Re: POLITICS protestors considered suspected terrorists

[Guest guest]

We are so far off from the original intent of the founding of this

country and the constitution, it's not even funny. We let the

politicians manipulate the constitution to what suits their selfish,

power-hungry needs.

An interesting read is in the book the Power of Myth by ph

where he talks about the u.s for just a couple of pages but

he mentions that Washington's last words were for us not to get

involved with foreign alliances which we complied with until WWI. Now

we are this Pac-man like entity that is completed motivated by

economic and political power vs. higher ideals that consumes anything

in it's path in the name of profit, including itself.

>

> Hmm... don't peacefully express any " anti-government " or " anti-war "

> opinions, or you could just wind up in Guantanamo Bay waiting for your

> secret 2/3-to-convict military tribunal!

>

>

http://washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/18/maryland-troopers-spied-on-activist-groups\

/

>

> Chris

>

> (sorry for the post without the tag!)

>

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/08, crayfishfeed <crayfishfeed@...> wrote:

> We are so far off from the original intent of the founding of this

> country and the constitution, it's not even funny.

70% of Americans agree with you:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/04/poll-founding-fathers-would-be-d\

isappointed-in-america/

In 2001, 54% thought the founders would be pleased with the way things

turned out. The change shows that the majority of Americans

understand that America is being betrayed by the reaction to 9/11.

> An interesting read is in the book the Power of Myth by ph

> where he talks about the u.s for just a couple of pages but

> he mentions that Washington's last words were for us not to get

> involved with foreign alliances which we complied with until WWI. Now

> we are this Pac-man like entity that is completed motivated by

> economic and political power vs. higher ideals that consumes anything

> in it's path in the name of profit, including itself.

Well what is " itself " and " we " ? Are you spying on your fellow

citizens or fining your farmer for his uregistered chickens? I'm not.

So I think what you mean is " it " will consume " us " unless we stop it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> We are so far off from the original intent of the founding of this

> country and the constitution, it's not even funny.

I think this is in large part due to the fact that most Americans rely on

corporate (mainstream) media to tell them what's going on. The corporate

media picks and chooses what they want the public to know, thus much of the

incremental stripping of our liberties is never reported to the public.

There are many incidences across the country that demonstrate that we are

heading toward a police state, and perhaps martial law.

Is CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC & CBS reporting on these events? Hardly.

We are silently being led to slaughter.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Suze,

> I think this is in large part due to the fact that most Americans rely on

> corporate (mainstream) media to tell them what's going on. The corporate

> media picks and chooses what they want the public to know, thus much of the

> incremental stripping of our liberties is never reported to the public.

> There are many incidences across the country that demonstrate that we are

> heading toward a police state, and perhaps martial law.

>

> Is CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC & CBS reporting on these events? Hardly.

For the most part, no. But not entirely. For example, Judge

Nepolitano regularly appears on Fox, and is the book entitled

something like " When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws, " and is an

outspoken opponent of increasing loss of liberties. Glenn Beck, who

has a CNN show, doesn't do so good a job on that front, but he does a

good job criticizing the Fed and deficit spending, which ties into all

this. This stuff also shows up in the news from time to time. For

example the New York Times broke a story about some illegalities of a

surveillance program of the NSA last year, which they took some heat

for because they blew the government's cover.

In any case, most Americans are aware to some degree that we are

losing liberties, because we have gone from a 54% majority saying in

2001 that the Founding Fathers would be pleased with the way the

country has turned out to a much larger 70% majority now saying that

they would be disappointed.

Of course it's definitely worse than most people understanding and

possibly a lot worse...

Chris

[Guest guest]

How right you are, Suze

 

Smiles,

 

Terry

RE: Re: POLITICS protestors considered " suspected terrorists "

>

> We are so far off from the original intent of the founding of this

> country and the constitution, it's not even funny.

I think this is in large part due to the fact that most Americans rely on

corporate (mainstream) media to tell them what's going on. The corporate

media picks and chooses what they want the public to know, thus much of the

incremental stripping of our liberties is never reported to the public.

There are many incidences across the country that demonstrate that we are

heading toward a police state, and perhaps martial law.

Is CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC & CBS reporting on these events? Hardly.

We are silently being led to slaughter.

Suze

[Guest guest]

The media picks and chooses to tell us what sells newspapers, magazines, and

advertising slots. Most people don't WANT to know the same things as the

readers of this newsgroup!

Kathy

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Suze Fisher

Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:25 PM

Subject: RE: Re: POLITICS protestors considered " suspected terrorists "

>

> We are so far off from the original intent of the founding of this

> country and the constitution, it's not even funny.

I think this is in large part due to the fact that most Americans rely on

corporate (mainstream) media to tell them what's going on. The corporate

media picks and chooses what they want the public to know, thus much of the

incremental stripping of our liberties is never reported to the public.

There are many incidences across the country that demonstrate that we are

heading toward a police state, and perhaps martial law.

Is CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC & CBS reporting on these events? Hardly.

We are silently being led to slaughter.

Suze

[Guest guest]

>

> Well what is " itself " and " we " ? Are you spying on your fellow

> citizens or fining your farmer for his uregistered chickens

If you are not doing that, don't worry. Many more new opportunities are

opening up for Americans who want to spy on their neighbors or enforce a

police state on them.

Obama Calls For National Civilian Stasi

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2008/071708_civilian_stasi.htm

Caught on video for posterity:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5128294616187563612

This must be what he means by " change " - rather than spending billions of

dollars that we don't have (we have a 9 trillion dollar plus gross national

debt) on our current military endeavors, we should continue spending that on

our current Empire and/or entititlements but ADD on an entirely new civilian

Stasi to spy on your farmer's unregistered chicken.

I'm looking forward to paying for that via another Federal Reserve

inflationary tax after President Obama borrows from the Fed to pay for the

new Stasi force.

I'm guessing McBush has something equally fun cooked up for us.

Suze

[Guest guest]

The majority of Americans don't even understand what or who our

founding fathers were. It's not like we are taught about it in school

to any worthwhile degree and that's the problem. Most people I know

don't even keep up with politics to the remotest degree. These are

otherwise intelligent people who wanted to vote for Clinton b/c

it's time for a " woman " to be in office and no other reason. Any

specific learning about founding fathers I have had to go out of my

way to learn and I barely know anything but the most general info. I

am still learning, so those poll percentages don't mean that much to

me either way.

I don't have to spy on neighbors chickens to be a part of this

country's misdeeds. Our participation is built into our lifestyle.

Whose taxdollars paid for state troopers and congress's salaries? All

of ours unless your an illegal immigrant who doesn't pay taxes.The way

we live and consume is our participation for starters. I was just

reading a book detailing how we send a lot of our waste to other

countries, ships full of toxic material and these ships roam the ocean

for years, sometimes, if other countries reject them. Americans

including myself generate so much waste and then leave the rest of the

world to deal with it. I never asked where our generated wasted goes

before I read that. We are not the only ones in the world that do this

but the moral of the story here is everyone is guilty of the misdeeds

of this country unless you are living in the woods sustained by things

that are completely natural and you don't have a car, etc.

The American lifestyle sustains greed and ignorance. The degree to

which a person rejects the normal lifestyle is the degree to which

they will be set free from it. So I still think it's " we "

> > We are so far off from the original intent of the founding of this

> > country and the constitution, it's not even funny.

>

> 70% of Americans agree with you:

>

>

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/04/poll-founding-fathers-would-be-d\

isappointed-in-america/

>

> In 2001, 54% thought the founders would be pleased with the way things

> turned out. The change shows that the majority of Americans

> understand that America is being betrayed by the reaction to 9/11.

