LittleMargaretNan

From another angle . . .

A letter from Freeman DeFacto on freedom and the law

Dear Friend,

Sixty some years ago when I was a 20-something and a staunch “conservative,” I too believed in the death penalty administered by the state.

I advocated that it should be administered ONLY when it could be proven BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER that the defendant had committed knowing, premeditated, willful MURDER in the first degree. This seemed only “reasonable.”

As I studied and learned about really true individual freedom and all the assumptions and ins-and-outs and downright corruption of statism I realized that the state should not have the power of life or death over anyone. I began my movement away from “conservatism” and statism toward sovereign individualism.

In a truly-free society, there would be no state. Each individual would govern her_or_himself as a sovereign individual.  Sovereign individuals would form associations for protection of their own life, limb, and property.  No one could be coerced to join an association or remain in one should he not wish to.

I study history mostly in a effort to learn, if possible, how the societal behavior  of mankind has “evolved.”

Upon reading of early English and European history of the times prior to establishment of towns and cities of any considerable size, I learned that before the “nobles and kings” took control of everything, communities administered their own justice. [The nobility later got into administering "justice" because they figured out how to make money from it.]

Justice at that time was defined by the common interpretations of “natural law” [the rules of the universe and its Creator.] Justice simply  meant that each person should get what she or he deserved. Everyone should “do the right thing;” do what’s fair and equitable. Do not be a party to injustice.

As an example: in the “old days,” a victim of maiming, manslaughter, etc. (if he survived) decided the fate of his assailant. Non-surviving victims, were represented by his immediate family, even his extended family, and if necessary, close friends and acquaintances. After a community “trial,” convicted criminals were subject to negotiating their fate with the victim or his representatives.

For murder, there was such a thing as “blood money” by which a “perp” could pay his debt to the victims. Such things were negotiated  with the entire community as witnesses and enforcers. Perps who did not comply with their “sentence” were subject to banishment, shunning, and being open-game for “killing on sight.”

Some perps who had no money or property were offered the opportunity to pay for their crimes by serving as “indentured servants” for designated periods of time.  Many murderers were sentenced to serve the rest of their lives as a “replacement” for their dead victim.

Less serious crimes were settled by restitution plus a fine for punishment. For after all, the aim of apprehending criminals is to right the wrongs done to their victims. Restitution is an absolute minimum.

The state rarely, if ever, these days even thinks about  restitution.  What good does it do the victim for his robber to be put in jail for six months? Restitution plus a compensating payment for time, trouble, and aggravation is much more appropriate.

I commend to you three outstanding books on the subject of a truly-free society and how it could operate.

1. The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard

2. Freedom and the Law by Bruno Leoni

3. The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State  by Bruce L. Benson

URL: http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_4.pdf

URL: http://library.mises.org/books/Bruno%20Leoni/Freedom%20and%20the%20Law.pdf

URL: http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty.pdf

You can download these PDFs at no charge from http://www.mises.org/.

If only we could help bring about a truly-free society.

Regards,

Freeman DeFacto

(nom de plume of David M. Myers)

The World According to One Cheshire Cat

Other than some fairly respectable local and human interest stories, today’s paper was the usual collection of half-truths and circular reasoning flowing from the blithe or willful acceptance of faulty premises and failure to identify the roots of problems, resulting in the usual failure to offer solutions that do more good than harm.

 

The worst offender featured today wrote an essay that perfectly illustrates the underhanded, manipulative tactics so often employed by those who favor political ideology and agenda over truth and over respecting the natural rights of human beings.

 

Self-assured that they have identified the most suitable means to achieve what they deem undeniably worthy ends, these commentators and policy-shapers, i.e., propagandists, advocate the employment of coercion and deceit to achieve them.

Adding insult to injury they refuse to acknowledge the havoc their policies so obviously wreak, all the while patting themselves on the back for their superior maturity and pragmatism.

 

Today’s worst offender referenced above is syndicated columnist, academic, and former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich. I found the same essay online, here.

 

Reich attempts to confound his readers from the start. The headline of his essay, “GOP setting a cynicism trap,” is in itself a cynicism trap.

 

Using today’s common definition of cynic, “a person who shows or expresses a bitterly or sneeringly cynical (distrusting or disparaging the motives of others) attitude,” one must conclude that Reich, by implying that the actions of the GOP are disingenuous simply by virtue of being GOP, is encouraging the very behavior he purports to decry.

 

And here is how the essay opens:

 

An old friend who has been active in politics for more than 30 years tells me he’s giving up. “I can’t stomach what’s going on in Washington anymore,” he says. “The hell with all of them. I have better things to do with my life.”

 

My friend is falling into exactly the trap that the extreme right wants all of us to fall into — such disgust and cynicism that we all give up on politics. Then they’re free to take over everything.

 

It seems that Reich’s friend finally understands the truth about government and politics—that there truly are far better things to do with one’s life. But we must not allow too many to start believing that—heaven forfend! If that were to happen, Reich and a lot of his friends would lose power and wealth, and we can’t have that can we?

 

Reich dishonestly ignores the fact that problems in government and politics are also attributable to democrats and to the system itself; he also implies that participating in politics is a noble duty when abundant evidence supports the opposite conclusion, that politics is the preferred occupation of tyrants who are to be avoided and thwarted, insofar as possible.

 

Furthermore, Reich implies that participation in politics is the ONLY solution, when clearly this is also not true; people are constantly finding ways to work together and to help one another—it happens every day, without or even in spite of government interference. Look around you.

 

Reich assumes the reader wants what he wants; and he assumes the reader believes as he does that the GOP is monolithic, that it is extreme (which is meant to be derogatory), and that it is the enemy, no matter what, for reasons that are always implied and never explained. Like a peevish teenager ready to start a gang war, Reich says: ”Then they’re free to take over everything,” implying the results of such a take over would be devastating.

 

In the next passage, Reich reveals an underlying assumption that is constantly reinforced by those in power: “THEY (Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, etc.) decreed it therefore it MUST be so and you MUST submit.”

 

Republicans blame the shutdown of Washington and possible default on the nation’s debt on the president’s “unwillingness to negotiate” over the Affordable Care Act. But that law has already been negotiated. It passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by the president. It withstood a Supreme Court challenge.

 

Whether you agreed to the terms yourself, as an individual, is deemed irrelevant. Whether a particular act of government changes your life for the worse is also deemed irrelevant. Clearly, your view was never intended to matter, even though you must be made to believe that it does (democracy and all that).

 

Reich pulls a quadruple whammy invoking both houses of Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court. Zeus has spoken from Mt. Olympus and you walk away at your own peril. Why? Well, because he is Zeus and you are not.

 

Now we come to the “father knows best” section, in which Reich reminds his readers that while we children often balk at eating our vegetables, in the long run we are glad that we did. He also reminds us that the majority (the father in this case) gets to decide which vegetables to serve and the minority’s (the child’s) opinion will not be taken into consideration. Why? Because THEY said so.

