Thomas Paine’s pamphlet “Common Sense” as a masterpiece. I’ve heard him say, both on his radio program and his television show that he was going to edit or rewrite Paine’s pamphlet to make it applicable for our own times.

I was inspired and encouraged to hear this, And when I heard how successful Beck’s book has been in its first week out I was even more hopeful. Last friday I went to take a look at the book for myself, and that is when my hope turned into despair.

The first page of the book gave me pause,

“You might find yourself wondering what can be done to change our nation’s course. I lay out several options, but I want to be clear that none of them include violence. Thomas Paine and his fellow revolutionaries shed their blood so that future generations would have access to weapons immeasurably stronger than muskets or bayonets: the weapon of democracy. Those are the tools that we will use to usher in a second American revolution, a revolution that won’t be fought on battlefields, but in the hearts and minds of the three hundred million people lucky enough to call America home.”

Given all the problems with this first page, I put my federal reserve notes back in my pocket, and put the book back on the shelf.

The first problem of course is his language “our nation.” Did Thomas Paine look at the direction that parliament and the king were going in and hope to somehow change their course for the better? I think not. Thomas Paine along with the vast majority of the colonists were not primarily concerned with what the government was doing but that was an antecedent to their condition of weigning liberty and increasing taxes at the hands of the government. This is evident in the very first lines of Paine’s “Common Sense” , “Some writers have so confounded society with government as to leave little or no distinction between them.” And Beck is instantly guilty of just that. Our Nation, the people are being turned into victims at the hands of the central government. But even here I think I betrayed Paine’s logic, allowing Beck and the modern idea of nation to influence my own words. Paine and the founders were not first Americans, but Virginians, Georgians, New Yorkers, and so on. Their concern was for the liberty and welfare of their individual colonies, and this is evident in the writing of the Articles of Confederation, and even in the practice of Constitutional government up to 1865.

Next, Beck takes the option of violence off of the table. Is this out of cowardice? Or should it be called prudence? I thought that maybe it might be out of prudence at first (until I later bought Beck’s book and found the same tired mantra about peaceful revolution repeated over and over.) But I will concede that Tonight is not the night to form up in regiments and march on D.C. In fact I do not propose that we fire the first shot at all, but it may come again to bloodshed, when we as free men attempt to regain our rights, the government may turn to violence, and then we must be ready to meet force with force, a prospect weighs heavily on my own heart, but it is better to die as free men fighting for liberty than to live as emasculated shells of men, subserviant to the central government. Robert E. Lee said once, “degradation is worse than death” But Again, this course of action is in our future and is not off of the table, though hopefully it can be avoided.

The 3rd error on this first page is to hail democracy as the key to winning back our independence. And this error is twofold; first for being impossible, for it is the nature of democracy, as Fredric Bastiat elaborately explained 159 years ago in his own Essay “The Law” when discussing universal legalized plunder he wrote, “we have been threatened with this system since the fanchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.” ( page 34) That is to say that democracy on a national level, is the aggressor of our rights.

And if it is worth mentioning the last error is that this would only be the 2nd American revolution. Which is to kick dirt in the faces of the men who fought for independence in 1861-1865.

With this much being wrong just on the first page of Beck’s “Common Sense” It is a wonder that I went back the next day and bought it, out of a perverse and sick curiosity I read and went from page to page, reading nearly every word and skipping over the parts that I could tell were nothing but rhetoric and filler.

The first section was an attack no on the government, like that of Thomas Paine’s first section, but a meak attack on what Beck might call ideologues who are in government, for whatever its worth he points out that there is little difference between the republicans, on the one hand, and the democrats on the other. This is where I wonder even more what it was that Glenn Beck read? did he get a different copy of Paine’s Common Sense than I did? Thomas Paine was indifferent to the whigs and the tories, those who wanted to regulate American commerce alot and tax it a little and those who wanted to regulate it alot and tax it a little. Paine and the other revolutionaries insisted that it wasn’t a matter of getting the right people into parliament, but breaking the chains from the king and from parliament.