>

> > An interesting read is in the book the Power of Myth by ph

> > where he talks about the u.s for just a couple of pages but

> > he mentions that Washington's last words were for us not to get

> > involved with foreign alliances which we complied with until WWI. Now

> > we are this Pac-man like entity that is completed motivated by

> > economic and political power vs. higher ideals that consumes anything

> > in it's path in the name of profit, including itself.

>

> Well what is " itself " and " we " ? Are you spying on your fellow

> citizens or fining your farmer for his uregistered chickens? I'm not.

> So I think what you mean is " it " will consume " us " unless we stop it.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Masterjohn

<chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> Hmm... don't peacefully express any " anti-government " or " anti-war "

> opinions, or you could just wind up in Guantanamo Bay waiting for your

> secret 2/3-to-convict military tribunal!

>

>

http://washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/18/maryland-troopers-spied-on-activist-groups\

/

>

> Chris

This happens during every war time period in America, we just have a

new generation of people discovering this governmental mischief. It

happened during the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and numerous other

" war " times during our history (always be fearful when the US Gov't

declares a " war " on something or someone, like drugs, poverty, terror

- cuz you can be sure the only people who will be " warred " against is

Mr. and Mrs. Q. Public).

When Randolph Bourne, in his response to World War I, said " War is the

Health of the State "

[http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/warhealthstate1918.html -

in my opinion, a must read essay]

he was absolutely correct, cuz war, among other things, allows the

state to expand like no other activity, and ironically it is the most

tragic of human activity, causing untold death and destruction with

seen and unforeseen consequences lasting for generations.

As for the particular example you linked to above, Bovard noted

this problem back in 2004 in his book, _The Bush Betrayal_:

" Bush governs like an elective monarch, entitled to reverence and

deference on all issues. Secret Service agents ensure that Bush rarely

views opponents of his reign, carefully quarantining protesters in

" free speech zones " far from public view. ***The FBI has formally

requested that local police monitor antiwar groups and send

information on demonstrators to FBI-led terrorism task forces.***

Thanks to the campaign finance act Bush signed, Americans have also

lost much of their freedom to criticize their rulers – at least in the

60 days before an election. "

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/bovard2.html

--

There's nothing like visiting a foreign country like China to get an

appreciation of what it's like to live under an authoritarian regime.

I was reminded of this when I arrived home and found that the TSA had

rifled through my baggage.

- Tabarrok

[Guest guest]

,

>> Hmm... don't peacefully express any " anti-government " or " anti-war "

>> opinions, or you could just wind up in Guantanamo Bay waiting for your

>> secret 2/3-to-convict military tribunal!

>>

>>

http://washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/18/maryland-troopers-spied-on-activist-groups\

/

>>

>> Chris

>

> This happens during every war time period in America, we just have a

> new generation of people discovering this governmental mischief.

Yes, but it's worse than it has been now, because of legal changes

openly stripping " suspected terrorists " of rights that, as far as I

know, probably haven't been stripped of any citizens since the civil

war.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:11 AM, crayfishfeed <crayfishfeed@...> wrote:

> We are so far off from the original intent of the founding of this

> country and the constitution, it's not even funny.

Not to be a spoil sport, but the founding of these " united States of

America " and the ratification of the US Constitution are really two

different things and should not be lumped together. These " united

States of America " were born out of a secession movement, and the US

constitution was and is centralizing in nature.

People tend to forget or never knew that the constitution itself was a

compromise in many ways, and there are some who believe it was

illegally foisted upon the various states. There was a reason that

Henry, in reference to the entire constitutional process, said

" I smell a rat! " I think history has proven Henry right and the

centralizers wrong.

There is also a rather strong argument that the original 13 colonies

were not a country, but rather sovereign States who united on some

things - like defense - they thought could best be handled mutually,

while maintaining their individual sovereignty. Thus the early

documents of this country referring to these " united States of

America " (the " u " in united being intentionally left as lower case)

and the crown negotiating a peace treaty with each individual State.

> We let the

> politicians manipulate the constitution to what suits their selfish,

> power-hungry needs.

>

> An interesting read is in the book the Power of Myth by ph

> where he talks about the u.s for just a couple of pages but

> he mentions that Washington's last words were for us not to get

> involved with foreign alliances which we complied with until WWI. Now

> we are this Pac-man like entity that is completed motivated by

> economic and political power vs. higher ideals that consumes anything

> in it's path in the name of profit, including itself.

While I understand your sentiments, you are making a fundamental error

in logic, " we " are not the state, though the state claims to represent

" us " and certainly has its minions among " us " willing to betray " us "

to the state at a moment's notice.

" With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with

society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments

expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common

sense such as, " we are the government. " The useful collective term

" we " has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the

reality of political life. If " we are the government, " then anything a

government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but

also " voluntary " on the part of the individual concerned.

" If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid

by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden

is obscured by saying that " we owe it to ourselves " ; if the government

conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then

he is " doing it to himself " and, therefore, nothing untoward has

occurred.

" Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were

not murdered; instead, they must have " committed suicide, " since they

were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore,

anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One

would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the

overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or

lesser degree.

" We must, therefore, emphasize that " we " are not the government; the

government is not " us. " The government does not in any accurate sense

" represent " the majority of the people. But, even if it did, even if

70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent,

this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the

part of the slaughtered minority. No organicist metaphor, no

irrelevant bromide that " we are all part of one another, " must be

permitted to obscure this basic fact. "

http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

--

There's nothing like visiting a foreign country like China to get an

appreciation of what it's like to live under an authoritarian regime.

I was reminded of this when I arrived home and found that the TSA had

rifled through my baggage.

- Tabarrok

[Guest guest]

>> This happens during every war time period in America, we just have a

>> new generation of people discovering this governmental mischief.

>

> Yes, but it's worse than it has been now, because of legal changes

> openly stripping " suspected terrorists " of rights that, as far as I

> know, probably haven't been stripped of any citizens since the civil

> war.

How about the forcible internment in camps of 120,000 people of

Japanese ancestry by FDR via executive order in the 1940's.

Sick.

--

There's nothing like visiting a foreign country like China to get an

appreciation of what it's like to live under an authoritarian regime.

I was reminded of this when I arrived home and found that the TSA had

rifled through my baggage.

- Tabarrok

[Guest guest]

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 9:17 AM, crayfishfeed <crayfishfeed@...> wrote:

> The majority of Americans don't even understand what or who our

> founding fathers were. It's not like we are taught about it in school

> to any worthwhile degree and that's the problem.

I contend that even when it is taught it is not framed correctly. The

original question before the founders regarding the constitution was

not whether or not the gov't was dangerous, both sides believed that.

The question was whether it could be limited sufficiently to insure

freedom. The federalists answered that question by saying yes and the

anti-federalists emphatically said no. While the federalists won the

day, I think history clearly shows the anti-federalists were right.

> I don't have to spy on neighbors chickens to be a part of this

> country's misdeeds. Our participation is built into our lifestyle.

> Whose taxdollars paid for state troopers and congress's salaries? All

> of ours unless your an illegal immigrant who doesn't pay taxes.

This argument would have more teeth if our taxes were voluntary.

> The way

> we live and consume is our participation for starters. I was just

> reading a book detailing how we send a lot of our waste to other

> countries, ships full of toxic material and these ships roam the ocean

> for years, sometimes, if other countries reject them. Americans

> including myself generate so much waste and then leave the rest of the

> world to deal with it. I never asked where our generated wasted goes

> before I read that. We are not the only ones in the world that do this

> but the moral of the story here is everyone is guilty of the misdeeds

> of this country unless you are living in the woods sustained by things

> that are completely natural and you don't have a car, etc.