 

The Affordable Care Act is hardly perfect, but neither was Social Security or Medicare when first enacted. The Constitution allows Congress to amend or delay laws that don’t work as well as they were intended, or even to repeal them. But to do any of this requires new legislation — including a majority of both houses of Congress and a president’s signature (or else a vote to override a president’s veto).

 

Our system does not allow one party to delay, amend or repeal a law of the land by shutting down the rest of the government until its demands are met. If that were the way our democracy worked, no law would ever be safe or settled. A disciplined majority in one house could always use the threat of a shutdown or default to gut any law it didn’t like.

 

Notice that Reich reinforces the Because-THEY-Said-So rule. He also further attempts to confuse his readers by referring to statutes as law-of-the-land and conveying the idea that only “safe and settled” law—by this he means “When WE pass it you cannot change it”—will enable people to feel safe and settled (in other words, comfortable), when the truth is that legislation that does not defend and protect individual human rights, among these liberty, should, by all means, be delayed, amended, or repealed.

 

Reich conveniently fails to mention that tyrants more often than not use the “law” (legislation, statutes) to do the worst of their dirty work and that they use statements such as Reich’s to convince people to submit, even when those people understand with their own minds that it is wrong to do so. Fear works wonders.

 

He is also dishonest in that he fails to mention that the federal government has not really stopped running, except selectively for political theater, and that if the government defaults it will not be caused by refusal to raise the debt ceiling but by massive entitlement obligations and by dollar creation by the Federal Reserve, neither of which can be sustained and both of which are favored by major players, republican and democrat, and by Obama and his administration.

 

In the next passage, Reich once again reveals that he is the real cynic (by the modern definition):

 

So the president cannot renegotiate the Affordable Care Act. And I don’t believe Tea Party Republicans expect him to.Their real goal is far more insidious. They want to sow even greater cynicism about the capacity of government to do much of anything.

 

The shutdown and possible default are only the most recent and most dramatic instances of terminal gridlock, designed to get people like my friend to give up.

 

Without evidence Reich invalidates the sincerity of Tea Party republicans. By using the word insidious he implies the Tea Party is a vicious enemy waiting for any opening to attack and hurt others. He implies that it is somehow inherently wrong to mistrust government or to wish to reduce its size and scope or be rid of it altogether, that such an attitude makes one necessarily stealthy, treacherous, and deceitful.

 

Furthermore, Reich implies that if people such as his friend “give up” on politics they will be allowing treacherous, government-shrinking Tea Partiers to have their way, which would, he also implies, be the most horrible horror possible. He presumes he doesn’t have to explain what exactly the horror would be and that the reader will envision the same. He also implies that it is okay for Reich and the Obama administration and its supporters to have their way but that it would never, never be okay for the dreaded Tea Partiers to have theirs.

 

In addition to failing to provide evidence to support his implications, Reich fails to mention the way that democrats deliberately and willfully ignored a widespread public outcry against the ACA and pushed it to be approved before being read and fully understood.

 

If pushing through poorly written and ill-conceived statutes that then become the law-of-the-land is what Reich envisions as a noble democracy, he has proved his friend right. Whose goals are insidious?

 

Reich goes on to assume his readers will agree that it is a good thing for the federal government to have ever-expanding “capacity to deal with domestic matters.” He also implies that if you don’t agree with him you rank among the insidious, you know: the stealthy, the treacherous, the deceitful.

 

And on this score, they’re winning. The approval rating for Congress was already at an all-time low before the shutdown, according to a poll released just hours before Washington went dark. The CNN/ORC poll showed that only 10 percent of Americans approved the job Congress was doing, while 87 percent disapproved. It was the all-time lowest approval rating for Congress in a CNN poll.

 

A recent Gallup survey found that only 42 percent of Americans — also a record low — have even a “fair” amount of confidence in the government’s capacity to deal with domestic matters.

 

And in a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, 26 percent of Americans said they’re angry at the federal government, while 51 percent said they were frustrated. Only 17 percent said they are basically content with the government. The share expressing anger has risen seven points since January, equaling the record high reached in August 2011, just after the widely unpopular debt-ceiling agreement between the president and Congress.

 

An essential difference between Reich and others of the same mind and those who seek smaller or no government, is that those urging more government invariably seek to impose their policies by use of force. They do this in the name of the “common good,” through seizing property—forfeitures, fines, regulations, taxes, etc., or by putting resisters, even peaceful ones, behind bars, in cages, if necessary.

 

In contrast, those insidious Tea Partiers, the ones desiring to shrink government at least a bit, advocate at least some respect for the rights of humankind and in many cases prefer less coercion or force to more.

 

Moreover, Reich ignores an abundance of evidence that Americans are indeed angry with the federal government, not because of Tea Party rhetoric but because they are more and more aware that the federal government is a corrupt and malevolent leviathan. After all, its excesses are now so obvious they can no longer be ignored.

 

Reich will never admit that the Tea Party is one reasonable response to a serious and even dangerous problem and not the cause of it.

 

Next, Reich ironically says that people should ignore the Tea Party, which he claims is encouraging the citizenry to give up on government, and pay attention to government to prevent “moneyed interests” from getting what they want.

 

This is a deeply ironic statement because the Tea Party was born when people who had not been paying much attention to government began paying attention and speaking out, exactly what Reich advocates.

 

It’s a vicious cycle. As average Americans give up on government, they pay less attention to what government does or fails to do — thereby making it easier for the moneyed interests to get whatever they want: tax cuts for themselves and their businesses; regulatory changes that help them but harm employees, consumers and small investors; special subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare. And these skewed benefits only serve to confirm the public’s cynicism.

 

The same cynicism also makes it easier to convince the public that even when the government does act for the benefit of the vast majority, it’s not really doing so. So a law like the Affordable Care Act, which, for all its shortcomings, is still a step in the right direction relative to the costly mess of the nation’s health-care system, is transformed into a nightmarish “government takeover.”

 

Reich pretends he does not know that much of the Tea Party’s energy has been focused on resolving this very same grievance, “that moneyed interests” use government to arrange regulations to their own benefit—it is called corporate welfare, corporatism, crony-capitalism, crony-socialism, or, in its harshest form, fascism. The Obama administration is among the worst violators in history, pandering again and again to “moneyed interests,” yet Reich encourages people to support it and to revile the Tea Party.

 

This is obvious and utter nonsense, outright lying, yet it is allowed to stand unchallenged by most in the media and is swallowed by much of the public as the sensible, wise, adult view.

 

Furthermore, in the last part of the above passage, Reich fails to acknowledge the extent to which government interference—Medicare, Medicaid, tax benefits to employers who offered health insurance in lieu of higher salaries, regulations, and government grants—has for many years interfered with the free market for health care in ways that squelched alternatives and undermined charities.

 

The nation’s health-care system became a costly mess because government interference was excessive not because government interference was lacking.

 

The intrusiveness of the Affordable Care Act, the coercive nature of it, is indeed nightmarish to anyone who values privacy and freedom and this is no exaggeration, despite Reich’s attempt to downplay the consequences.