The second chapter in Beck’s book is titled “Money.” I hoped that after reading a limited amount of Austrian Economics, notably Thomas E. Woods Jr., that Beck might attack paper money and the federal reserve in much the same way Thomas Paine did here http://mises.org/story/2942 . But to my chagrin, it was not to be. Beck instead only attacks the nation debt, an issue well worth taking up, but entirely missing the point if the issue of fiat currency is not addressed. Another point of disappointment is that in attacking all of the wasteful spending Beck writes things such as, “ Our children will question our sanity for spending money we did not have on “bridges to nowhere”, skateboard parks...” and so on, not once addressing the government’s greatest bill, the military, how much more will our children question the frugality and sanity of spending 145 billion dollars a year to fight a war in Iraq, spending 130 billion dollars a year to maintain a large standing army, 136 billion to have the world’s largest and best air force, or 140 billion a year to have the worlds largest navy and marine force. In total the military expense that we will pass on to our children will be 717 billion dollars a year. Remember, as of right now our budget hasn’t yet passed 4 trillion dollars, and is closer to 3 trillion. If anyone is really serious about reducing debt, they ought to support a Thomas Jefferson solution. Thomas Jefferson reduced the size of the standing army by almost 50% and reduced the national debt from 83 million in 1800 to 57 million at the end of 1808. (Studenski and Krooss, Financial History, pp. 69-71; Balinky, Gallatin, pp.90, 107). Lots of people will say things to the effect that that was a different time, and a different world, and throw out the tired old federalist myth that the best way to remain at peace is to prepare for war, but I would point out that Jefferson’s policy worked. Prior to his presidency, we were in a quasi war with france, and after his presidency, we shortly entered into the war of 1812 with Britain. Whatever spending waste there is in the federal government, the bridge to no where and the grants to the international hopscotch league are but trifling pennies compared to the staggering amount spent to threaten, intimidate, and otherwise impose our will on other nations. As alluded to this is also a matter of contention not just as a fiscal issue, but also a point that jeopardizes our safety. If one might recall, Japan didn’t bomb pearl harbor until after FDR ordered our pacific fleet moved from San Diego to Pearl Harbor. And that Hitler’s election was a result of his railing against the unfair Versailles treaty that Woodrow Wilson imposed on Germany after getting us involved in another unnecessary war.

In Chapter 3. Glenn Beck wastes no time attacking Obama’s nominees to various positions as “crooks who sought to defraud the government.” Much unlike Thomas Paine’s take, who would have called the government crooks for stealing the bread won by others by the use of threats and intimidation and outright violence. In fact no where in Beck’s book does he address the central issue of the American Revolution, that the right to levy and raise taxes rests solely with the people, and not with the central government. To express this in our own times is to say that the people of Oklahoma, New York, Oregon, and Mississippi have the rights to impose taxes on themselves, but London, excuse me, Washington D.C. does not have the power to raise taxes. This is what was meant by “No taxation without representation” It means that outside of the representation of the people in the various colonies, or in this case states, there is no right to impose taxes. It is not a matter of having representation in the central government as Benjamin Franklin proposed in 1765 with “a cute way to make a mockery of the principle of colonial self-taxation: to provide some colonial representation in parliament.” ( Rothbard, Murray. Conceived in Liberty vol III,pp. 92, Mises Institute) As history tells us, this idea was rejected by all 13 colonies. Beck along with many of the well intentioned “tea partiers” have their heart in the right place, but I fear their heads have not been in a book of significance for many years.

Chapter four was titled “The Perks and Privileges of the Political Class” which gave me hope, but again, instead of going for the gut and talking about the legal plundering of the political class, taking a play from Bastiat, Beck only talks about the insane amount of money it takes to win an election, and gerrymandering. He Talks about “reform” using the same system that has brought about this system. Oh and term limits, yippee. I’m sure Thomas Paine was entirely up in arms about the career politicians in the house of lords!