>

> The American lifestyle sustains greed and ignorance. The degree to

> which a person rejects the normal lifestyle is the degree to which

> they will be set free from it. So I still think it's " we "

You seem to be conflating personal behaviour with gov't coercion. The

way to reject activities that my tax dollar funds that I don't agree

with is to refuse to pay the taxes, not necessarily adjust my

lifestyle to some idea of what is or is not proper.

Since I am legally required to pay or risk imprisonment or ultimately

maybe even death, refusing to participate is not much of an option.

--

There's nothing like visiting a foreign country like China to get an

appreciation of what it's like to live under an authoritarian regime.

I was reminded of this when I arrived home and found that the TSA had

rifled through my baggage.

- Tabarrok

[Guest guest]

,

> How about the forcible internment in camps of 120,000 people of

> Japanese ancestry by FDR via executive order in the 1940's.

Yes, true, I'd forgotten about that. Although I think we're only

seeing the beginning now, so we will see where it finally ends up and

whether or not it goes to new levels.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/20/08, crayfishfeed <crayfishfeed@...> wrote:

> We are not the only ones in the world that do this

> but the moral of the story here is everyone is guilty of the misdeeds

> of this country unless you are living in the woods sustained by things

> that are completely natural and you don't have a car, etc.

I certainly have my own errors and flaws and misdeeds, and I couldn't

possibly argue that they are lesser than anyone else's, because we are

all given different gifts and may fail to measure up to our potential

based on our own individual yardsticks.

That said, I think you're making several errors.

First, I'm not responsible for anyone else's actions unless I

knowingly forsee them as a consequence of my own, could reasonably

have avoided that action, and failed to do so out of neglect or

malice. If I buy a box of muffins from someone and that person goes

to Wal Mart and buys ammo for a handgun with the money I gave her, and

then she shoots a man on the street, I'm not a murderer.

Second, if someone is forced into doing something, they at least bear

a mitigated responsibility for the action. I don't have the choice to

pay taxes, so I'm not responsible for paying them in the same way I'm

responsible for buying the muffins in the case above. Even still, the

action of paying the taxes is a very distinct action from using the

money to drop bombs on someone.

Third, you're ignoring that all the most hideous actions of our

government are financed by deficit spending. Whether I pay taxes or

not has absolutely nothing to do with how many bombs get dropped,

because the money to pay for these bombs doesn't even exist. The

Federal Reserve prints it, or the Chinese loan it. If I didn't pay my

taxes, rather than fewer bombs being droppped, the exact same number

of bombs would be dropped, but the deficit would be slightly larger

and there would either be a slightly higher rate of bonds purchased by

the Fed with money printed out of thin air or a slightly higher rate

of bonds sold to the Chinese, financed by their own inflationary

central bank.

Finally, it seems like you think prosperity is dependent on these

monstrous acts; thus, if we live a prosperous life dependent on

governmental and corporate misdeeds, than virtue of our own prosperity

we are complicit in them. I think the opposite is the case. I think

we would be much more prosperous if we had a minimalist government

that vigorously prosecuted fraud and corruption in the market, and

hard currency based on precious metals, and had a rigorous practice of

voluntary self-sacrifice and compassion towards others. Our living

standards, and especially those of the middle class and poor people,

are being stripped away by the Federal Reserve's inflationary system

and the federal government's deficit spending. International banking

moguls and certain favored corporations and corporate CEOs are making

a bonanza, but not because wealth creation is being increased, but

because, while wealth creation is being prevented, they are

transferring wealth from lower classes to themselves by devaluating

the dollar and pumping new money into favorite firms before it is

devaluated.

That's not to say that we're not wasteful. We should definitely make

less trash. But that has little to do with our standards of living.

It would be quite doable to have good computers, clean homes,

high-quality food, decent entertainment, and so on, while

simultaneously reusing, recycling, and otherwise minimizing waste, and

then handling it responsibly.

And of course, the progress in technology fueled by what elements of

capitalism we actually have over the last 30 years or so has produced

much more responsible handling of waste. Barrel burning, for example,

which is one of the top sources of release of dioxin into the

atmosphere, has been mostly replaced by controlled incineration with

filters that stop environmental contaminants from reaching the

atmosphere. As research progresses, we'll get even better by, for

example, using select bacteria to decompose harmful wastes.

Chris

> The American lifestyle sustains greed and ignorance. The degree to

> which a person rejects the normal lifestyle is the degree to which

> they will be set free from it. So I still think it's " we "

>

>

>

>> > We are so far off from the original intent of the founding of this

>> > country and the constitution, it's not even funny.

>>

>> 70% of Americans agree with you:

>>

>>

>

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/04/poll-founding-fathers-would-be-d\

isappointed-in-america/

>>

>> In 2001, 54% thought the founders would be pleased with the way things

>> turned out. The change shows that the majority of Americans

>> understand that America is being betrayed by the reaction to 9/11.

>>

>> > An interesting read is in the book the Power of Myth by ph

>> > where he talks about the u.s for just a couple of pages but

>> > he mentions that Washington's last words were for us not to get

>> > involved with foreign alliances which we complied with until WWI. Now

>> > we are this Pac-man like entity that is completed motivated by

>> > economic and political power vs. higher ideals that consumes anything

>> > in it's path in the name of profit, including itself.

>>

>> Well what is " itself " and " we " ? Are you spying on your fellow

>> citizens or fining your farmer for his uregistered chickens? I'm not.

>> So I think what you mean is " it " will consume " us " unless we stop it.

>>

>> Chris

>>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I think the opposite is the case. I think

> we would be much more prosperous if we had a minimalist government

> that vigorously prosecuted fraud and corruption in the market,

What is the rationale that freedom must be maintained by a centralist,

monopolist, coercive socialist construct at its center, however

minimal?

The courts, law enforcement, and the military are all socialistic,

monopolistic, coercive, centralist institutions that are failing

badly. Each of these institutions have a rich private history (and in

the case of the courts a current resume as well) in which they

flourished with little if any help from the state. Areas like maritime

law were actually taken over by gov'ts after they had developed

largely on their own.

It seems strange to me that we easily notice this in countries where

food and manufacturing (like the former Soviet Union) are socialized,

monopolized and centralized, and what a bad outcome it produces, but

yet are unable to recognize that we are having such bad outcomes with

our courts, law enforcement and the military - i.e the minimal state -

for the exact same reason

> and

> hard currency based on precious metals,

That is one view of the gold standard, which is enshrined in the

constitution and advocated by Ron , but is it not the only type of

gold standard, and IMO far from the best one, since it grants

government a legal monopoly over money.

Since money does not have its origins in the State, but rather is a

market commodity, I think it a very dangerous thing to grant the State

monopoly power over money. It can only lead to all kind of mischief

like the current alliance of government and the international banking

cartel known as the Federal Reserve. IMO, the founders, while

recognizing the dangers of private banking interests allied with gov't

to our liberty and prosperity, went astray in their attempted

solution..

There should be a free market for money just like everything else in

the economy.

> and had a rigorous practice of

> voluntary self-sacrifice and compassion towards others.

One of the clear times Holy Writ weighs in on civil government (and

clear prescriptions within Holy Writ as to what government should

actually be doing can only be found in the Old Testament - best I can

tell the NT only focuses on how we ought to behave under any

government), is to warn the Israelites of the fatal outcome of their

desire for a centralized government: conscription and subsidy - i.e.

the taking of their children for war and the taking of their

goods/children for welfare and government work, i.e the King's

service.

I 8:9-16

9 Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly

forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign

over them. "

10 So told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked

him for a king.

11 And he said, " This will be the behavior of the king who will reign

over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots

and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots.

12 He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his

fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and

some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.

13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers.