 

Apparently, he would have us step in what he deems “the right” direction even if we must violate our own moral sense to do it. If his attitude doesn’t fit the definition of bully, what would?

 

Reich must have grinned like a Cheshire Cat when he wrote the following:

 

So here’s what I told my friend who said he’s giving up on politics: Don’t. If you give in to bullies, their bullying only escalates. If you give in to cynicism about our democracy, our democracy steadily erodes.If you believe the fix is in and the game is rigged, and that a handful of billionaires and their Tea Party puppets are destroying our government, do something about it.

 

Rather than give up, get more involved. Become more active. Make a ruckus. It’s our government, and the most important thing you can do for yourself, your family, your community and the future is to make it work for all of us.

 

With almost unrivaled effrontery, Reich equates Tea Partiers with bullies, this flowing from the keyboard of one of the biggest bullies and supporter of fellow bullies one could hope to find. Let’s face it. Government is a tool to institutionalize and sanction bullying—through legislation and regulation. If you reject this premise, think again.

 

What happens to those who refuse to cooperate? (Here I am referring to peaceful individuals who have done no harm to others.) Yes, those who refuse are forced to cooperate—either with psychological force, physical force, or both. If they still refuse, further harm is inflicted. If the refusal continues the destruction continues. This is true about government. I challenge anyone to adequately refute it.

 

Yet this truth can be and is downplayed and ignored and twisted into a supposed virtue, over and over again.

 

Another truth is that whatever we need to do to “make it work for all of us,” we can do better by respecting the natural rights of individual human beings and not being willing to trample on them because some legislators wrote a statute or because the president signed an executive order or because the supreme court ruled it is so. Honest people will acknowledge this.

 

Finally, Reich calls Tea Partiers “puppets of billionaires,” knowing full well that the president and most of the rest of Congress are the real puppets of billionaires; Reich, himself, is one of them. Don’t let them or him fool you anymore.

 

Reich’s essay is nothing more than a blatant attempt to manipulate the reader into feeling a smug satisfaction, for being “smart” like he is. He ignores the facts; he lies; he obfuscates; he assumes the reader will not notice. He grins then his head disappears when you try to catch him. But the grin, the snarl, is really all there is and the joke is on all of us.

 

Freeman DeFacto “Fighting For a Lost Clause: The Case for the Sovereign Individual” – Revised

Freeman DeFacto has revised Fighting for a Lost Clause: The Case for the Sovereign Individual first posted January 27 of this year. If you’ve read it, it is worth your time to read it again, not just because he’s made some significant changes but also because it is good food for thought.

If you are seeking to understand how the government of the United States, supposedly created to defend and preserve individual liberty and property, became so enormous, manipulative, oppressive, and wasteful, you will find his article exceptionally enlightening.

You will also deepen your understanding of how government is used by various “actors” to achieve personal and institutional goals at a great cost to the individuals subject to their will; you will see that the terms “Democrat” and “Republican” are used by politicians not to represent principles but to manipulate people.

Moreover, if you are struggling to determine the best way to live as the free individual you were meant to be, without being destroyed by a system designed to keep you enslaved, you will want to consider his advice for creating a freer world.

I know that Freeman will be eager to read any comments or criticism you wish to share. If you post to the comments section of this entry, I’ll be sure he gets a copy.

My introduction to the earlier version of his article is included below.

And here are two related articles I came across this morning that are good follow-up reading:

http://www.freemansperspective.com/productive-class/

http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo260.html

Happy Independence Day!

-LMN

From January 27, 2013 . . .

Below you will find another guest-post from my friend Freeman DeFacto. I am so pleased he is allowing me to share his thinking and writing with you. He deserves a much wider audience than I have here at the moment.

Those not yet familiar with the actual history of the United States, as opposed to the propaganda so often taught in schools and purveyed by politicians and the media, may wish to read the next paragraph, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, as a prologue to Freeman’s work. I believe it will contribute greatly to your understanding. The full article is at the link.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo242.html

Jim Powell’s book, Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery, provides chapter and verse of how real statesmen of the world, in sharp contrast to Lincoln, ended slavery without resorting to waging total war on their own citizens. Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves. There were some incidents of violence, but nothing remotely approaching the violence of a war that ended up killing 800,000 Americans.

It is important to recognize that when individuals are truly free, they are free to pursue any goals of their choosing, regardless of whether others deem these worthy or appropriate, as long as they use voluntary, individual cooperation (as opposed to governmental or other coercion, fraud, or physical force) to achieve them; any harm done to others or to their property in the pursuit of goals will not easily be done without appropriate consequences.

Government routinely “legalizes” illegitimate force and separates actions from appropriate consequences.

It is ironic that most people view government as the great protector against injustices such as slavery, yet “legal” slavery and segregation could never have existed without the approval and support of an overly-powerful government.

One of the many beauties of Liberty is that it works to the benefit of everyone.

Happy reading!

-LMN

Here is Freeman DeFacto . . .

Fighting for a Lost Clause: The Case for the Sovereign Individual

“These are the times that try men’s souls.” ― Thomas Paine, opening line of
American Crisis I, 23 DEC 1776

INTRODUCTION ― The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is the key that contains the framework for building the freest and greatest nation ever founded. It deserves to be read, thoroughly understood, and held sacred by advocates of individual freedom the world over. Here it is:

“WE hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness [originally Property] ― That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . .”

That clause, the Consent of the Governed, right in the middle of the paragraph, is crucial to the concept of individual liberty. We show below how it has been ignored, “lost,” over the years.

The remaining paragraphs in the Declaration go into great detail listing the innumerable, unreasonable oppressive measures that the British King and Parliament were trying to force upon the early American colonists.

HAMILTON’S CURSE  ― Alexander Hamilton is usually viewed as a hero and one of America’s “Founding Fathers.” He was very close to George Washington during the Revolution, serving as the general’s aide de camp. Later, President George Washington appointed him to be the very first Secretary of the Treasury and as such he created the first Bank of the United States. It’s purpose was the same as that of the Federal Reserve System today.

Historian Thomas J. DiLorenzo has documented that Hamilton was a monarchist and mercantilist who advocated a collectivist government modeled after the British system that had just been defeated in the Revolution. He even vigorously lobbied for George Washington to be king instead of president. Luckily for us, Washington refused.

DiLorenzo spells out all the details in his seminal book Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch-Enemy Betrayed the Revolution ― And What it Means to Americans Today. Please be sure to read DiLorenzo’s very short summary at URL: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo136.html. Hamilton’s legacy is his establishment of the model for all the “Progressive” politicians who came along after him.

BIG CHANGE ― US Presidents from George Washington thru John Quincy Adams all adhered quite closely to the Constitution. However, the seventh, Andrew “Old Hickory” Jackson (1829-1837) became the first to begin vigorously expanding his presidential powers.

Jackson “read law” and started as a country lawyer eking out a living with land-claim and assault-and-battery cases until he found his calling in politics. He then began to flourish; he attained an appointment as county prosecutor and rose quite quickly through the ranks from there.

