This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Security In A Free Society
The next in a continuing series (most recently: The Governance of a Free Society).
Submitted by Free Radical
Security in a Free Society
The Real choice isn’t between liberty and security;
it is between our security and the state’s.
– Llewellyn Rockwell, The Real Meaning of Security
While the state pretends to protect its people from external threats, it is in fact the perpetrator thereof, the more so the larger the state is. Which is to say, the state does not provide security. Rather, it creates the need for security on a scale that would not otherwise exist, assuring that the more it spends, the more liberties must be sacrificed on the altar of “national defense.” Why else would the American people, for example, find themselves in something approaching lockdown status, despite the fact that their government constitutes nearly half of all military spending worldwide?
The answer, of course, is that the finally “successful” attack on the World Trade Center was simply blowback – i.e., the all but inevitable response of those victimized by the U.S. Government’s decades-long military intervention in the Middle East. And not surprisingly, as a consequence of this “unprovoked” attack, the U.S. Government has vastly expanded its intelligence apparatus, seeking nothing less than Total Information Awareness (since renamed, following an “adverse media reaction to the program’s implications for public surveillance”), while making “preemptive” war a key component of its foreign policy, the rationale for which was laid out in the former administration’s National Security Strategy of the United States of America, which remains in full effect under the present administration.
Yet such is the twisted logic of the state that the solution to the endless warring between and among them is to have but one state:
Thomas Hobbes, and countless political philosophers and economists after him, argued that in the state of nature, men would constantly be at each others’ throats. Homo homini lupus est [Man is a wolf to man]. Put in modern jargon, in the state of nature a permanent “underproduction” of security would prevail. Each individual, left to his own devices and provisions, would spend “too little” on his own defense, resulting in permanent interpersonal warfare. The solution to this presumably intolerable situation, according to Hobbes and his followers, is the establishment of a state. …
… Once it is assumed that in order to institute peaceful cooperation between [individual] A and [individual] B it is necessary to have a state S, a twofold conclusion follows. If more than one state exists, S1, S2, S3, then, just as there can be presumably no peace among A and B with S, so can there be no peace between S1, S2, and S3 as long as they remain in a state of nature (anarchy) with regard to each other. Consequently, in order to achieve universal peace, political centralization, unification, and ultimately the establishment of a single world government, are necessary. i
While a single world government has long been and is now the fervent hope of both neoliberals (socialists) and neoconservatives (fascists), it should be clear to all who have followed this continuing series that a world government – a world state – would be the worst possible eventuality for humanity. True, it would theoretically bring an end to the state of nature that exists among the world’s nearly 200 constituent states and thus put an end to war between them. But given the nature of the state, this would, in practical terms, amount to a Final Solution for human freedom and thus for humanity itself. For in the bureaucratization of all human affairs, a world state would complete the process of political parasitism that has ever and always sucked the life out of the human enterprise.
So rather than succumb to the belief, however deeply entrenched, that the state provides security for anyone other than itself, let us confront the fact that what the state provides is a one-sided affair that is entirely at odds with its people’s security. After all, “no one in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one’s alleged protector to determine unilaterally – without one’s consent – and irrevocably – without the possibility of exit – how much to charge for protection.” ii Yet as this is precisely what the state imposes on its subjects, it should come as no surprise that the cost of security, as noted above, increases in inverse proportion to the security actually provided.
And while it is certainly true that without a state, “stronger agents will be tempted to use force against the weak and impose government on them,”iii it is also true that such agents will be tempted to do so with a state. They always have, and, as long as long as material scarcity is a fact of human existence, they always will. There will always be those, that is, who, whenever possible, will choose the political means – theft – over the economic means – work – so why encourage them with the provision of a territorial monopoly on the use of force and thus the institutionalization of the political means? Why capitulate in advance to the “stronger agents,” in other words, when it is not at all a given that (1) one or another of these agents will succeed in imposing a government on “the weak” or (2) that “the weak” will stand for it if they do? Once a given society is empowered, say, with genuinely contractual protections of life, liberty, and property, who can say with any assurance that “stronger agents” will prevail against its members? What about such a society’s own strength?