14 And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your

olive groves, and give them to his servants.

15 He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to

his officers and servants.

16 And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your

finest young men,[a] and your donkeys, and put them to his work.

17 He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants.

18 And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have

chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day. "

It should be noted the King **took** (i.e. he didn't ask) the **best

of production** and while not explicitly stated probably the best and

the brightest of their sons and daughters. Just think of the

creativity, wealth, cures, inventions, social and ministerial service

that has been lost over the centuries because many of the best and the

brightest of a given society went into " public service " and for the

best and brightest who remained behind, they had a nice chunk of the

fruit of their labor taken by the government.

This doesn't mean before King Saul Israel lacked warriors to fight or

didn't take care of the less fortunate, etc., but rather that such

arrangements would no longer be voluntary, in the case of war children

would be kidnapped (i.e. forced to serve against their will), and in

the case of welfare poverty would no longer be administered and

handled by the Levitical priesthood and various other gleaning laws,

and the upkeep of the various aspects of government would take a

visible portion of their wealth, rivaling even the tithe (i.e God's

portion). By the way, in the OT, helping the poor was commanded by

God, but **not** enforceable by some earthly entity forcibly taking

your money.

This wasn't a new concept for the Israelites, since it was going on in

the nations around them, **and they had been delivered from such

nonsense out of Egypt** but it was new for Israel as a separate and

distinct society.

Now I realize most Christians take the above passage to **only** mean

that such was a result of Israel not trusting in God, and it certainly

means at least that, but it seems a dubious stretch to say it means

only that, since at face value it clearly describes a result that has

been the fruit of every government we are aware of that has ever

graced this earth. AFAIK, there is no historical example of **any**

civil government ever doing otherwise, **except** Israel before King

Saul, which is more readily analogous to anarchy, not minarchy, and

thus not really relevant.

Do you have a historical example where a government did not conscript

children for warfare or take money/goods from adults for subsidy

purposes? After all those practices aren't mentioned by as if

somehow they were/are approved by God, and if not how am I to equate

such practices with the " rigorous practice of voluntary self-sacrifice

and compassion towards others " which you seem to be suggesting should

be a feature of a minimal socialized monopolistic coercive government?

> And of course, the progress in technology fueled by what elements of

> capitalism we actually have over the last 30 years or so has produced

> much more responsible handling of waste. Barrel burning, for example,

> which is one of the top sources of release of dioxin into the

> atmosphere, has been mostly replaced by controlled incineration with

> filters that stop environmental contaminants from reaching the

> atmosphere. As research progresses, we'll get even better by, for

> example, using select bacteria to decompose harmful wastes.

Industrialization in general has cleaned up pollution around the

world. And the biggest polluters of all have always been gov'ts, or

more specifically places where property rights have traditionally been

held in low value.

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/14/worlds-worst-pollute.html

--

There's nothing like visiting a foreign country like China to get an

appreciation of what it's like to live under an authoritarian regime.

I was reminded of this when I arrived home and found that the TSA had

rifled through my baggage.

- Tabarrok

[Guest guest]

,

>> I think the opposite is the case. I think

>> we would be much more prosperous if we had a minimalist government

>> that vigorously prosecuted fraud and corruption in the market,

>

> What is the rationale that freedom must be maintained by a centralist,

> monopolist, coercive socialist construct at its center, however

> minimal?

It will probably not be till next week that I have the chance to

carefully read and thoroughly respond to your post, but just a few

points:

-- I was not addressing the question of whether a state is required

for prosperity, to which I don't really know the answer.

-- The constitution does not give the government a monopoly over money

and Ron does not advocate such. According to him, as I

understand it, for decades in the early republic there was privately

coined money until the courts reinterpreted the constitution as giving

the government a monopoly. Ron 's view is more nuanced, which has

government money, but also competition by privately coined money.

-- When I referred to voluntary sacrifice and compassion I wasn't

talking about government and I'm not sure why you responded as such.

I was talking about people voluntarily practicing self-sacrifice and

compassion. The point I was trying to make was that greed does not

increase prosperity.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>> I think the opposite is the case. I think

>>> we would be much more prosperous if we had a minimalist government

>>> that vigorously prosecuted fraud and corruption in the market,

>>

>> What is the rationale that freedom must be maintained by a centralist,

>> monopolist, coercive socialist construct at its center, however

>> minimal?

>

> It will probably not be till next week that I have the chance to

> carefully read and thoroughly respond to your post,

Okay

> but just a few

> points:

>

> -- I was not addressing the question of whether a state is required

> for prosperity,

It sure seems to be the implication of what you are saying, " if we had

a minimalist government

that vigorously prosecuted fraud and corruption in the market. " The

implication being that without at least a minimal state, fraud and

corruption would go unchecked and we wouldn't be more prosperous.

The intended implication of my question is, why would a minimalist

state, given its nature - coercive, socialistic, monopolistic - be any

more free of the fraud and corruption you believe it should vigorously

prosecute so that we could be more prosperous?

> to which I don't really know the answer.

I think the answer can be fairly extrapolated just by looking at

sectors within an expansive state that get little or no gov't

oversight or at least at one time were fairly free of the state.

Plus there is all kind of history demonstrating this.

And unless you want to argue that a state has the ability to survive

without a productive citizenry to tax, then surely the state is not

required for prosperity, although the state can and certainly will

drain away that prosperity over time. Anyway, the point being that

production/prosperity must precede the predatory state or the

predatory state has no basis on which it can come into being and

remain viable.

> -- The constitution does not give the government a monopoly over money

> and Ron does not advocate such. According to him, as I

> understand it, for decades in the early republic there was privately

> coined money until the courts reinterpreted the constitution as giving

> the government a monopoly.

This points out, IMO, one of the problems with the originalist

approach to the constitution. The constitution was the subject of much

debate and compromise, and things at times were deliberately left

vague to satisfy various political factions. While the immediate

practice may have been government money plus privately coined money,

it certainly is not clear that the constitution did not mean to give a

monopoly on money to the gov't, or did not leave that possibility

open, which at a later date a court in fact said was the case.

The constitution gives Congress the power " to coin Money, regulate the

Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights

and Measures. "

There is lots of room for movement in that statement.

> Ron 's view is more nuanced, which has

> government money, but also competition by privately coined money.

I don't think that position is helpful at all because at the end of

the day government never really brooks any competitors, which is one

reason why we are where we are now in terms of monopoly money.

Nonetheless it is one of the several viable positions on the gold

standard. Personally, I don't think the law should enshrine any

standard (other than just weight and measures), gold or otherwise, and

that money should be determined by the market.

> -- When I referred to voluntary sacrifice and compassion I wasn't

> talking about government and I'm not sure why you responded as such.

> I was talking about people voluntarily practicing self-sacrifice and

> compassion. The point I was trying to make was that greed does not

> increase prosperity.

From my reading it is not at all clear you are referring to

individuals. It reads to me as if the three phrases are qualifying

what a minimal gov't ought to be doing:

I think we would be much more prosperous if we had a minimalist government

that....

1. vigorously prosecuted fraud and corruption in the market,

2. and hard currency based on precious metals,

3. and had a rigorous practice of voluntary self-sacrifice and

compassion towards others.

..

--

There's nothing like visiting a foreign country like China to get an

appreciation of what it's like to live under an authoritarian regime.

I was reminded of this when I arrived home and found that the TSA had

rifled through my baggage.

- Tabarrok

[Guest guest]

>> How about the forcible internment in camps of 120,000 people of

>> Japanese ancestry by FDR via executive order in the 1940's.

>

> Yes, true, I'd forgotten about that. Although I think we're only

> seeing the beginning now, so we will see where it finally ends up and

> whether or not it goes to new levels.