The last chapter of any substance, though slight it might be, dealt with progressivism. It was probably the best chapter of the book. And was simply over progressivism. Perhaps, it is sign of the times, and a sign about just how far away we are from a real revolution that its necessary to decry socialism and progressivism. Thomas Paine Had no need of arguing against the evils of mercantilism and violations against property. He really did write what everyone else was thinking. That the government was illegitimate “neither can any power, which needs checking, be from God” ( Common Sense and The Rights of Man, pp 9 Phoenix press) and that the government had subjected its citizens to worse situations than they might face without any government at all.

The final chapter of the book is largely filler, expressing optimism that this 2nd revolution might be a successful one, and again calling on us to “leave our muskets at home.

In total, Beck never recognizes Paine’s actual call for secession by the colonies. He never acknowledges the danger, expense, and subjection that the central government exposes us to. And he never asserts the rights of the people through their respective states to do something about it.

For Revolution in Iran, but against the same in South Ossetia

For the People of Iran But against the People of South Ossetia

Today we are entering into the 9th day of marchings, and protests by the young people of Iran, and the same number of days of threats, intimidation, and violence directed at the protesters by “their” government.

Here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, everyone from myself to President Obama has come out in support of the protesters, putting a degree of muscle behind their ballots. Certainly Bush and Condi Rice are rooting for the protesters, and eagerly anticipating a more pro west Iranian government.

Yet does anyone remember what was in the news 10 months ago? Last summer The news wasn’t focused on Iran, but on Georgia. The European Georgia that is, along with Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There was actually a war. fought by two different groups of people seeking independence from Georgia, and one battle lasted 3 days. The Central Government of Georgia attacked them both to retain the territories, and Russia sent tanks and part of its air force to help secure independence for these two new nations.

But that never even made the news, last I heard, Russia was about to attack Georgia, but that was from Fox News, and that was before August 6th. The point here is the hypocrisy of our own government, and the fact that the media is more or less a lap dog of the government.

I recall very clearly hearing Condolessia Rice saying that “The territorial integrity of Georgia must be maintained.” But today, or yesterday, Obama came out and expressed his support for the protesters and denounced the violence of the government of Iran for their attempts to thwart the overthrow of the current president.”

What are we to gather from this contrast? I would venture to suggest that there is no intrinsic difference between the two administrations we’ve had in America. Obama has yet to recognize either of the new republics. But certainly its a bit unfair to say that when a people has been treated unjustly across an entire country they have the right to revolt, but that when only a certain area are subjected to injustice at the hands of the central government, that they do not have a right to secede and to declare their independence. No. The objection by the South Ossetians, the people of Abkhazia, and the people of Iran are all basically the same. More importantly, the points made by the central government of Georgia and those made by Mahmound Ahmadinejad are even closer to being the same, it is this: “We are in control, we are more powerful, you will submit to us and we will rule over you. You can not have freedom, and if you don’t submit, we will kill you.”

There is only one explanation for the change in how the United States’ government views revolution and secession in other countries; politics. Had the Bush administration been friendly with Russia, and enemies of Georgia, Condi would have probably spoken about the rights of every nation to be sovereign and independent, or whatever other rhetoric that would be handy. And if Ahmadinejad were the challenger whose supporters were taking to the street, and a pro western president were facing the threat of being deposed, Obama’s TelePrompTer would be be going a hundred miles an hour talking about the rule of law, and the finality of the democratic process and on and on.

In the end Bush, McCain, Obama, (or pick your political hack of choice) does not care for rule of the people, or independence. All anyone in power cares about is power. When Hawaii, Alaska, or Texas finally crosses the line and secedes, none of the above will applaud. When the taxes finally become unbearable, and the federal reserve notes are worthless, and the Tax Day Tea Parties don’t come with signs and megaphones, but come with their hand guns, rifles, and shot guns (if the people of Iran were armed, I suspect the protests in Iran would be over by now, and there would be a new president) Senator McCain Won’t support the people, but will find himself acting more like the communist leaders of China who were responsible for the Tiananmen Square massacre.