For again, with the whole world watching, predatory groups will have to stand trial in the court of public opinion. And being found guilty – i.e., being openly devoid of any moral authority for their actions – they will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to impose their will on others, at least for long. Thus, as the devolutionary process challenged the moral authority of smaller and smaller states, constrained in direct proportion to their increasing “feebleness,” society will turn elsewhere for security.
Where? To its only alternative, the market. How? Mostly likely via the insurance industry. For “even now insurance agencies protect private property owners upon payment of a premium against a multitude of natural and social disasters, from floods and hurricanes to theft and fraud.” iv All are forms of security, after all, so why should “defense” be any different, especially since insurance companies are very large, far-flung affairs that are
… in command of the resources – physical and human – necessary to accomplish the task of dealing with the dangers, actual or imagined, of the real world. Indeed, insurers operate on a national or even international scale, and they own substantial property holdings dispersed over wide territories and beyond the borders of single states and thus have a manifest self-interest in effective protection. Furthermore, all insurance companies are connected through a complex network of contractual agreements on mutual assistance and arbitration as well as a system of international reinsurance agencies representing a combined economic power that dwarfs most if not all contemporary governments, and they have acquired this position because of their reputation as effective, reliable, and honest businesses. v
And again, with the collapse of the “monster” vi states, the monstrous threat that they present to the world will decline proportionately, reducing security insurance to something more in line with the mundane tasks to which everyone is already accustomed, the reason being that “defense” insurance will have the same market-based advantages of other insurance:
First off, competition among insurers for paying clients will bring about a tendency toward a continuous fall in the price of protection (per insured value), thus rendering protection more affordable. Second, insurers will have to indemnify their clients in the case of actual damage; hence they must operate efficiently… Third, and most importantly, because the relationship between insurers and their clients is voluntary, insurers must accept private property as an ultimate “given” and private property rights as immutable law. … Moreover, out of the steady cooperation between different insurers in mutual interagency arbitration proceedings, a tendency toward the unification of the law – of a truly universal or “international” law – will emerge. vii
Security, then, will ultimately be a purely individual affair, no matter if “group” insurance is the manner in which it is provided. Either way, the decision will be individual, and the benefit will be individual, with no state dictating the price of that benefit while failing to provide it.
In the meantime, the reduced threat to the American states from the collapse of their central government will allow them to make a generally peaceful transition to independence. After all, the violence that is being directed at America today, even though it often targets civilians, has but one objective and that is to topple the American government. That is to say, what al-Qaida and others want to happen to the United States is the same thing that Americans wanted to happen to the former Soviet Union. And it is as ludicrous to think that al-Qaida would attack America after its central government had collapsed as it would have been to think that the U.S. would have attacked the Soviet Union after its government had collapsed.
Thus are we left to contemplate what is really afoot as the interregnum of the state finally draws to a close, which we address in my next submission: “The End of History.”
i Ibid., Hoppe, pp. 239 and 241.
ii Ibid., Hoppe, pp. 279 and 280.
iii Ibid., Stringham, p. 373.
iv Ibid., p. 281.
v Ibid., p. 281.
vi Donald W. Livingston, “Dismantling Leviathan,” Harper’s magazine, May, 2002, p. 14.
vi Ibid., pp. 281, 282, and 283.
»
- 11617 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
i have a hard time reading the modern police state and corporate military into the constitution... nowhere does it dicate that liberty only comes with 3 layers of proper paperwork yet that is what the modern state is after... society vs anarchy with the police state playing referee alowing neither... a new reign-status quo and executive privilage
Two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner can hardly be called a healthy example of democracy in action.