Well if all goes as planned in the next couple of years, I don't

anticipate being inside US borders to see what happens. So sad.

--

There's nothing like visiting a foreign country like China to get an

appreciation of what it's like to live under an authoritarian regime.

I was reminded of this when I arrived home and found that the TSA had

rifled through my baggage.

- Tabarrok

[Guest guest]

,

> What is the rationale that freedom must be maintained by a centralist,

> monopolist, coercive socialist construct at its center, however

> minimal?

I didn't say it must be -- I was making a contrast between the level

of wealth I believe we'd have under two individual scenarios, not a

comprehensive statement about the best form of government.

> The courts, law enforcement, and the military are all socialistic,

> monopolistic, coercive, centralist institutions that are failing

> badly. Each of these institutions have a rich private history (and in

> the case of the courts a current resume as well) in which they

> flourished with little if any help from the state. Areas like maritime

> law were actually taken over by gov'ts after they had developed

> largely on their own.

Ok, any recommended reading on this history?

[snip]

>> and

>> hard currency based on precious metals,

> That is one view of the gold standard, which is enshrined in the

> constitution and advocated by Ron , but is it not the only type of

> gold standard, and IMO far from the best one, since it grants

> government a legal monopoly over money.

In addition to what I previously said, I didn't mean to say anything

about government-issued currency per se, but rather a general

statement about currency.

> Since money does not have its origins in the State, but rather is a

> market commodity, I think it a very dangerous thing to grant the State

> monopoly power over money. It can only lead to all kind of mischief

> like the current alliance of government and the international banking

> cartel known as the Federal Reserve.

That is probably true. Even in the absence of paper money, king's

inflated the currency by taking gold coins out of currency but

declaring them to have the same value in terms of the monetary unit.

However, the price index still went down consistently through the

period of monarchial governments, indicating that inflation of the

currency was not a powerful force and that rising productivity of the

market was. So it would seem that, while not ideal, a state monopoly

of money constitutionally restricted to a commodity standard, ideally

with a constitutional prohibition of debasement, is vastly superior to

a government-granted monopoly given to a private cartel with the

specific privilege of inflating at will and with no commodity

standard. At least for the duration that the government obeys its own

constitution.

> IMO, the founders, while

> recognizing the dangers of private banking interests allied with gov't

> to our liberty and prosperity, went astray in their attempted

> solution..

Given the fact that the gov't was not a major holder of gold (to my

knowledge), and that privately issued currency was practiced for

several decades at first, I don't think it was the founders' intent to

give gov't a monopoly on currency. Of course it was the intention of

some, like Hamilton, to have a central bank.

> There should be a free market for money just like everything else in

> the economy.

I think that's probably true.

>> and had a rigorous practice of

>> voluntary self-sacrifice and compassion towards others.

> One of the clear times Holy Writ weighs in on civil government (and

> clear prescriptions within Holy Writ as to what government should

> actually be doing can only be found in the Old Testament - best I can

> tell the NT only focuses on how we ought to behave under any

> government),

I agree.

is to warn the Israelites of the fatal outcome of their

> desire for a centralized government: conscription and subsidy - i.e.

> the taking of their children for war and the taking of their

> goods/children for welfare and government work, i.e the King's

> service.

[snip]

> Now I realize most Christians take the above passage to **only** mean

> that such was a result of Israel not trusting in God, and it certainly

> means at least that, but it seems a dubious stretch to say it means

> only that, since at face value it clearly describes a result that has

> been the fruit of every government we are aware of that has ever

> graced this earth. AFAIK, there is no historical example of **any**

> civil government ever doing otherwise, **except** Israel before King

> Saul, which is more readily analogous to anarchy, not minarchy, and

> thus not really relevant.

I think that's a reasonable interpretation of the passage. On the

other hand, I'm not sure if it can be synthesized with everything else

in the Bible. Why is King Josiah reckoned the greatest of all kings

for some of his fairly un-libertarian actions (especially regarding

the idolatrous priests), for example, if government compulsions is

inherently and consistently eschewed?

> Do you have a historical example where a government did not conscript

> children for warfare or take money/goods from adults for subsidy

> purposes?

I'm not positive, but didn't the revolutionary war in this country

offer payment to freemen and freedom to slaves in return for voluntary

enlistment?

> After all those practices aren't mentioned by as if

> somehow they were/are approved by God, and if not how am I to equate

> such practices with the " rigorous practice of voluntary self-sacrifice

> and compassion towards others " which you seem to be suggesting should

> be a feature of a minimal socialized monopolistic coercive government?

I don't know why you gave that interpretation to what I said. It

doesn't make any sense. A government can't have compassion, do

anything voluntary, or, technically, do anything, since it is an

abstraction rather than a concrete entity with a will, capacity for

empathy, mode of individual action, etc.

>> And of course, the progress in technology fueled by what elements of

>> capitalism we actually have over the last 30 years or so has produced

>> much more responsible handling of waste. Barrel burning, for example,

>> which is one of the top sources of release of dioxin into the

>> atmosphere, has been mostly replaced by controlled incineration with

>> filters that stop environmental contaminants from reaching the

>> atmosphere. As research progresses, we'll get even better by, for

>> example, using select bacteria to decompose harmful wastes.

> Industrialization in general has cleaned up pollution around the

> world. And the biggest polluters of all have always been gov'ts, or

> more specifically places where property rights have traditionally been

> held in low value.

Even if the gov't is the worst polluting entity, there are much more

private entites than there are governments, and technology has also

led to new ways to pollute. I'd think that, altogether, much more

pollution comes from the private sector.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I didn't get a chance to respond to this until now. I think you

are missing my whole point but not only that you are making surprising

conclusions about how you think I perceive things. I think very

similarly to you coincidentally but my point is more of a

philosophical one than a economic one. Before I elaborate on the point

I wanted to respond to a couple of things you wrote: The US gov't also

does unfavorable things with our tax dollars that we pay directly vs.

what you are were saying about the Feds and the Chinese. Also our

disposal of waste in the last thirty years has not been handled more

responsibly at all. I think there has been good press on it with all

this green living but it seems any mitigating actions they take is

robbing peter to pay scenario. Science magazines are a very good

source of info on this about the environment. A good science magazine

is a great way to get good perspectives on things from my experience.

I worked in the Everglades national park for 3 years and it was my

job to learn ecology and it's bleak and corrupt and not responsible at

all. The U.S. gov't has the Everglades protected by it's National Park

boundaries and it gets millions of dollars from tax payers and what

they do in the name of preservation hurts the environment and they

know it does b/c I know it does from talking to the scientists who

work for them but nothing is done to rectify the situation. Think of

the effectiveness of the National park system protecting the

everglades compared to the FDA about protecting us and 9 out of ten

people look at national parks as being responsible, this is just one

example of the effectiveness of PR

My earlier point is an overall philosophical perspective that has been

understood by ancient religions since the dawn of man, one such symbol

of this is the snake eating it's tail, Life feeds on life. My point is

you aren't living in the Arctic in a tent taking only pictures and

leaving only footprints until the U.S reverts back to a smaller gov't

in favor of the middle class . You are living in this same system

driven by corporations and prospering, at least I hope so, unless you

are sick and not working like myself.. We have to be ready to face

what we as individuals contribute to this situation. It's the whole

dilemma of being alive. What kind of answers and solutions could we

really come up with after seeing it's our actions and compliance that

create a lot of these problems. We would truly be standing in

awareness and readiness to come across viable solutions vs. in denial

that it's them not us.