We still suffer Taxation Without Representation

April 16th 2009

Yesterday there were tea parties going on throughout most of the States across the continent. Crowds reached into the thousands, and it is suppose to harken back to the Boston tea party of 1773, which was in protest of the last of the townshend acts, the tea tax passed my parliament.

From watching the news and reading blogs I’ve heard alot from everyday folks and pundents alike that continually talk about the fact that the tea party and the revolution were over taxation without representation, and that now, unlike then, we as tax payers have representation.
But this is to confuse history. When the founders talked about taxation without representation, they did not mean that they wanted to be represented in parliament, in fact Benjamin Franklin, in efforts to keep the peace, suggested sending representatives from the various colonies to sit in the house of commons in London, an idea which was utterly rejected by the likes of George Mason and Thomas Jefferson. Thats because when they referred to taxation without representation, they meant within their own colonial assembly. To them it didn’t matter whether they had representatives in London, modern day D.C., they believed only their own assemblies could impose taxes on them, the equivalent of our states.
In short the mantra “taxation without representation” in more modern terms is no taxation from the central government, but only by the local political body.

Why The Confederate Flag

April 2009

Why The Confederate Flag

A few weeks ago a report from Missouri came out. The State government there did a report on domestic terrorists groups and in the report it said those who are for small government, limited government, state sovereignty, lower taxes, third party voting habits and proponent of personal Liberty might be domestic terrorists, or involved in terrorists groups or plots. It also gave a few red flags that a Missouri Highway Patrolman would be able to identify a domestic terrorist by on the road. Of these Ron Paul bumper stickers, Gadsden flags or stickers, Confederate flags, United States flags flown upside down, or American Sovereign flags among other signs, flags, and bumper stickers.

Of course this is an affront to free speech, every bit as bad as being profiled based on age, race, or gender. I was livid. It’s an outrage to be treated differently based on one’s ideas by the government, especially when it is the size, scoop, and nature of government that your ideas are against in the first place. And so I, along with thousands of others put up a picture of the gadsden flag for our profile picture on www.facebook.com. But for me that wasn’t enough, I wanted to take it to the real world. And so I bought a 3x5 Gadsden flag, and began flying it at my house.

I had already been a victim of a hate crime several weeks earlier when my American Sovereign flag was cut down from my flag pole and stolen. It wasn’t taken down, but cut. The rope on my flag pole was cut. And so this Gadsden flag I bought I had to hang from my porch since I haven’t yet had time to fix my flag pole. I also decided to buy a Gadsden flag for my car, that is the yellow flag on the right side of my car. It is the Yellow one with the snake that reads “Don’t Tread On Me” and it is the flag flown by patriots before the declaration of independence was made. While I was making my purchase I thought I would get another flag, but was unable to find a Sovereign flag, a Bonnie Blue, the Star Spangled Banner, or any other flag associated with the Missouri Intelligence report. Except the confederate flag. And so I decided to go ahead and buy that flag as well.

I’ve already given the general idea and purpose for flying the Confederate flag, and the Gadsden, because according to the Missouri Intelligence report, I show all the signs and persuasions of being a domestic terrorist. But I am not, on the contrary I believe all people should be at peace with their neighbors. That to use violence or the threat of violence to gain control of other people or their property is wrong and inexcusable. This is not limited to burglary, larceny, kidnapping, and murder, but also taxation, regulation, prohibition, and inscription. As I mentioned before, I hold everyone to the same standard, whether its a thug on the street or a senator in a suit.

Onto the reaction. I have mixed feelings about the reaction I’ve gotten. Initially I felt pretty bad about it. I don’t like the fact that people would think I am a racist. I have never associated the confederate flag with racism, the states that remained part of the Union in 1861 still had slaves after the South had been conquered, the South only fought for its own independence and for lower taxes, just like the Colonists did. England had outlawed slavery by the time the Colonists rebelled. And I’ve seen on t.v. that the KKK flies the Southern flag, but they also fly the United States flag with all 50 stars. And of course I am also against the Confederate government almost as much as I am against the United States government because even the Confederacy had problems, like the United States, they also legally condoned slavery, and both governments inscripted men into their armies, and both countries defrauded people’s money, and had income taxes.