When Tennessee became a state (1796) he was elected to Congress as a Representative and soon thereafter (1797) became US Senator. Shortly afterward (1798) he was appointed judge on the Tennessee Supreme Court and a colonel in the Tennessee militia. This lucrative employment allowed him to begin acquiring large acreages and as many as 150 slaves.

Jackson made his real mark on history as a soldier. He served in the American Revolution as a young courier. His rise to fame began in 1801 with his appointment as colonel and commander of the Tennessee militia. In 1802 he was elected major general.

During the War of 1812 he commanded the American forces that defeated the “Red Stick” Creek Indians in 1814. He became a national American hero on 8 January 1815 when, in the last major battle of the War of 1812, he defeated the British in their attempt to capture New Orleans and the Louisiana Purchase.

In 1828 Jackson won what has been called the “dirtiest presidential election in history.” His reign became a model for the “imperial presidency.” He dominated national politics in the 1820s and 30s as he became the “father of the modern Democrat Party.”

As president he vetoed charter-renewal for the Second Bank of the United States and introduced patronage (the “spoils system”) into the appointive political process.

He had a deep hatred of American Indians and accordingly reversed all previously-existing acculturation policies affecting the southeastern tribes (Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole). Perhaps his most infamous act was the forcible resettlement of those tribes from their tribal lands in the southeastern states to Oklahoma―by way of the 1830 “Trail of Tears.

Jackson emphasized the powers of the central government by strongly opposing nullification and secession by states that were unhappy with federal legislation they deemed unconstitutional.

In contrast, however, those presidents between Jackson and Lincoln again adhered more closely to the Constitution.

ALTERING FEDERALISM ― From the very beginning of the union, the main theme of the prevailing Democrat-Republican Party led by the agrarian southern states was “free trade with no tariffs.” However, the northeastern manufacturing and financial interests (Hamilton-followers) along with the Whig and Free Soil Parties, opposed the Democrats. They greatly resented southern championing of free trade and waged a long fight for “protective tariffs against foreign competition.”

In 1854 anti-slavery activists initiated the formation of a new party, the Republicans (GOP). They were led by Hamiltonian northeastern “modernizers” who were joined by ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers. Their campaign slogan was: “Free labor, Free land, Free men.”

In the election of 1860 Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican Party president. Lincoln immediately began again vigorously expanding presidential functions. The American power elite, the ruling class, now led by the newly-formed GOP, began more assertively siphoning political power away from the no-longer-sovereign states.

Thus the center of national political power began shifting to Washington DC and the ever-growing central government. Lincoln’s defeat of the Confederate States of America enabled the GOP essentially to control the US political scene.

The GOP goal was to win control of a strong, centralized, national government so they could impose protective tariffs and thereby put the southern agrarians at an economic and political disadvantage. They aimed to diminish greatly the south’s economic and political power by destroying the system of slave labor on the plantations.

Lincoln’s War of Northern Aggression [sometimes erroneously called the American Civil War*] (1861-1865) delivered a crushing defeat to the Anti-Federalist Confederate States of America. As a result the statist-minded GOP dominated the national political scene from 1860 unto 1928.

[*A civil war is defined as a battle between two or more factions each seeking to take control of the same central government. The so-called American Civil War was no such thing. The southern states merely wished to "opt-out," to secede peacefully from the federation and form their own separate government called the Confederate States of America.]

In 1900 William McKinley ran for president and the vivacious Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt ran for vice-president. Teddy’s energetic advocacy of a GOP platform of high tariffs, the gold standard, world-imperialism, strong central-government, prosperity at home, and victory abroad greatly helped William McKinley win the presidency.

Upon McKinley’s assassination in 1901, Roosevelt became the youngest person ever to ascend to the US presidency. He immediately began trying to expand the powers of the centralized national government by advocating “trust-busting” and Federal controls on all businesses. In 1903 he established two new Cabinet Departments: Commerce and Labor, both aimed to introduce federal controls into our everyday lives.

In 1904 TR won re-election in a landslide with the slogan: “Square Deal,” implying that the average citizen would get his “fair share” and that the rich “would get theirs.”  In 1906 he pushed the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act through congress. He also championed Federal control and takeover of wilderness areas through Federally-controlled “conservationism” of 230 million acres. He created the US Forest Service, five National Parks, and 150 National Forests.

In addition, he coined the phrase: “Speak softly but carry a big stick” while he vastly increased the US Navy. He then “showed the flag” by sending “The Great White Fleet” on a world tour, dispatching several warships to intimidate the government of Columbia into allowing Panamanians to secede peacefully. The Panamanians formed a new nation and sold him the isthmus so he could complete the Panama Canal. To top it all off, he negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5) and became the very first sitting US president to win the Nobel Peace Prize (1906).

THE TAKEOVER ― Around 1891 a young GOP congressman from Wisconsin, Robert M. LaFollette Sr, formed and led a group of Republican political activists calling themselves “Progressives” or “The Insurgent Faction.” Their goal was to reform the GOP and to make government even more centralized, efficient, caring, and democratic (“responsive to the people”).

Teddy Roosevelt was the first Progressive president (1901-1909.) And although only several presidents have actually called themselves Progressives [Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945), and Lyndon Baines Johnson (1963-1969)] almost every president since TR has embraced at least some portions of the Progressive agenda.

WHAT IS PROGRESSIVISM?  ― Historian William Leuchtenburg summed up the Progressive agenda as follows:

“The Progressives believed in the Hamiltonian concept of positive government, of a national government directing the destinies of the nation at home and abroad. They had little but contempt for the strict construction of the Constitution by conservative judges, who would restrict the power of the national government to act against social evils and to extend the blessings of democracy to less favored lands. The real enemy was particularism, state rights, limited government.” 

The following table of Progressive agenda-items includes a long list of social causes, programs, and slogans:

Efficiency in business and government
Economic interventionism
Social justice
Environmental justice
Fair trade
Feminism & Women’s suffrage
LBGT rights
Labor rights
Social welfare
Square Deal
New Nationalism
New Freedom
New Deal
Second Bill of Rights
Fair Deal
New Frontier
Great Society
Compulsory “Voluntarism”
Direct primary elections
Direct election of senators (Amndmt XVII)
Commission form of local governments by expert Scientific Professionals
Government regulation of corporations
Government schools (John Dewey)
Trained professional social workers
Government regulation of monopolies
Collective bargaining and unions
Child labor laws
National parks and wildlife refuges
Prohibition of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco
Instant voting
Reclamation and inland waterways
Same-sex marriage
Popular-vote election of president
Affordable housing
Universal (single-payer) health care
Living wage & equal pay for women
Elimination of death penalty
Climate change/global warming
Immigration reform & amnesty
United Nations
Smart growth (planning & zoning)
One-World Government
New World Order/Agenda 21
Initiative, Referendum, and Recall ― Can be useful against EXIC governments, Ha Ha

THE PROGRESSIVE RESULT ― The Progressives and their allies have been very successful in maintaining control of the powerful political offices of the strong central government by gradually blurring and obscuring the vision of the Founders.