One thing I always think about is man's need to create and be creative

and design and improve. So our need for technology is practically

woven into who man is but what if there had been a wise council set up

that insisted that whatever technology we have be introduced slowly

and looked at objectively for what it does to our environment and

psyches, that would have been the way to go. Things have progressed

too fast. That's the problem. We are the mercy of the progress of

companies without our consent. Everything trickles down the masses

through what companies do to make things faster and more profitable. I

for one am not in agreement with it. I think most people aren't if

they could really perceive the situation in a larger perspective. All

this technology makes us crazy and confused and disconnected, all in

the name of improvement. My favorite movie which illustrates this

concept is the God's must be Crazy. Again my point is a more

philosophical one.

> >> > We are so far off from the original intent of the founding of this

> >> > country and the constitution, it's not even funny.

> >>

> >> 70% of Americans agree with you:

> >>

> >>

> >

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/04/poll-founding-fathers-would-be-d\

isappointed-in-america/

> >>

> >> In 2001, 54% thought the founders would be pleased with the way

things

> >> turned out. The change shows that the majority of Americans

> >> understand that America is being betrayed by the reaction to 9/11.

> >>

> >> > An interesting read is in the book the Power of Myth by ph

> >> > where he talks about the u.s for just a couple of

pages but

> >> > he mentions that Washington's last words were for us not

to get

> >> > involved with foreign alliances which we complied with until

WWI. Now

> >> > we are this Pac-man like entity that is completed motivated by

> >> > economic and political power vs. higher ideals that consumes

anything

> >> > in it's path in the name of profit, including itself.

> >>

> >> Well what is " itself " and " we " ? Are you spying on your fellow

> >> citizens or fining your farmer for his uregistered chickens? I'm

not.

> >> So I think what you mean is " it " will consume " us " unless we

stop it.

> >>

> >> Chris

> >>

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

For the sake of brevity, I have broken my response into several posts.

>> What is the rationale that freedom must be maintained by a centralist,

>> monopolist, coercive socialist construct at its center, however

>> minimal?

>

> I didn't say it must be -- I was making a contrast between the level

> of wealth I believe we'd have under two individual scenarios, not a

> comprehensive statement about the best form of government.

Understood

>> The courts, law enforcement, and the military are all socialistic,

>> monopolistic, coercive, centralist institutions that are failing

>> badly. Each of these institutions have a rich private history (and in

>> the case of the courts a current resume as well) in which they

>> flourished with little if any help from the state. Areas like maritime

>> law were actually taken over by gov'ts after they had developed

>> largely on their own.

>

> Ok, any recommended reading on this history?

Probably your best bet is get a copy of the third edition of

Ruwart's, _Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression_.

http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Our-World-Age-Aggression/dp/0963233661

Had I voted in time this would have been a book club selection back

when we had that going over on NT_Politics. The value of the book is

in her style, tone, real world examples throughout the book and in her

bibliography. Remarkable book, probably the best introduction to

liberty on the market. Easy to pass out to others. The bibliography

should keep you busy for a long time.

In addition there is plenty of material by Bruce Benson,

http://mises.org/story/2542:

In fact, our modern reliance on government to make law and establish

order is not the historical norm. Public police forces were not

imposed on the populace until the middle of the nineteenth century in

the United States and Great Britain, for instance, and then only in

the face of considerable citizen resistance.[2] Crime victims played

the prosecutors' role in England until almost the turn of the century,

and they did not yield to public prosecution without a struggle.[3]

The foundation of commercial law was developed by the European

merchant community and enforced through merchant courts.[4]

To this day, international trade is " governed " to a large extent by

merchants, as they make, arbitrate, and enforce their own law; and in

the United States, at least 75 percent of commercial disputes are

settled through private arbitration or mediation with decisions based

on business custom and practice (customary commercial law).[5]

Arbitration services, particularly for commercial disputes, have been

increasingly used for some time, but the last few years have witnessed

the development of a new industry — private for-profit courts

competing with public courts for a wide spectrum of civil disputes.[6]

Furthermore, there are now over twice as many private police as public

police in the United States, as citizens hire more and more watchmen,

guards, and highly trained security experts.

There is other material, like Rothbard's, For A New Liberty

(http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp), which is helpful, and

stuff from others, but I would start with Ruwart.

>> Since money does not have its origins in the State, but rather is a

>> market commodity, I think it a very dangerous thing to grant the State

>> monopoly power over money. It can only lead to all kind of mischief

>> like the current alliance of government and the international banking

>> cartel known as the Federal Reserve.

>

> That is probably true. Even in the absence of paper money, king's

> inflated the currency by taking gold coins out of currency but

> declaring them to have the same value in terms of the monetary unit.

They would also cut gold coins with cheaper metal and pass the coin

off as pure - a form of inflation. Dross was a practice which was

specifically condemned by the prophet Isaiah (which should be no

surprise since it is basically theft).

> However, the price index still went down consistently through the

> period of monarchial governments, indicating that inflation of the

> currency was not a powerful force and that rising productivity of the

> market was.

The ability of a society to overcome the theft of its own government

is remarkable indeed. Nonetheless, it does not change the basic nature

of inflation as a form of theft by government. It is one of the most

insidious forms of theft, devaluing the money supply, because it

happens invisibly without any direct confrontation by the government.

So the 100 gold coins I have in my safe are really 80% gold and 20%

copper, although they look like 100% (or whatever percent agreed to)

on the surface.

So the $100 in my pocket is only worth $90 tomorrow. The government

just took $10 from me and I didn't even know it. Monetary policy is

sooooooo important to a stable society, cuz when those societies go

bad, it is usually the gov't' sins in this area that open the door to

the collapsing of a civilization. It is not the only thing for sure,

but it usually plays a very big role.

> So it would seem that, while not ideal, a state monopoly

> of money constitutionally restricted to a commodity standard, ideally

> with a constitutional prohibition of debasement, is vastly superior to

> a government-granted monopoly given to a private cartel with the

> specific privilege of inflating at will and with no commodity

> standard. At least for the duration that the government obeys its own

> constitution.

Can you identify a nation-state that has ever limited itself to what

you describe above? Aren't you arguing that is what the US once had?

So it seems the operative sentence in the above paragraph is the last

one:

" At least for the duration that the government obeys its own constitution. "

And then what? Heroic attempts to reign in the wayward state and limit

its power once again?

There is no demonstrated success of such ever happening. The idea of a

government checking itself with a document of which it is the final

arbiter of its meaning is absurd, in my opinion. Having the state set

itself up as the arbiter of justice in its own cause is a violation of

one of the basic juridical principles of arriving at a just decision.

Clearly that grand experiment in limited government has been a

colossal failure.

Simply put, the idea of using state power to reduce state power is a

theory, nothing else.

There have been lots of magnificently talented people - men and women

- over the last 300 years or so who have spent lots of time and money

trying to make this happen, but it has never worked. I repeat, it has

never worked.

The federalists (used broadly here to describe anyone who thinks they

can use state power to successfully limit state power), who think they

can keep Leviathan in check have been proven wrong time and again.

That is why, IMO, the Ron " revolution " is valuable not because it

is attempting more of the same (where I think it will be a failure

like all that have come before), through the means of constitutional

originalism rather than radical minarchy and certainly not market

anarchy, but because it is giving a lot of people their first real

glimpse of what liberty is all about

I have heard people argue that it took 20 years for the Goldwater

movement to achieve success with the election of Reagan, and

therefore the ians will only succeed if they have a long term view

and keep working at the grass roots level to " recapture " the

Republican party.

Why anyone would want to " re-capture " a party that has its roots DEEP

in big government, and why Ron continues to spout such nonsense,

is beyond me. Taft and Buffet (Warren's Dad) were

anomalies, and not as good as on the issues, and he would do

everyone a favor by not calling the Republican party, " the party of

Taft. " It was also the party of Lincoln, and its behavior today is far

closer to Lincoln than anything Taft, Buffet, or believed or

believe in.