Reagan buried the Soviet Union by successfully instigating an arms race - Star Wars, Nato, etc. In fact at one SALT conference, one of the Russians went "ballistic", yelling just that in effect.. "You are bankrupting us on purpose"
Osama Bin Laden did the same thing to the U.S. by sending 18 Arab scumbags onto planes on 9/11...
The USSR burried itself, with a little help from Uncle Sam's alCIAda buddies.
If USAma sent the hijackers, who blew up the buildings?
Can you be any more clueless?
You believe John Ashcroft's 911 fairy tale, and I'm clueless?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!
google 9-11 dancing israelis
Actually, It was an agreement with both Canada and Saudi Arabia.
Two ways the Soviets got hard currencies was the sale of Oil and the Sale of Gold.
The deal with the saudi was to price oil at $15 or below.
The Soviets had a $19ish a barrel extraction expense. The soviets had to sell under extraction price to get hard currencies.
Reagan went up to canada and had St. Pats day with Brian Mulroney. and Canada sold it's gold, dropping the price and again did financial damage to the Soviet Union.
Do a little more research than reading CNNNBCFAUX MSM propaganda.
Try this one.
WHEN IRISH EYES ARE SMILING
http://www.lemetropolecafe.com/Pfv1.cfm?pfvID=2612&SearchParam=Shamrock+Summit
Try this from lemetropolecafe
How the Soviet Empire’s Fall was Engineered
August 17, 2001
http://www.lemetropolecafe.com/Authorlinkdocs/1672.htm
The us is worried like crazy that MENA countries will take the $1 TRILLION in oil revenues and blow us the hell up.
Think about that. Just saying
"True, [world government] would theoretically bring an end to the state of nature that exists among the world’s nearly 200 constituent states and thus put an end to war between them."
With world government the war of the state versus the individual would shift into a higher gear.
The question I have is how can the military and police maintain martial law in Americafor an extended period of time during an economic collapse or crisis? Mathematically it is impossible i will explain. I wrote this months ago in response to CD's article if the military would shoot American cititzens.
If there is a major crisis that sends the entire country into chaos, it would highly unlikely that the U.S. military will be able to enforce a lock-down of the entire nation.
Even if the military manages to acquire all 1.5 million reserves and utilize 1 million of it's total 1.5 million personnel in the Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard, it would struggle to control 308-310 million citizens in a land mass of 9,161,966 sq km.
You can confirm these numbers by looking at the U.S. Census or CIA World fact book.
Even this scenario is incredibly optimistic, because it assumes that 100% of the national guard and Army reserves will show up when the dollar has crash and they're worried about their families. The 1.5 million number doesn't even factor in the fact that many of these people are overseas fighting (in Iraq and Afghanistan) and serving on one of the 700 military bases in 130 foreign countries. So if the dollar collapses and the nation erupts into chaos, will the military be able to ship them home quick enough? I doubt. Now many have said "Well what about the fusion centers and local and state police?"
First of all, American law enforcement numbers are not as strong as some of you think. According to the BLS (bureau of Labor Statistics), there were only 883,600 law enforcement personnel in 2008. And that was before the financial collapse and subsequent layoffs in local departments across the nation. The number included detectives, managers, police and sheriff's patrol officers.
So when you add the 2,500,000 soldiers and the 883,000 law enforcement, you have a force of 3.3 million agents. This is less than one percent of America's highly-armed population. Most of these agents will be working logistics and support for handling prisoners, transportation, intelligence and supply. But this isn't even the biggest problem.
The police are used to dealing with people who are afraid of them and have something to lose. In a collapse scenario, the rioters will lack both characteristics. And the military will be poorly suited to police a populace that is desperation for resources. If the soldiers became violent against the population, they could divide the armed forces and spark a civil war. Moreover, Iraq and Afghanistan has shown us that the U.S. military is not invisible and that guerrilla warfare tactics can be deployed successfully against a high-tech army. It would be very difficult for the U.S. military to successfully implement martial law throughout the entire country at any given time. This would mean that they would have to secure hundred of thousands of neighborhoods, while securing all major airports, power stations, communication towers, water facilities, nuclear power plants, military bases, food distribution center, grocery stores, government official buildings and highways while keeping everyone in their homes after 6pm.