On the other hand, I am encouraged, because It has opened some dialogue on the idea of secession and the expansion of Personal Liberty and lower taxes, and of course I wouldn’t be writing this if I hadn’t decided to fly the Southern flag. But this is the problem that I’m running into. no one except the highway patrol in Missouri knows about the Gadsden flag, or the American Sovereign flag, or the Culpepper, or the Bonnie Blue, or any of the rest. All people recognize is the Confederate flag, but it is tainted by slavery. And so what am I left with? I can have the Gadsden that no one remembers, the Bonnie Blue that no one knows, the Culpepper thats been forgotten, or the Confederate flag that no one understands. At least with the Southern flag it allows for dialog on the subject of Liberty to be opened. Our founders risked their lives, property, and sacred honor for the hope of Liberty from a strong central government, I suppose I will be able to tolerate the risk of my reputation.

On Flying the U.S. Gov't Flag Upside Down

Originally posted March 2008

I have read about the flags in the newspaper, and I have heard 2 sides of it, both from a man who is flying the flag upside down as a signal of distress, and protest concerning the way our country is heading, and on the other side, another veteran sees flying the flag upside down as a breach of the solidarity that we ought to have as a people, saying that, although it is a right to protest like that, the ideas that would drive a person to fly the flag upside down are at least to an extent, a betrayal of the armed forces and the country itself.

Both sides have legitimate points, but there is a little confusion about what they are talking about. to be fair, I think its important that both sides have some respect and recognize that the other side wouldn’t bother flying any flag if they didn’t care deeply for this country.

That being said, I think the confusion steams from two ideas concerning America, and even idea’s concerning loyalty, and what it is to be loyal. Lets start with the idea of America. There are two ideas as to what America is, the side that is flying the flag upside down, at least a faction of them, are those who see america, not as a political body, a constitution, an army, navy, or set of laws and IRS codes, but as a body of people, a special people unique in the world, with a pioneering spirit, rugged individualism, diversity, unity, an industrial work ethic made possible by an endeavor to increase the capital accumulation, and an almost universal respect for private property and individual liberties.

The other side, the side that says that anyone who would fly the flag upside down needs to rethink their ideas and what it means to be an American, those people may see all or some of the same characteristics as what makes up the idea of America, but America, is not just an idea to these people, it is a physical place, with territorial bounds, a capitol city, a leader, and a body of leaders. And these things, to those who rebuke the protesters, are superior in nature to those ideas. The official decrees of the government, and the government itself, and democracy and the political system in these United States, is what America is to those who say no one ought to fly the flag upside down.

And this is where both sides are speaking the truth. As I see it, to fly the flag upside down is to betray the government, it is a slap in the face of the current administration, and not only that but to a good many administrations going back as far as Hoover’s 1929-1933 administration, perhaps even farther, but certainly there has not been a real deviation as to the objective of the congresses and executive administrations from then until now. have aimed to increase their own power, to exercise control, to subjugate the people of America to their rule and dominion, And the only differences between one administration and the next is a simple question of who it is that has this power, and the approach they take in attaining it.

To fly the flag upside down is to betray the government, and the government as it has been for a long, long time. But those who betray the government, do so because they see that the government has betrayed those American ideas that I have talked about previously, and they have been deep in thought, and torn, and finally come to the conclusion that they must make a decision, and choose a side, either the government as it is now, or the ideas and beliefs that caused our forefathers to break their own political ties to England and become independent states, in oder to uphold the right to Life, Liberty, Property, and Peace.