They found stealthy ways to abandon the principles of the Declaration and “morph” our representative republic (the original federation of individual sovereign states) into a strong, centralized, national, so-called democracy with its tyranny of the majority.

[A simple majority (50 percent of the votes plus one more) always produces a tyranny of the majority because the 50+ percent who win will be happy, while the 50- percent who lose will be unhappy and forced to act against their will. To more nearly approach a consensus with overwhelming general agreement, all votes should require a super-majority; seven-eights (87.5%) would be a nice number to start with.]

THE MASTER STROKE ―  Exactly one hundred years ago in 1913, the Progressive President Woodrow Wilson achieved a long-time major goal of the world-wide collectivist movement: passage of the Federal Reserve Act ― creating a new American central bank. This eventually eliminated every tie to gold, the only real-true money, as defined by the US Constitution.

Every advocate of individual freedom owes it to himself and his posterity to read and thoroughly understand the seminal book The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. It shows how Hamilton-followers created a new central bank of the US (the Federal Reserve System ― “The FED” and the resulting tragic consequences that we experience today. Please obtain a copy; devour and digest it.

Another of the signal accomplishments of the Progressives was the ratification on April 8, 1913 of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.  This amendment removed the last vestige of sovereignty that remained with the states. It changed the method of election for US Senators.

The Constitution originally specified that the legislature of each state shall choose its two senators. The XVIIth changed the procedure to the same method used to elect members of the House of Representatives: a simple majority of a popular vote of the people, a tyranny of the majority. This was the fatal step that turned electing Federal officials into a popularity contest. [Follow the money and to the winner goes the spoils.]

The ultimate result has been The Lost Clause.

THE LOST CLAUSE ― This clause, “The Consent of the Governed,” forms the very essence of individual liberty. Each person has the inherent, natural-born faculty of making his own choices, of choosing his own path in life.  When someone (or some group) uses force or threat of force to deny him his choices, he loses part of his natural-born freedoms. He becomes partially-enslaved.

With each new statute or regulation, with each time government uses force to compel a person to act against his will, he loses another part of his individual freedom. In the Declaration, the Founders emphasized the importance of The Consent of the Governed in keeping and maintaining a free society. Each person has the fundamental, inherent, inalienable right to “opt-out,” to withdraw his consent at any time from being governed by force from others.

LEGITIMACY OF GOVERNMENT ― Government’s actions are either legitimate or illegitimate. In a truly-free society, legitimate actions are those that maintain the dignity, freedom, integrity, and individuality of every person by applying the universal natural laws of justice. [Justice concisely stated is: "to each, that which he deserves."]

Illegitimate actions are those that violate the dignity, freedom, integrity, and individuality of people by enforcing arbitrary, usually whimsical “positive” [man-made] laws, administrative regulations, rules, mandates, orders, statutes, and constitutions that have absolutely no provisions for “opting-out.”

SOVEREIGNTY ― The person (or group) who makes the final decisions as the head of government is called the sovereign. There is no one of higher authority. The sovereign is boss, independent of all others; he is sovereign as defined in the following:

“sovereign (sov’rin, sov’ễr-in, suv’rin), adj. [ME. soveraine, sovereyn, ; OFr. soverain, souverain; LL. *superanus, < L. super, above, over.] 1. above or superior to all others, chief; greatest; supreme. 2. supreme in power, rank, or authority. 3. of or holding the position of a ruler; royal; reigning. 4. independent of all others, as a sovereign state. 5. excellent; very effectual, as a cure or remedy.  n. 1. a person who possesses sovereign authority; monarch; ruler. 2.  a group of persons or a state that possesses sovereign authority. 3.  a British gold coin valued at 20 shillings or one pound sterling. Also sovran. Abbreviated sov.”

The sovereign stands highest in the community; above, supreme and separate from all others. He (or they) impose their powers from a position external to and apart from the governed populace; thus conventional government, as most people think of it, is an EXternally-Imposed, Coercive GOVernment [EXICGOV.]

[We shall show below that EXICGOV is not the only form of government available to mankind.]

The Declaration made it clear that the sole legitimate purpose for an EXICGOV is “. . to secure these Rights” [Life, Liberty, and Property]; that is, to keep the peace by thwarting crimes that individuals commit against each other.

[No individual can commit a "crime against society or humanity." In actuality, there is no such thing. There are only crimes of one person (or group) against other individuals.]***

The Declaration further asserts “. . that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends [securing the Rights of Life, Liberty, and Property] it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government . .”

[This can properly be called "opting-out."]

The Declaration enshrines individual liberty and private property; the Founders deemed them to be sacred. However, the Constitution is seriously flawed because it allows the ruling class, the power elite by simple-majority rule to ignore the requirement for The Consent of the Governed.

It is of over-riding importance to understand that individual liberty can exist only with The Consent of the Governed. EXICGOV without The Consent of the Governed is involuntary servitude.

[Ironically, Amendment XIII to the Constitution specifically prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.]

John Adams brilliantly tied individual freedom to private property rights when he
said:

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
             –John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitution, 1787

But private property is not sacred when EXICGOV can use so-called “positive (man-made) law,” plain old every-day statutes, passed with a bare simple majority to “legally” steal it. EXICGOVs can take or tax anything they wish without The Consent of the Governed.

WHAT EXACTLY IS EXICGOV? ― The Founders envisioned the only legitimate function of their government to be: thwarting crimes perpetrated by individuals against each other. Otherwise every person would be free to conduct his life in the manner best suited to him.

However, the Old World ideas of strong centralized-governmental-control immediately and rapidly began to seep into the plans of those who had seized the reins of the new national government of the USA. [Give your thanks to Alexander Hamilton and his collectivist/monarchist ideas.]

They saw government as simply nothing more than highly-centralized control of human behavior. And they envisioned their job as supplying that control in a manner similar to that of Old-World Europeans, Africans, and Asians. Unfortunately, even today most people presently think of government as EXICGOV, which is best described as:

The legalized monopoly of a sovereign power to initiate violent physical coercive force or threat of force through so-called “positive (man-made) law” in order to bring about their specific desired behavior in the populace.

In other words: most people even now envision government. EXICGOV, as legally and rightfully using threats and actual force to bring about government-desired behavior in the populace. They understand the conventional rule to be: When government tells you to do something, you had better do it, OR ELSE ! NO OPTING-OUT!

Obey, or government will use the ultimate “persuasion”: a threat, or when necessary, the application of actual force. Coercion or force can take many different forms, such as: Asset-seizure, fines, hostage-holding, incarceration, intimidation, kidnapping, beatings, torture, maiming, and/or even death.

Recent examples of modern, technological “up-to-date” coercion have given us the “tazering” of feeble great-grandmothers and ten-year-old students with 50,000 volts of electrical energy in the hands of a trigger-happy psychopath. The present US Federal EXICGOV is seriously considering adding “drone-surveillance and -strikes” to
their arsenal of coercion.