Bringing in foreign troops would problematic, because if the U.S. is in a panic, wouldn't the other countries that are so heavily tied to America also have their own problems. Plus, we know how well foreign occupations went in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq.
In conclusion, a military lock-down of the entire country at any given time would be impossible with the assistance of foreign troops. Adding foreign troops would increase the manpower, but severely damage the credibility of the force. Such a situation would encourage more violence against the martial law force. The U.S. government may attempt to lock the country down, but it would end in failure and possibility set the stage for a civil war. Many people assume that the population's current malaise will mean little resistance to martial law, but they fail to understand human nature. If there is a crisis situation, your biggest danger maybe the people around you.
Um, yeah. Except that despite the Neandersheep loving to think themselves a combination of John McClain and Rambo, they are actually quite easily lead around by fear, their stomachs, and faux patriotism. There's no need for any such lock down. Just enough fire power to hit those homegrown terr'rrists that will be portrayed as hoarders, thieves, etc etc etc.
This really isn't anything hard to see...just take a look at airports.
It's even easier than that! Huxley summed it up in 'Brave New World': Keep the masses amused with pleasures and they won't even notice that they are captured slaves. Internet porn, iTrinkets, teevee "reality" shows, baseball, royal weddings, olympic games.......
Huxley (and TPTB) came to realise that Orwell's violence-based approach of '1984' (as exemplified by Hitler, Stalin and Mao) was both too obvious and too labour-intensive to maintain control over the longer-term. The answer was to be a pleasure-based approach in which the captives would actually welcome the continuation of their slavery.
The result is now on display for all to see: 300 million (minus a few thousand "dissidents and terrorists") obese, ignorant and smug Americans...glued to the television and only distracted by occasional forays in their SUVs to the mall and McDs to replenish trinkets and gut-bloating fodder.
Five guys with decent bolt action deer rifles can make every city of 10,000 people or less impossible to govern. It helps if they are coordinated and each one has a team member, but occupying troops and police cannot make.foot patrols nor leave their armored vehicles and anyone in the occupation government or his family will essentially have no way to govern effectively or move around.
Does any government have enough armored vehicles to provide one per city? What about the countryside? Is that enough to allow an occupation police force and government to govern effectively? Collect taxes? Win hearts and minds?
And by the way where i live it wouldnt be five it would be five hundred. We have some crazy mofos in the south.
Hey, if everything is such a conspiracy as you libtards/brain dead believe, why is there still a world?
Who pulverized the towers, you fucking imbecile?
The Hulk. You do know you are missing Dancing With the Stars, right?
USAma the alCIAda is about as real as The Hulk.
Military expenditures are what's implicitly backing the dollar at the moment.
US is the mob that is providing "protection" around the world, so that world can be good worker bees. Dollar abuse by Fed is the protection fee.
Huh? Backing the $? Your life is backing the $.
Live long and prosper.
It's all a nightmare you can't wake up from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2lXKZ9Zksg&NR=1
4 more years!
4 more years!
4 more years!
Cumon, even Yogi Bear sounds better.
(A pikinik basket for all!)
Security in a Free Society is assured with no regs on firearms, dufus article.
OMG! To claim self-defense when shooting a Libtard! Heaven!
Unintended Consequences...
Get your "Henry Bowman" on.
Fascism IS Socialism. Obama is the current leading light of this state-corporate partnership political economic theory.
Except that fascism was bankrolled by Big Capital to crush socialism after The Great War, when parliamentary government failed to do so. Fascism is simply Capitalism vomiting its undigested barbarism.
But don't let history get in the way of ideology.
National Socialist German Workers' Party
Yeah.....speaking about not letting history get in the way of your anti-capitalist ideology......