And now, some of those who are flying the flag upside down, they find themselves in the same situation as our colonial forbearers. They have been loyal citizens, serving as elected and appointed officials, and fighting wars for their country, but in 1776 their nationalism was overcome by their loyalty to freedom and liberty, and that is when they broke ranks with the government, and decided, in each respective colony, to secede from their current government, and establish 13 independent states. Are we to that point yet in America, no I think only a fraction of the people think that it is that bad (Yet), but the flying of the flag upside down is an indication that the government has come to be more and more oppressive, and in opposition to property rights and individual liberty.

Those who object to the flag being flown upside down, they don’t see it that way of course, because they hold democracy, and America’s political process, and political freedom in higher regard than they do property rights and individual liberty, so that whatever the law, whether it be the amount of taxes we are required to pay, business regulations, or laws restricting the ownership of guns as property, they say that the law must be respected, and it is indeed “right” because it is based on a democratic process.

In the end both sides are loyal, one to America, the other to the American government. I myself hold that the U.S. government is one of the lest oppressive governments to be found on the face of the earth, but I am not thankful for the U.S. government. All the rights we have here are not granted by the U.S. government, or even by the constitution, but as Thomas Jefferson said, they are God Given, and inalienable. The rights were there all along, but governments of the past, the crown, and the United States, have and are trampling those rights. The man living in 17th century England has just as much right to free speech as we do, but the government violated that right, Roman slaves in the 1st century had every much the same right to be free as Americans after the 13th amendment in America, but Rome violated that right. And though now the United States continues to be the least oppressive government, they are oppressive nonetheless, and becoming more so, to a greater or lesser increment since the early 1900’s. And so while I might be sympathetic to these United States in comparison to other governments, I am not a supporter. I am loyal to the ideas of individual liberty and property rights before, and even when they are at odds with the government of the U.S.

I however don’t fly my flag upside down, only because the message is mistook by the other side as being anti American, when in fact I am pro American and anti U.S. government. And it is a fact that Obama will not, and has not changed the overall course that America has gone down for the last century. I have no flag to fly at all. there is no image that represents liberty, untainted by the oppression of the current government. But I pray that the government will turn for the better, for liberty, I pray that the people will not be be oppressed but be free. I am pro American.

Negative vs Positive Rights

Originally posted Nov. of 2008

This year’s election has focused overwhelmingly on positive rights and hardly touched negative rights at all. The debate has not been one over whether or not positive rights are legitimate but only how far positive rights should go, who should receive the positive rights, and who should pay for them.
But what are positive rights? And what are the differences between positive and negative rights? And why is it so important?

Negative rights used to be the only rights there were, and can still be found in some of our most basic laws, such as those against murder, rape, theft, etc. and in some of our most important documents as the Bill of rights, and the right of Habeas Corpus in the Magna Carta and our own Bill of Rights.

Negative Rights are essentially the rights to be left alone, that you have the right not to be murdered, not to be robbed, not to be interfered with in your attempt to own property or express yourself. They are called negative rights because their effect is to tell others what they can not do to you.

Positive rights on the other hand do not tell us what actions we must not make towards others, but instead insist that we take certain actions to ensure that others are garrenteed their positive rights. Positive rights are still relatively new, but I’m sure you are all familiar with such concepts as the right to healthcare, education, a living wage, and adequate housing, all of which are examples of positive rights.

No one would disagree that healthcare, education, or any of the above are good things, but the reason garunteeing these as rights are called positive rights is because it requires an action rather than an inaction by you to keep these rights for others.
Consider the differences. For another person’s negative rights to be maintained, all you must do is not act (inappropriately) in such a way that would directly harm another person or his property, whereas to keep positive rights intact, you must go out of your way to accomodate another person and provide to them whatever positive rights they have declared, or may be so legislated by the government.

Not only do positive rights create a burden, but they necessarily conflict with your negative rights by interfering with your right to be left alone. Negative rights and positive rights are mutually exclusive, you can not claim negative rights, to be left alone, and at the same time demand positive rights. If we are to have positive rights, we must give up our negative rights.