I mean really, what a funky analogy. Is that all we have to look

forward to, another Reagan type? Outside of his rhetoric he was

a DISASTER. The size of government and its sway over every aspect of

lives grew under Reagan just as has under nearly everyone since the

introduction of the imperial presidency by King Lincoln.

For me, the hope of the Ron " movement " will be those who get a

taste of liberty, follow it to its logical conclusions, realize that

electoral politics is a poor place to bring about change and thus a

huge waste of time and energy, and come to understand that political

secession and personal secession are the only movements that have led

to an advance in freedom when it comes to government.

--

There's nothing like visiting a foreign country like China to get an

appreciation of what it's like to live under an authoritarian regime.

I was reminded of this when I arrived home and found that the TSA had

rifled through my baggage.

- Tabarrok

[Guest guest]

>> IMO, the founders, while

>> recognizing the dangers of private banking interests allied with gov't

>> to our liberty and prosperity, went astray in their attempted

>> solution..

>

> Given the fact that the gov't was not a major holder of gold (to my

> knowledge), and that privately issued currency was practiced for

> several decades at first, I don't think it was the founders' intent to

> give gov't a monopoly on currency. Of course it was the intention of

> some, like Hamilton, to have a central bank.

Rather than debate original intent, which is really my point anyway

(that originalism is not cut and dry - another example being whether

the original constitution was pro or anti-slavery) let me give you a

succinct view of what I think constitutionalism is all about:

The practical difficulty with our government has been, that most of

those who have administered it, have taken it for granted that the

Constitution, as it is written, was a thing of no importance; that it

neither said what it meant, nor meant what it said; that it was gotten

up by swindlers, (as many of its authors doubtless were), who said a

great many good things, which they did not mean, and meant a great

many bad things, which they dared not say; that these men, under the

false pretence of a government resting on the consent of the whole

people, designed to entrap them into a government of a part; who

should be powerful and fraudulent enough to cheat the weaker portion

out of all the good things that were said, but not meant, and subject

them to all the bad things that were meant, but not said.

And most of those who have administered the government, have assumed

that all these swindling intentions were to be carried into effect, in

the place of the written Constitution. Of all these swindles, the

treason swindle is the most flagitious. It is the most flagitious,

because it is equally flagitious, in principle, with any; and it

includes all the others. It is the instrumentality by which all the

others are mode effective. A government that can at pleasure accuse,

shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of

refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to

its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular

oppressions it pleases.

The result — and a natural one — has been that we have had

governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and

species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their

victims; and these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a

million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel

slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for

liberty, justice, or truth. And these crimes have been committed, and

this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a

hundred years ago, said that all men were equal, and could owe neither

service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with

their own consent.

… Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by

anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now

binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can

ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced

to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance

what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is.

Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion,

the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been

assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked

usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely,

and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself

purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write

much more, to prove that such is the truth.

----------------

and

----------------

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this

much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as

we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it

is unfit to exist.

Lysander Spooner

No Treason, #6 and #2

http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-2.htm

--

There's nothing like visiting a foreign country like China to get an

appreciation of what it's like to live under an authoritarian regime.

I was reminded of this when I arrived home and found that the TSA had

rifled through my baggage.

- Tabarrok

[Guest guest]

> I think that's a reasonable interpretation of the passage. On the

> other hand, I'm not sure if it can be synthesized with everything else

> in the Bible.

Before the time of the Kings, commentators of all stripes have noted

that Israel was arguably the most libertarian society in the history

of the world. They had no king, no congress, no legislature, no

potentate of any sort. There were no taxes in Israel. Yes, they were

required to support the priesthood for both worship and non-worship

functions, but there was no means by which this was enforced by a

governmental entity. The courts were private in nature. There were no

jails since the Mosaic code provided for restitution in the event

someone was found guilty. The law was the same for the stranger and

citizen alike, and strangers were not assessed a tax of any sort, even

when the nation was going to war, which is the only time a census was

allowed and a poll tax could be taken.

Even libertarians who can't stand Christianity, and their number is

legion, begrudgingly acknowledge that ancient Israel was a libertarian

society, even if they don't like the type of libertarian society that

it was.

It is that Israel, the one that had been delivered out of the land of

Egypt (it should be noted Israel gained its freedom via secession, not

reformation), the one that had been delivered from the idea of the

state as being divine and omnipotent, the one that had been given a

freedom unprecedented in the ancient world, and rarely seen since the

time of Christ; it was that Israel - a stateless Israel - under the

Mosaic code but not under a central government, that God said through

Moses would be a model and example for the rest of the world:

" Look, I now teach you these decrees and regulations just as the Lord

my God commanded me, so that you may obey them in the land you are

about to enter and occupy. Obey them completely, and you will display

your wisdom and intelligence among the surrounding nations. When they

hear all these decrees, they will exclaim, 'How wise and prudent are

the people of this great nation!' For what great nation has a god as

near to them as the Lord our God is near to us whenever we call on

him?

----------

and

----------

" And what great nation has decrees and regulations as righteous and

fair as this body of instructions that I am giving you today? "

Deuteronomy 4: 5-8

Whatever else we read in the Bible, this is the standard that God has

set in the civil realm - not the Kings, not the Roman Empire, and not

any post-resurrection Christian governments. This is the civil model

which was ultimately rejected by Israel when they determined to adopt

the practice of the nations that were around them, ***and the very

nations they were displacing***.

When they asked for a King, it showed they were doing what the

surrounding nations were doing, putting their trust for mercy and

justice in the state and not God. In the ancient world, and

functionally today, though openly then, the state apparatus was

considered divine. That is one reason why it was such an affront for

Israel to be asking for a King.

Notice also that they *asked* for a King, but it was God who

instituted, ordained if you will, the rule of the Kings. Even though

he warned them of the dangers, nevertheless He gave them what they

wanted. As can be the case, God often meets us where we are, even if

it is not the best thing for us. Clearly in this instance He ordained

an institution that was less than ideal. Israel was no longer willing

to recognize His Kingship via the Judges, and so this is what they got

(the Mosaic law by the way predicts this would happen).

Now unless there is something that clearly states or implies otherwise

we can assume that God still holds that model valid, and that states,

of any sort, are going to do what he said the King would do, i.e. take

the first of their production and the best and brightest of their

children - without their consent - to further the cause of the state.

And that is exactly what states did/do, ancient or modern, before

Israel and after Israel.

> Why is King Josiah reckoned the greatest of all kings

> for some of his fairly un-libertarian actions (especially regarding

> the idolatrous priests), for example, if government compulsions is

> inherently and consistently eschewed?

Well first of all coercion and Christianity do not go together. Love

is not marked by coercion, and is in fact the very anti-thesis of

love. As one writer put it " it is a violation of free will and a

failure to acknowledge the image of God in the other person. This is

true whether or not the coercion is legally permitted, for the law of

man cannot contravene the Law of God. "

The entire Old Testament law is expressly summed up in the New

Testament as love God with everything you have and love your neighbor

as dearly as you love yourself. Given that, I wouldn't expect to find

any exceptions to the law of Love codified in the OT law.

Second, I don't find it anywhere stated that Josiah in regards to the

warnings gave Israel about getting a king, did anything

different. Whatever else he might have done, he was still engaging in

theft and slavery, although it was now a recognized " legitimate "

function of government. The Mosaic code forbade the forcible taking of

money (theft) and conscription (slavery), both which were routinely

violated after the rise of the Kings and I don't see anything that

suggests Josiah did otherwise.