The nazis needed to get elected first. That was the reason for the name. Not saying they were any great friends of free enterprise, but the name is a red herring. They hated the commies more than we did.
The Democrats call themselves democrats. And Republicans like Ron "John Birch Society Paul" call themselves republicans. Names don't always reflect reality.
Is that really news?
The NSDAP's first 'actions' as a party were to run around attacking unions and assassinating communists ... you know, the sort of thing that gets applauded on ZeroHedge. They chose the name they chose because in 1920 to NOT call yourself a socialist was to guarantee you'd never win an election.
What the hell is anarchy? I'm Republican. Does that mean I have to shave my balls, and submit to the camera over the red light?
My advice, drink heavily (or heavier as it seems many have started already :-) )
Lightweight. Already puked once; heard a Dummer spew.
Well, EURUSD doesn't seem to have another play now, so be comfortable in your Libtardness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whXeb7Ohfkk
That barrier option @ 1.47000 eur/usd got taken out earlier. A little birdie told me gbp/jpy and aud/jpy look tasty.(aud/usd broke the 1.08 option as well. eur/jpy is probably not a good bet, for obvious reasons. Best wishes. The aussie is teflon coated right now and RBA just got more hawkish. Buy the dips. I like the gbp leg personally. Edit : eur/usd.
my drunken neighbors and i came up with a plausable solution. how about attaching the draft to your vote for commander in chief. if your representative, voted for in a representative democracy, decides it is in the national interest to invade some of those brown skinned people then you are the first fucking boots on the ground. i believe people might reconsider their turn the middle east to glass attitude. fucking blow back cock gobblers. fighting the enemies created under the guise that your freedom is at stake, but those people had no problem until their homes and families were destroyed.
the bankers are getting away free while we attack people who are constantly provoked by military ploicy. vote for a war candidate then those boots should be yours bitch.
so go ahead and vote for obama you supposed peacenicks. but let you take an rpg and hunt down donald duck gadaffy hand in hand with al ciada. fucking strap up bush lovers and punish saddam because he used the weapons you gave him. fucking christ almighty.
is there a constituional ap for that or am i just a dick head?
Hey, an easy one. You're just a dick head. But don't stop. You're good at it.
I think it is pretty reasonable that if you favor a military intervention that you go, or send your kid, or even your wife if sounds of gunfire make you pee in your pants and you dont want to be laughed at.
It's easy we provide protection because other people finance our debt. It's well you know like that other well known crime syndicate - The Mafia.
The state does indeed provide security. In fact, the state provides incredibly superb security.
However, it only provides security to predators.
To understand, one must first comprehend the following:
predators DBA central banks
predators DBA corporations
predators DBA government
That's correct. Today, all central banks, all large financial corporations and organizations (including IMF, WorldBank, etc), and all governments are simply fictional names for predators --- pure, simple, unadulterated predators. Most other large corporations are largely predatory too, though some have productive sidelines. And amazingly, some honest, ethical, productive companies exist too, but their numbers are shrinking because they cannot compete with fraud, force, endless propaganda, state supported competitors, and the free "security" provided fully/largely predatory competitors... but not them.
The state does indeed provide amazingly effective security to predators. How many of the scumbags who destroyed the world economy have been harmed in any way (physically, emotionally, financially)? As far as I know, zero. How many politicians and government agents who practice treason and crimes against humanity on a daily basis have been harmed in any way? As far as I know, zero. Another way of saying this is "too big to fail". And "fail" means "fail in any way, or be harmed in any way".
Yeah, the state provides excellent security.
But only to predators-that-be and the predator-class.
-----
As to the question posed in the article, my answer is "in a free society, individuals provide their own security, either themselves and/or aided by voluntary contracts... period".
DBA? can you say shell corp.?