Besides this, since positive rights, unlike negative rights are not grounded in any foundations upon self ownership and property rights, they become arbitrary and discriminatory so that we are not all equal before the wall. An example of this is the positive right to food, where the person making less than an arbitrary amount or unemployed receives stamps redeemable for food, while those making more than an arbitrary amount receive nothing, but instead are deprived of their negative right to not have their property taken.

Even after this, most positive rights, even if granted can never be satisfied, there is no definate way to say what the proper amount of a given good should be, for example there is a continuous debate as to the quality of education,
Regardless of the outcome of this election, we will need to redouble our efforts and work to resecure our natural, negative rights and fight against arbitrary and discriminatory positive rights.

On Slavery

preface,
the following may not be the most eloquent or stylish expression of ideas, but the ideas are inspired from the last 2 centuries greatest minds and I believe God himself. saying this puts all the more pressure on me for the following to be smooth and flawless on the technical side. But I have finally caved and conceded to the fact that I am not a good enough writer to do the ideas justice, but the weight of the idea is such that it must be brought fourth no matter how badly the quality of its expression is lacking.

PART I
Writing in 2008, it is easy to find people who are absolutely opposed to slavery, but I have not had such luck finding people who are opposed to 50% slavery, or 35% slavery, or even 10% slavery. The concept of slavery is that man “A” works, and the fruits of his labor are taken against his will by man “B.” Does it matter if only half of his fruits are taken, or maybe only a fifth? Would there be an abolition movement today if slavery only existed on one day of the week, while the remainder of the week slaves were free to leave the farms and plantations and work for themselves?
I know it is coming, so let me put to rest the socialist complaint of our current system right now. The socialist would complain about the capitalist system where a man works for a company producing $2,000 dollars of profit but only getting $700 in his paycheck. The socialist might complain that this is partial (or fractional, if you will) slavery, but I must point out that it is not, because chains are necessary for slavery. Under the capitalist system there is no force compelling man “A” to work for man “B,“ nor is there a law fixing the price for which man “A” must work -- except for the current minimum wage laws. “A” is free to work for “B” and can quit at anytime under most circumstances to work for “C,” unless there is a contract stating otherwise.
A more accurate way of looking at the employer-employee relationship is to see it as a partnership. The employer provides the business plan and the means of production and whatever other details are necessary, and the employee provides the labor. If I were better at math I’m sure I would be able to find some kind of 10/90 or 15/85 split in the business between the employee and employer, where each is able to terminate the partnership at will.