EXICGOV VERSUS A TRULY-FREE SOCIETY ― The Founders took seriously the lost clause, The Consent of the Governed. They had enough of Parliament’s telling them what they could grow, manufacture, buy, sell, import, export and use their leisure time. They highly resented Parliament-imposed taxes and forced “quartering” of troops. They rebelled against orders to save the very best tall trees for the admiralty’s ships. In the wilderness, they exercised their natural rights to homestead as the “first possessor” of unclaimed lands.

In a truly-free society, EXICGOV has only one legitimate function or task: to keep the peace:  thwarting crime of one individual (or group) against another individual (or group.)

[There actually is no such thing as "a crime against humanity or society."]

The following list pretty much sums up the entire category of actual natural crimes: (1) fraud; (2) theft, (3) extortion; and (4) unprovoked, violent, physical aggression.  As written into the ninth and tenth amendments to the US Constitution, EXICGOV ‘s role is severely-limited and specifically spelled out.

When an EXICGOV uses so-called “positive (man-made) law,” to collect taxes; establish schools; regulate individual behavior; establish businesses and services; regulate agriculture, commercial, and industrial activities; and create myriad governmental agencies, etc. it has violated it’s purpose.

All such functions other than “keeping the peace” belong to “the people,” the doers, the workers, the owners, the producers, the users, the consumers, etc. But it seems nowadays that no one in EXICGOV takes the lost clause seriously.

That’s why it has been lost. EXICGOV seems to inevitably fall into the Old World European, Asian, African mold: an all powerful sovereign with absolutely no restrictions and absolutely no provisions for “opting-out.”

THE LIBERTY ALTERNATIVE: SELF-GOVERNMENT ― By thinking “outside the box” of the conventional concept of EXICGOV we find that the process of governing also includes self-government: control of human behavior at the lowest possible level.

Libertarians and a few Republicans already advocate government at the lowest possible level. Of course, they usually have in mind an EXICGOV at state-, county-, municipal-, city-, town-, or district-level. They also glibly repeat the well-
known phrase: “That government is best that governs least.”

They usually have in mind neighborhood, town, municipality, or county EXICGOV using so-called “positive (man-made) law” and tyranny of the majority. Rarely, if ever, does the average person entertain the idea that the lowest possible level is that of the individual person.

WHO RIGHTFULLY CONTROLS INDIVIDUALS? ―  Individuals always control their own behavior. It is an organic natural law of human behavior that humans take conscious actions solely to improve their present condition. Dr. Ludwig von Mises in his monumental work Human Action goes into infinite detail why this is always true. Each time a person does something, he does it because he perceives his action will improve his immediate condition.

Even prisoners under tyrannical conditions can co-operate or refuse to co-operate. If they think it will make things better, they co-operate. If they think it will make things worse, they refuse to co-operate. They control their own behavior and suffer the consequences.

The overwhelming majority of people in the world pursue their daily lives without a policeman, a slave-driver, or a Progressive “Big Brother” peering over their shoulders to make sure they are under control. Were all governmental controls suddenly removed, it might take a little time for some people to learn to run their own lives, But every “normal” adult has the full faculties and latent capabilities to be completely self-governing. Unfortunately, not all people want the responsibility of running their own lives. They prefer  EXICGOV [and they vote for it!]

THE SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL ― The foundation key of individual liberty is self-ownership. In a truly-free society, individual property rights are sacred, inviolable by any individual and especially by any EXICGOV. Of course, the most important private property is each individual’s ownership of himself, body and soul. When an individual truly owns himself, he completely controls his own life.

Taken to its logical conclusion, a person who is totally responsible for all his own actions is a sovereign individual. There is no one of higher authority in his life. The questions of individual freedom ultimately come down to:

“Whose life is it anyhow?”

“Do I own my life, or not ?”

“Must I get permission from someone else before I can take an action?”

“Who, other than I, has total responsibility for all my actions?”

A TRULY-FREE SOCIETY ― A society can be truly-free, even if it has an EXICGOV, so long as it provides for individuals to “opt-out” without punishment or retribution of any kind. In a truly-free society, each (adult) person is a sovereign individual.

A sovereign individual has totally-free choice. He can “opt-in” (give his consent to be governed); OR, the truly-free individual can “opt-out” (withdraw his consent to be governed by an EXIC government without punishment or retribution.)

Only a truly-free person ALWAYS has the choice of peacefully “opting-out.” At the present time there may be only one known,  truly-free, society on earth, the Kapauku Papuans of Papua New Guinea. They can opt-out without retribution.

In a truly-free society, the sovereign individual is completely free to exercise his own will, to do anything he pleases so long as he does not violate the property rights of another person by committing any of the following crimes: (1) fraud; (2) extortion; (3) theft; and (4) unprovoked, violent, physical aggression.

[When a person commits a crime against another, he should fully expect to receive the appropriate wrath and vengeance of the victim, his extended family, friends, and justice-minded strangers.]

When a person chooses to opt-out he immediately becomes totally responsible for every aspect of his own life. He owes neither allegiance nor submission to any other person or group of persons.

The sovereign individual has no claims against others, nor any obligations to others, except those willingly and mutually agreed upon by contract, verbal or written. However, the sovereign individual is totally responsible for tort damages caused to others by his own negligence.

A sovereign individual stands on the same grounds as a “mini-state” or “micro-country”:

He has a sovereign ruler: himself.

He has a deliberative legislature to formulate necessary rules: in his own mind.

He has a self-defense force: himself, friends, neighbors, and contractors.

He asserts his sovereignty: by refusing to be dominated by any others.

He conducts trade and foreign relations: with sovereign individuals and
EXICGOVs.

He negotiates peaceful agreements: with sovereign individuals and
 EXICGOVs.

He settles disputes: by voluntary, contractual binding arbitration.

He forms alliances and confederations for co-operation, trade, and mutual
self-defense: with friendly sovereign individuals.

Freedom Strategy for Individuals Seeking Sovereignty

THE GOAL ― To establish a truly-free society in the shortest possible time. The ideal primary, overriding, ultimate goal is the establishment of the conditions of liberty for all who desire it.

OPT-OUT SOLUTION: RESISTANCE ― One good thing Alexander Hamilton did during the Revolution was to urge American colonists to: “Resist, resist, resist, until we hurl the demagogues and tyrants from their imaginary thrones.” This was part of his early advocacy for them to throw off the yoke of the British monarchy and parliament.

But just how should we resist?    By “opting-out!”

“I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” This famous exclamation from the movie Network sums up the attitude necessary to “opt-out.” We can disestablish EXICGOV piece-by-piece by exposing the errors, false assumptions, and injustices of present-day EXICGOV at every level.

STEP-BY-STEP TACTICS TO RE-ESTABLISH UNIVERSAL LIBERTY

A. Immerse yourself in the Philosophy of Liberty. Jonathan Gullible has a short video that very thoroughly shows the principles of individual freedom. The closer you live to these principles and apply them, the closer you will be to living a truly-free life. Stop and take nine minutes to watch it here:
URL:http://jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-English_music.swf

B. Recognize that “political actions” are controlled coercion that is guided almost exclusively by the emotions of those involved. Logic really doesn’t count for much. Fervent supporters will usually say anything and everything no matter how foolish or illogical just to support a position that has been generated from deep-seated, “gut-felt, first-impression” emotions.[Democrats, Progressives, and other demagogues already know this fact and use it ― How many times have you heard new legislation justified by: "We have to do it for the kids!"] ― CAUTION: NEVER under any circumstances should you  initiate unprovoked violent physical aggression. Violence should be used only  in cases of bona fide self-defense.