Amen Richard! And on to the post, I agree with most of it except; "And it is as ludicrous to think that al-Qaida would attack America after its central government had collapsed as it would have been to think that the U.S. would have attacked the Soviet Union after its government had collapsed". You can bet your sweet ass that the Communist Red Chinese would swoop in for the kill when the puppets in DC flail, steal, and run for the hills. Everyone of those, (pardon my French), pieces of shit should be drawn and quartered! Fucking Traitors all.
I see the words, but all they say is,
"Quack quack quack quack quack quack quack..."
China doesn't need to 'swoop in', they've already got America by the balls.
Negative! If China liquidates USD denominated holdings it will spike interest rates. The USD will become the carry marry of the FX market.(jpy long term debt,(JGB's and Kampo) and Fukishima) Commodites will spike even higher as the DXY/USD correlation breaks down. You can put catching falling knifes behind you. Sword swallowing is more apropo!
Xau is limited in use, and Xag is very useable. These trades are speculative right now. Do you actually think miners will disrupt normal flows(eg; manufactures, and Industries that guarantee purchases) for the metals trade? No one is getting any physical delivery for a long time! It's a hedge for the producers, and ETF's.
The Yuan isn't even floated! Nore is the PBOC bond system! Their economy as a whole is 1 third of the US ecomomy. 1.3 billion people vs 307 million people! The only reason the revalue is being sped up is because of inflation.
Your last sentence is precisely why China has the US by the short and curlies.
I am so happy that most of you Libtards don't live here.
Lead costs.
Where? In your mom's basement?
Libtard moocher.
In my underwear, jackass.
Home is where your head is at, I suppose.
Coming from a droopy eyed gas pump? Awe heck I suppose you're right (dot)
well, even a 'droopy eyed gas pump' is more original and creative than some...
As soon as laws are necessary for men, they are no longer fit for freedom.
As soon as laws are not applied equally accross society, freedom is lost.
Laws will never be applied equally across society! ... because those who make the laws (ie. the Elites who control the elected representatives) will never have those laws apply to themselves. Even the almighty US Constitution was subverted before the ink was dry.
'Laws' are simply socialist attempts to manage other people's lives.
Natural law and individual contracts are more than adequate to address the needs of an advanced society.
As long as you are in a position to enforce a contract's conditions, anyway.
How is what you're suggesting going to end up any different than now, with the strong preying on the weak? Oh I know, you think YOU'RE going to be the strong one... well shit, better get on it then; you aren't getting any younger.
"I don't care if the world is unfair; as long as it is unfair in my favour" Hahaha!
Good fucking luck you S.F.W.M. (@8:31)
Independent arbitration works just fine today without recourse to any lawyers or courts. Maintaining a good reputation is the key to continued business...whether in a small community or globally. This is exemplified in such diverse spheres as:
In all of these examples, there is no recourse to a court of competent jurisdiction, yet [almost] all players play by the rules (and those that don't, or refuse to make restitution, are 'ostracised' out of the market...whether they are an individual with a bad rating on eBay, a corporation with a bad reputation for delivery, a local farmer who is known to deliver rotten produce, a mafioso who welches on his drug deals, or an arms dealer who delivers faulty weapons---none of these cases can be brought before a court of law).
Courts are a scam on the sheeple to employ lawyers before they get promoted to judges, lobbyists or congressmen. "The weak" have no chance in a court.
i-plus!
Erm, the reason that independent arbitration `works just fine today` is because, illusion though it is, most everyone BELIEVES they have legal recourse options backed by their respective states.
Let`s start with that [almost] you mentioned; how many dictators does it make a dictatorship? How many monopolists does it take to make a monopoly?
Bad rating on Ebay? open a new account.
Corp. with a bad rep for delivery? New co. name. Or buy a popular newspaper and convince everyone it`s Russia`s fault.
Local Farmer w/bad produce? 8 billion suckers gotta eat, melamine or no, mix it in with a neighbour who`s competing with the same Uber agri you are.
Mafioso doing bad deals? Keep bigger guns and pay your help better than anyone else.