Under a slave system the servant is not at liberty to quit or to negotiate the split of the profit. There is coercion and a threat of violence in slavery. With 100% slavery, the slave must work and produce, and the master will take all the profits. In a 50% slave system there is coercion to force the slave to give 50% of his production to the master. In either case the slave has no choice, but must yield to the demands of the master or else face punishment.
Now we must come to the question as to whether or not a man who is coerced into working for free for the master only on Monday is really a slave or not. If not, where is the line drawn? If he is forced to work for the master Monday and Tuesday, would that count as slavery? And if not, can it be considered freedom in either case? Where shall the line between freedom and slavery be drawn? I am of the school of thought that if a man is not 100% free (allowed to act without coercion), then he is a slave.
But can slavery actually be justified? Would it be acceptable to own a slave and to say to him, “You will give me all you earn from Monday’s work each week and keep the rest when the profits from Tuesday through Friday’s labors are enough to provide you with a mansion, luxuries, and comforts equal to or surpassing mine.”? For a person to nod in agreement is to not oppose slavery at all as an institution, but to only oppose the condition of a slave. Thus it would also be fine to hold a slave in bondage all week long so long as his material condition were at some acceptable level. I would have to disagree. I do not put such high and weighty value on material possessions, but in the spirit and in the freedom to choose. Even if the slave has a mansion and all the latest technologies and greatest comforts of the age, it is not acceptable that his will be negated or that his labor or wages be confiscated. Under a “Monday Only” slave system the slave is unable to keep that profit made on Monday. If he is sick Monday and unable to work, his labor will be confiscated from the following day’s work whether the slave wants to give those profits up or not.
I have been flirting with, and will now discuss, the old defense of the brutish institute of slavery. The defenders of the institution would defend slavery on the grounds that the slave was better off as a slave than as a free man. They would say that the master provides the slave with the necessities of everyday life (food, clothing, shelter, basic medical care, etc.), and if the slave were free he would not be able to provide those things independent of his master. If a reader is only interested in the end condition of the slave he might come to the same conclusion and agree that slavery is justified. He would certainly have to agree that “Monday Only” slavery, where the labor and production of a man is bound and confiscated for the first day of the week, but the production of the slave the other four days is enough to provide him with all those aforementioned luxuries, is justifiable and even preferable to no slavery where the man’s labor is never confiscated, but is only enough to give him a humble means of existence.
As I have said above, I cannot support these ideas and all I can say to those who do is that they have an inflated value of material well being and a deficiency in regards to the value of free choice. As far as I am concerned, it is not the hard work involved in picking cotton, or the deplorable conditions that slaves endured in the 19th century, but the confiscation of their labor and deprivation of the choice to do with that labor what they would like that is the evil of slavery. It would make no difference to me if a slave were put up in the best hotel in Las Vegas and required to count the stitches in the carpet and then given access to the best spa at the end of the day, it would be slavery nonetheless and equally as wrong.
It is for this reason that I oppose the Income Tax System and look forward to the day when a man’s wages are his own to do with as he sees fit. The income tax is the reincarnation of slavery, though it may only be “Monday Slavery” or “All of January and Half of February Slavery,” it is slavery nevertheless. The income tax is the most direct form of slavery in America today, as it directly takes away a person’s labor against his will. This should be abolished.
It is not only morally wrong, but also a form of slavery to take a man’s paycheck by force, never mind taking it before he even has it in his hand. Money is labor. No matter how it is reduced, some sort of physical activity had to be done to produce an income. It is a very direct conversion for most of us; we work and, in exchange for that work, we are paid money. But even for the landlord or the heir, money is still backed by labor -- no one gets rent property for nothing, it must be bought. It is bought with money that was earned through labor, either that or was given as a gift or in the will of a relative. In either case, labor is being confiscated. I can not say for sure because I am not in the position to know, but it would seem that it is less painful when the labor confiscated is removed through the years in the case of the landlord or through the labor of a parent, but it is still confiscation and, though it is not direct, it is enslavement. However, there is another reason to do away with the income tax in the case of wealthy business owners and landlords; people are both smart and inclined to make more rather than less money. In the case of a landlord, for example, the landlord does not pay taxes, but becomes a tax collector; raising the price of rent and adding “taxes” into his expense list to be covered by the renter just as he would “new carpet” or a “new door.” The same principal can be applied to corporate income tax, where the expense of the tax, like all business expenses, is passed on to the consumer.
Indeed, all taxation is the coercive deprivation of labor, whether it is the income tax or more subtle forms of partial slavery like the sales tax, property tax, tariffs, or others. But my superior moral fiber only extends so far, and being human, there is a hint of despotism in me. Government, though it is evil, is necessary, and must be funded. This funding is going to come from taxation. Therefore, while fractional slavery is condemnable on moral grounds, it can be justified at a very limited level, to provide those functions that, it could be said, could not be adequately provided for by the private sector. (Such as roads, emergency services, and defense.)
Due to both the necessity of taxation to fund our government and the nature of taxation itself, we should be very stringent with our government’s fiscal policy. Though we might like the idea of government undertaking an action which we may believe will have a positive impact on society, we should keep in mind that it takes funding and that the funding will not come from only those who support that particular action of government, but also coercively from those who do not support that action.
When we vote for government functions that are not absolutely essential and that private enterprises could, if given half the chance, handle sufficiently, we are subjecting our fellow citizens to unnecessary confiscation of their labor and fractional slavery. It is also imperative to realize that our fellow citizens may, in turn, use this as license to commit the very same atrocity to us somewhere down the line, for the sake of "providing" for society.