C. Identify a widely-detested specific offending regulation, rule, or practice that denies or restricts individual liberty for no good reason. (Obamacare comes to mind.) Try to identify the emotional “triggers” that will generate people’ssense of unfairness and opposition to the offending regulation, rule, or practice. Strong emotions reinforced by good logic will generate support from the public. “Don’t sell only the steak (logic); sell also the sizzle (emotion).”

D.  Start at the EXICGOV level at which you determine you can be most effective in bringing about change or repeal

1. Neighborhood, district, town, city, county, state

2. Federal (can’t be fought at local level)

E. Research the history of the offending rule and identify the alleged reasons for its existence

1. Explore the details of its creation, existence, and continuance

a. Authority to create (Question that authority)
b. Constitutionality (Research and debate)
c. Date drafted, date debated, and date enacted
d. Identify the Instigators, Champions, Constituency, &
Beneficiaries
e. Identify the Injured, Disadvantaged, Exploited, Plundered

2. Purpose

a. Question necessity
b. Question effectiveness of achieving purpose
c. Suggest alternatives

3. Budget

a. Revenue Sources (Taxpayers, grants, etc.)

b.  Expenditures (Vendors, bureaucratic staff, management,
PR)
c. Money Trail (Follow the Money — all of it)

i. Beneficiaries (Legal and illegal)
ii. Bribes, Payoffs, etc.

4. Administration and Application

a. Enforcement agency
b. Mechanism (fine, jail, torture, death. etc.)

5. Resulting Effect (how does it restrict liberty)

a. Opportunity costs
b. Benefited or Favored Parties
c. Damaged, Diminished, and Plundered Parties

6. Expected Results of repeal of offense to liberty

7. Restitution, Restoration, and Retribution

a. Can Injustices be corrected and compensated?
b. Did officials commit criminal acts?
c. Is punishment (retribution) justified?

F. Identify the focal point (target agency) in government at which to direct action

G. Carefully design and think-out at least one approach to solutions for
eliminating the offense to liberty.

1. Use your best logical, rational arguments and explanations to appeal to the “gut” emotions most likely to sway voters. Show how EXIC rules and regulations are grossly “unfair” and give the power elite, the ruling class unreasonable and unjust control over the lives of hardworking responsible citizens.

2. Review, refresh in your mind, and apply the Philosophy of Liberty ala Jonathan Gullible

URL: http://jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf

3. The first thoughts for a solution to a problem should be: What could or should have been done to solve this in a peaceful, non-coercive manner without government help or interference? Was the offense necessary in the first place? Was the intended goal just, reasonable, logical, and fair?

4. The second thoughts for a solution to a problem should be: What can I (we) do to solve this in a peaceful, non-coercive manner without government help or interference and prevent a future re-occurrence?  How can I appeal to the emotions stirred by the injustice of the offense?

H. Draft proposed plan and legislation (when necessary) to accomplish the change

I. Prepare and distribute press releases to support the effort

J. Personally (or your alternate) attend every meeting of the target agency

1. Obtain copy of meeting agenda ahead of time

2. Prepare incisive questions to ask agency members

3. Sign-up to speak and/or ask questions of the members

4. Make audio recording of proceedings

K. Plan and hold public meetings, seminars, and educational sessions to engender
support

1. Expand as fully as possible

L. Continue to repeat the above process-cycle until every offense to liberty has been repealed, withdrawn, or expunged.

***********************************************************************
FINAL WORDS
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audientor ito.
“Do not give in to evil, but proceed evermore boldly against it.”
Virgil, The Aeneid, VI, 95 ― Motto of Ludwig von Mises
Freeman DeFacto is the nom de plume of David Michael Myers

***********************************************************************

***Note from LMN: This is why the concept of group-rights, e.g., for Children, Blacks, Hispanics, LGBTs, Men, Women, etc., leads to harming other individuals and to the diminution of liberty in general rather than toward a society that supports individuality and defends individual, natural rights for all.***

P.S. Remember to check out these articles, also linked above:

http://www.freemansperspective.com/productive-class/

http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo260.html

CISPA Alert

As we all know, our privacy is already violated every day, in numerous ways . . . but it could get worse. Calling your representative in Congress takes only a moment. In this case, your call might make a difference, for just a little while . . . .

From EFF:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/amendment-wont-stop-data-going-nationa-security-agency

Posted on EFF’s Twitter timeline:

http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/17/cispa-us-companies/

This morning, from Campaign for Liberty:

On Saturday, I sent you an important email (“Cyber Spies”) regarding the U.S. House taking up the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

The House will vote TODAY on CISPA, so it’s critical the liberty movement makes its voices loudly heard right away.

If this bill becomes law, the personal information you store with your Internet Service Provider, social media, email providers, and more will not be secure from prying bureaucratic eyes.

In fact, it could very likely end up in the hands of the National Security Agency or another military or civilian “security” agency.

This vote could come down to the wire.

I’ve heard from sources on the Hill that bill sponsor Mike Rogers (R-MI) has been frantically twisting arms and holding closed-door briefings on the “cybersecurity threat,” all to whip up the final votes in his favor.

Bill sponsors even threw together a last minute amendment to send your information straight to the DHS rather than the NSA to garner support from Democrats.

Please contact your representative this morning and urge them to oppose CISPA!

And here’s the message sent last Saturday:

On Wednesday, the House Intelligence Committee passed the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). If you hadn’t heard this news, it might be because the general public and media weren’t allowed to attend the hearing – even CSPAN’s cameras were ordered out of the hearing room.

This dangerous legislation is expected to hit the House floor this Thursday and could come up as soon as Wednesday, as part of the House’s “cyber week.”

Make no mistake, this bill poses a great threat to our online privacy.

Every privacy concern we’ve raised over this bill in the past was confirmed this past Wednesday, when the committee passed an amendment supposedly “addressing” them.

Of course, the amendment doesn’t do anything to prevent the government from spying on you.

In fact, it clearly states the government can use your personally identifiable information they’ve collected if federal bureaucrats deem it’s a matter of “national security.”

While the government raises the specter of “cyberterrorism” from China, Russia, and non-state actors like the well-known hacker collective Anonymous, it is the American people that will be caught in the crossfire if this legislation passes.

Information such as online chats, email content, browsing history, and bank records would all be vulnerable to collection by the government’s spy network.

You see, once the government gets this information from a corporation, it’s handed over to the National Security Agency and other military and civilian “security” agencies.

Under CISPA, corporations handing over information for alleged “cybersecurity purposes” don’t even have to make an attempt to remove personally identifiable information before sending your private info to government agents.