Arms dealer who delivers faulty weapons? Keep the good ones for yourself.
Don`t misunderstand me: you`re definitely on the right track with the whole `smaller is better` meme, but you`re sadly unrealistic if you think a world with a population the size ours is burdened with will flourish sans any civil oversight beyond `independent arbitration`. Before very long the ruthless will always get the upper hand and begin concentrating resources/power and then use that to subjugate the rest. Before you know it we'll be right back where we started: here (or even worse). It's an historical fact.
Heh, what you`re actually advocating is communism in its purest form. The trouble with communism is not everyone posseses that modicum of conscience which prevents the strong from taking advantage of the weak.
What we need today is a 'sliding scale' of regulation and/or taxation that encourages small business and, excepting where it is absolutely necessary, discourages large.
Indicative Planning bitches!
I believe the Founders tried that approach as well and found it lacking because it led to anarchy. They understood the concept of fairness and is the reason that lady justice is blind.
The Founders' approach did not lead to anarchy ... however, within months, it did lead to:
"They" did not understand fairness ... some of them might have, from time to time (eg. the slave-owning Jefferson) and some of them didn't (eg. the scheming Hamilton who engineered the first bankster takeover of the currency).
The US Constitution serves as a great example of how attempting to codify any set of laws simply results in them being ignored altogether when it suits those who made them.
Their original approach did, The Constitution was needed as any society needs rules. The success of the Constition is evident in the rise of our nation, the fault of men is shown as we have taken our freedom for granted and have allowed our politicians to buy our votes with our own money.
The original intent of The Constitution was to keep government out of our lives as much as possible. (How's that working out?) It begins with "we the people" and was constructed to give rights to the individual first, then the states and lastly to the Federal. Again, we have allowed ourselves to be bought with our own money to where we are now living in a soft tyranny.
Spare us the motherhood statements and state-sponsored version of history! The Constitution was abused and circumvented from Day 1. Both Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry wrote extensively of the mistake they believe they had made by agreeing to it.
The only difference between 1789 and 2011 is the degree of corruption and government waste...that has been growing, along with taxes, exponentially for all of those 222 years. Civil wars, presidential assassinations, false flag foreign wars, three different incarnations of the Federal Reserve, state murders of protesters,...........
Put down the Koolaid and do some reading! You won't learn anything if you rely solely on the History Chanel and the Teachers' Union for your understanding of history.
"...it led to Anarchy." And your point is? Oh, I see, you still mistakenly believe that 'anarchy' is chaos. No, Anarchy only means no government. Most of us live with out government interference most of the time. We only run into trouble when the government is involved.
The trolls are out today. Don't waste your energy on them.
A little misleading due to higher labor and overhead... now if we'd just stop giving away our technology.
Another EURUSD sell point coming up.
Around 1.472?
How y'all can afford Internet without ObamaStash, escapes me.
S&P just downgraded Japans debt ??
Should be good for a full throttle "up" on the Dow in the AM
URGENT: Outlook for Japan gov't debt rating downgraded to negativeTOKYO, April 27, Kyodo
Standard & Poor's on Wednesday downwardly revised the outlook for the credit rating on Japanese government bonds to ''negative'' from ''stable,'' citing likely increases in the country's fiscal deficits due to emergency public spending following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.
The move suggests a possible downgrade in the future of the AA-minus rating on Japan's long-term sovereign debt and the A-1-plus on short-term debt ''if fiscal deterioration materially exceeds these (earlier) estimates in the absence of greater fiscal consolidation,'' the U.S. rating agency said in a report.
==Kyodo
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/87950.html
Im suprised this isn't rated at least over 4. Hoppe will undoubtedly turn you an-cap if you have a few hours to spend to listen to his talks
New (first time) Fukushima area cumulative 1year radiation dose (till March 11, 2012) map:
http://www.saposjoint.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=2657&p=32014#p32014
Definitely , safety of individuals are affected by having a short term cost saving nuclear plant in the area they live.