But even if he didn't do those things, which the law of God required

him **not** to do, since I don't see anything unlibertarian about his

other actions, as I argue below, that would be even more reason to

call him the greatest of the Kings.

That doesn't mean there isn't a hierarchy among the Kings, clearly

some were better than others, but it doesn't change the fact that he

was still a King, although the greatest of them. After all, King

was called a man after God's own heart, which wasn't invalidated by

the fact he murdered a man so that he could cover up his sin of

adultery with said man's wife, and take her as his own, although it

had grave consequences both for him and his son .

Interestingly enough, Josiah doing right in the eyes of God is

described thus, " and walked in all the way of his Father, and

turned not aside to the right hand or the left. " 2 Kings 22:2

Yes, the very described above, who was not Josiah's biological

father (who died an idolater) is used to describe the righteousness of

Josiah.

That said, Josiah was a great King because he attempted to uphold the

Law and brought spiritual revival to Judah and what little was left of

Israel. Given this was freely done with the consent of the people,

there was nothing unlibertarian about his actions.

When he began tearing down the high places and getting rid of the

idolatrous priests, where do you think those high places and priests

came from? If you read all the chapters previous to Josiah's reign, it

is pretty obvious it wasn't from the people but rather from previous

Kings! He was trampling on the people in some godawful unlibertarian

fashion, but simply clearing out all those un-Mosaic practices

**unlawfully** instituted by his predecessors!

This was another of the issues with having a King, the King would lead

the people into the worship of false gods. Josiah was simply tearing

down the abominations previous Kings had set up, engaging in a kind of

Mosaic originalism by upholding the law of the land and getting rid of

the spiritual depredations of previous royal administrations :-)

" 5 Then he removed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had

ordained to burn incense on the high places in the cities of Judah and

in the places all around Jerusalem, and those who burned incense to

Baal, to the sun, to the moon, to the constellations, and to all the

host of heaven. "

" 8 ...also he broke down the high places at the gates which were at

the entrance of the Gate of the **governor of the city**, which

were to the left of the city gate. "

" 11 Then he removed the horses that the **kings of Judah** had

dedicated to the sun, at the entrance to the house of the LORD, by the

chamber of -Melech, the officer who was in the court; and he

burned the chariots of the sun with fire.

12 The altars that were on the roof, the upper chamber of Ahaz, which

the **kings of Judah** had made, and the altars which **Manasseh** had

made in the two courts of the house of the LORD, the king broke down

and pulverized there, and threw their dust into the Brook Kidron.

13 Then the king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem,

which were on the south of the Mount of Corruption, which **

king of Israel** had built for Ashtoreth the abomination of the

Sidonians, for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom

the abomination of the people of Ammon. 14 And he broke in pieces the

sacred pillars and cut down the wooden images, and filled their places

with the bones of men. "

All the above taken from 2 Kings 23. When you read the story of the

Kings it is jaw dropping just how far they strayed, though not really

surprising.

King Josiah didn't impose himself on the people. He brought them

together for the reading of the newly re-discovered book, the Old

Testament. They **voluntarily** committed themselves once again to

God's Law, and Josiah went about making things right in accordance

with the law, as freely submitted to by the people.

" Then the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant before the LORD,

to follow the LORD and to keep His commandments and His testimonies

and His statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the

words of this covenant that were written in this book. ***And all the

people took a stand for the covenant. " *** (2 Kings 23:3)

He was acting in a libertarian manner in those areas, while probably

still practicing the downside of his Kingship in other areas. But for

a brief time, he turned Judah away from the pagan worship it had

adopted under his father and previous kings, and he is rightfully

hailed as the greatest King for his vigorous attempts at cleansing the

land of all idolatry.

Now many anti-Christian modern libertarians would not want to live in

such a society. But since there was no or only minimal coercion

involved, they do recognize its libertarian nature, even under the

Kings, which was a very limited gov't compared to the modern state.

Before the Kings Israel lived in a state of anarchy, after the Kings

they lived under a minarchy. By the time we get to the New Testament

era, they are an occupied nation living under one of the largest

welfare/warfare states in the history of the world, the Roman Empire.

--

There's nothing like visiting a foreign country like China to get an

appreciation of what it's like to live under an authoritarian regime.

I was reminded of this when I arrived home and found that the TSA had

rifled through my baggage.

- Tabarrok

[Guest guest]

>> Do you have a historical example where a government did not conscript

>> children for warfare or take money/goods from adults for subsidy

>> purposes?

>

> I'm not positive, but didn't the revolutionary war in this country

> offer payment to freemen and freedom to slaves in return for voluntary

> enlistment?

For the moment, lets assume they did. The American Revolution was not

a war against government but a war against the British government.

Once the war was over it was business as usual, just under local

government. In fact net taxes went up after the war was over.

I'm not saying there aren't localized exceptions to one particular

practice or another, just that as a matter of principle no civil gov't

has given up its power to conscript and to tax, at which point it

would cease to be a gov't and just another voluntary society..

>> After all those practices aren't mentioned by as if

>> somehow they were/are approved by God, and if not how am I to equate

>> such practices with the " rigorous practice of voluntary self-sacrifice

>> and compassion towards others " which you seem to be suggesting should

>> be a feature of a minimal socialized monopolistic coercive government?

>

> I don't know why you gave that interpretation to what I said. It

> doesn't make any sense.

Probably because of posts like this:

" Just for the record -- speaking for myself alone and not Ron or

other libertarians -- I don't hold to this position, nor do I find

there to be anything Christian about it.

" Under the Old Covenant, property rights were not absolute. All

property was owned by God but given to humans to be stewards of,

provided that they used it to defend the poor, the orphan and the

widow, which was the standard constantly repeated by which everyone

would be judged. The Mosaic law included restrictions on property

rights, such as leaving a certain amount of the harvest so that those

who did not have food could come and harvest it from your property;

this was law rather than ethical suggestion. The New Covenant is very

explicit that the government has the right to levy taxes, though it

gives no prescription to the government how to spend them.

Historically, Christian governments used tax money to alleviate the

burdens of the poor.

" Now, I believe there is a certain value to markets and civil

liberties, but no, I don't think there is any moral or ethical

imperative that anyone should go hungry in order that someone with

massive amounts of money should keep it. "

Now I find what appear to me to be a number of errors in what you

state above, not so much in what you said, with which for the most

part I agree, but what you didn't say, and the conclusions you draw

from it. I didn't get a chance to get involved in this thread at the

time, but I will respond to it in its original location, not here.

> A government can't have compassion, do

> anything voluntary, or, technically, do anything, since it is an

> abstraction rather than a concrete entity with a will, capacity for

> empathy, mode of individual action, etc.

Agreed.

>> Industrialization in general has cleaned up pollution around the

>> world. And the biggest polluters of all have always been gov'ts, or

>> more specifically places where property rights have traditionally been

>> held in low value.

>

> Even if the gov't is the worst polluting entity, there are much more

> private entites than there are governments, and technology has also

> led to new ways to pollute. I'd think that, altogether, much more

> pollution comes from the private sector.

Very few companies, big or small, pollute on the scale of the former

Soviet Union or even modern day China. And usually, it is governmental

interventions and funky notions about the commons that allow companies

to get away with imposing its external costs - via pollution - on

others. A vigorous enforcement of property rights would put a stop to

that, and quite possibly usher in a wave of technological innovation

for anti-pollution devices and measures, including air, noise, and

water.

So directly or as enablers, I would still argue that gov't is the

biggest polluter.

--

There's nothing like visiting a foreign country like China to get an

appreciation of what it's like to live under an authoritarian regime.

I was reminded of this when I arrived home and found that the TSA had

rifled through my baggage.

- Tabarrok