Free Radical
Your article runs right along my own thought lines (and writings) on the topic of Govt.
"Thomas Hobbes, and countless political philosophers and economists after him, argued that in the state of nature, men would constantly be at each others’ throats... there be no peace ..as long as they remain in a state of nature (anarchy) with regard to each other."
There in a nutshell is the philosophers/academics/parasites major fallacy. That nature is a state of anrchy. They only need look about them, out of their ivory tower windows, to see nature forms a balance.
Are the birds, fish and Wilderbeast at war with each other? Nope.
Look around the world, who creates the most war, murder, mahem, anarchy, robbery and abuse of human liberty? Government.
Their 'solution' is the biggest problem
"Consequently, in order to achieve universal peace, political centralization, unification, and ultimately the establishment of a single world government, are necessary."
Another 'solution' of One World Govt dodges the question of who elects these crones?
Will we have global right and left wing parties to choose from?
Or as is the blueprint at the UN, EU, Chinese and North Korean Govts, will they elect themselves in a succession of beauracrtic blue bloods, 'born to rule' no doubt with the devine wisdom we see in the likes of Timmay Geithner, Ben Bernank and career politicians like Gordon Brown (all totally incompetent fuking losers).
The democratically bankrupt idea of One World Government falls flat on its fat face on the gorunds that it has no public mandate. We already see this in Dept after Dept of Govt, unelected crones carrying out policies that have no democratic consent.
When Govt implodes in its own incompetence and corruption, its own ignorance and lies and in its own parasites out-of-control (anarchiac) greed the correct conclusion is that the idea and principles of 'democratic Govt' are bankrupt and have failed.
The solution is the balance nature finds. Natural rules of the herd/pack. A free society as has existed for most of our 2 millions years. And it costs nothing to administer. It works person to person rather than fabricated construct to its minions. The bankrupt impersonal idea of ivory tower Govt quite clearly does not
100 years of intensive, scientific psychological manipulation and creeping statism have left the majority of Americans so frightened, insecure and addled that they have literally no concept of what it means to live as free and sovereign individuals. Before, oh say, 1913/1914 the idea that an American on the street going about his or her business could be stopped and compelled to show their "papers" was laughable. Today Americans must comply immediately with state authorities or they can be tazered (it's a fucking cattle prod folks) and arrested. In some neighborhoods (Oakland springs to mind) they can be executed. Stop being frightened and brainwashed - divorce your television, I mean it, take it out and leave it on the sidewalk today. You owe it to yourself and to your community.
It's asymmetric warfare at its best. Some organization commits a terroist act for a total cost of $100K, with damage exceeding $10M, and the government responds with $10 billion in new spending to counter the threat. Of course, the $10 billion causes thousands of times more damage to the host nation than the terrorist act. Non-corrupt nations will simply absorb the damage as a cost of doing business like paying the water bill. Corrupt nations consider the terrorist acts a challenge to their authority and will inflict more damage than the terrorist.
[Once a given society is empowered, say, with genuinely contractual protections of life, liberty, and property...]---Free Radical
I read the link, and confirmed my suspicion, the author has 2 false premises as they relate to the US: 1) The State gives to the people the "absolute" right of Life, Liberty, and Property. 2) The people contract or agree to let the State be the boss.
Now, I agree with many points made by the author throughout the article; particularly regarding the logic of NWO types.
However, the State does not give the right of Life, Liberty, and Property to the people. Those rights are given to (endowed) individuals by God, not the State. Those rights are not "absolute" rights they are "inalienable" rights, i.e. not forfeitable or transferable. Read, not transferable to the State.
Second. The State is not the boss. Rather, any and all power of the State is given it by the consent of the people. Furthermore, the people retain the right to alter or abolish the State.
I think the author and I would agree though, the US is the last redoubt standing in the way of the NWO.
Your articles are a really welcome contribution to ZH.