Even worse, CISPA lacks any meaningful “minimization procedures.” In other words, the government can store that information as long as they want – and use it for whatever purposes they want.

Now, some have suggested that just adopting minimization procedures alone would assuage privacy concerns.

Not so fast . . .

During debate over renewal of the egregious FISA Amendments Act, we learned that on at least one occasion, NSA surveillance was found “unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment” for violating their minimization procedures.

Why should we be so naïve as to think they wouldn’t act the same under CISPA?

So it’s critical the entire bill be rejected . . .

 . . . I shudder to think what the world would be like if we were all to live in fear that our online activities could be monitored by our own government.

As a matter of fact, so much of the governments’ argument for so-called “cybersecurity” legislation is based on classified briefings members of Congress receive.

Their argument seems to be: “Trust us, we need this legislation.”

And, “Trust us, we won’t abuse it.”

This is NOT the way it’s supposed to be.

The Constitution was intended to be a check on government power to protect the rights of its citizens.

When it comes to matters of “national security,” however, this government makes our rights play second fiddle to their schemes.

When this is the case, Americans must DEMAND their representative show why such extraordinary power is necessary.

The burden of proof lies with government.

And “classified information” only available to select members of Congress shouldn’t cut it.

I know there are a lot of battles to fight right now.

Between “gun control” schemes, National ID, the National Internet Tax Mandate, and numerous other Big Government plots, it seems Congress has seldom been this eager to steal our liberties and crush us under the heavy hand of the State . . .

For @Veresapiens . . .

For my Truly Wise, Truly Human online acquaintance and liberty-friend whom I met on Twitter: @Veresapiens . . .

Here is, at least, part of an essay I’ve been promising him for a long time; I started several others so those may get finished and appear at some point. I didn’t intend to do this today. And I never thought I’d use a message from Campaign for Liberty as a jumping off point. But as it turns out, it is appropriate.

Campaign for Liberty’s John Tate sent an email message this morning urging immediate action. I’ve included an excerpt below. While I can see how the actions he advises may seem essential to significantly advancing the Cause of Liberty, after fully immersing myself in the study of *politics, for at least two years now, I have serious doubts.

While at some level I have known it much of my life, it is now abundantly clear to me that politics and coerced government are equivalent to endless war, with the blood usually being shed by those subject to the decisions of the political actors, rather than by the political actors themselves. It is an inherently ugly and treacherous system, designed to benefit the corrupt while it purports to protect the good.

Yet some see coerced government and politics as the only possible path to a relatively peaceful and free world. They view the alternative as world-wide chaos and tribalism, with regions ruled by warlords, themselves engaged-in and coercing others into endless and bloody battle. They view the end of politics and, by extension, the end of government as the certain death of individual liberty.

In contrast, some believe the path to a peaceful and free world requires complete disengagement from the never-ceasing battle of politics. They believe that to participate in politics is to endorse and support the system, which extends the life of coercive government (the state). They believe that civil disobedience, engaging others in dialogue, and sharing information is the surest and quickest path to a freer world, perhaps the only path to a truly free world. Moreover, some believe that entering the political battle, at any level, or from any angle, even if it is simply to stop the bloodshed at the fringes, simply encourages more bloodshed. They see that the warlords are still with us, even here.

Is there a better way to secure individual liberty for the maximum number of individuals than politics, even politics aimed at limiting government and thereby limiting coercion?

Does politics essentially equal coercion?

Is only a limited measure of individual liberty ever possible, simply because it must ultimately be secured by some form of coercion and coercive systems always tend toward corruption and expansion?

In other words, can politics and coerced government ever result in genuine, widespread, and enduring liberty?

Are humans capable of achieving genuine, widespread, and enduring liberty?

Do we really do more harm than good by continuing to participate in politics, even only in selected ways, which means participating at some level in coercive government?

Will complete disengagement from (shunning) politics, except in the form of civil disobedience, result in more freedom and less violence than selective engagement? [Both approaches being combined with dialogue and education]

Will the shunning of politics bring an end to coercive government sooner than carefully chosen political engagement?

Is genuine, widespread, and enduring liberty worth devoting one’s emotion and energy to, even though it may never be achieved?

Is genuine, widespread, and enduring liberty simply a philosophers’ dream?

Is it possible we are held captive only by continuing to believe in the illusion that we are enslaved?

What happens to someone who sees the world as already free and behaves as though coercive government simply does not exist?

Why does liberty matter?

Can we live full and meaningful lives without seeking liberty?

Should we be willing to stop seeking liberty if doing so makes life easier and less turbulent for those around us?

As individuals who value liberty, how do we determine which path is best to follow?

One enormous, overarching problem we all face is that while our politicians are distracted by being allowed to play tug-of-war with a scrap of cloth, along the edges of a world-wide chess board, the real GLOBAL warlords (UN, IMF, CFR, CIA, etc.) and their minions are raiding, raping, and pillaging–literally and figuratively.

They view national politicians as so many chess pieces and a convenient distraction for the masses. True, a few liberty-minded politicians have occasionally managed to gain control over a few insignificant moves on the chess board, but that’s about all they ever accomplish, other than raising awareness.

So? Well? What do we do then?

Is it possible that both approaches–political engagement AND shunning of politics (combined with dialogue and education on many fronts)–are helpful and necessary?

Because our common goal is a world in which individual life, liberty, and property are fully respected, where the non-aggression principle rules the day, we usually agree that smaller and local are better than bigger and farther from the individuals concerned. This is especially true when individuals enjoy freedom of movement and when options abound in other locations.

Also, can anyone reasonably deny that engaging in politics at the local and state level is already an effective way to defend individual liberty and property at least to a small extent (better than individuals can currently achieve solely with private coalitions) from vast forces already oppressing so many good people?

Some obvious examples of real successes (albeit small ones) include local efforts to block drone flights, Agenda 21, and SMART Meters and state-level nullification of Agenda 21, NDAA, HR-347, ObamaCare, Gun Bans, and National ID cards.

Would we really be further down the path to a freer world if the globalists’ attempts to undermine national, state, and individual sovereignty were left unchallenged by these available and relatively peaceful means?

Are we wrong to use the power of a smaller and less-tyrannical state to protect us from the overwhelming power of a larger and far more evil coalition? At least for now?

I have been thinking about this a lot, for a long time. When I decided to vote in the last presidential election, I greatly disappointed @Veresapiens, who firmly believed my doing so, even if only to cast a vote for a liberty candidate, lent credibility to the tug-of-war and the chess masters and helped to ensure perpetuation of the evil game.

Regarding national politics, I am prepared to say he is mostly correct. Again, especially because the globalists are really the ones in charge, not our so-called representative government of the United States.

Even if a liberty-minded president is elected, there will be little he or she can do to significantly restore liberty. Yes, the behind-the-scenes actors have that much control, including of the media. So national elections are a big distraction from more urgent matters, which is no accident.

But it is hard not to feel a little hope when people such as Ron and Rand Paul are in the national spotlight. And I see no harm in cheering them on when they do good work. It seems that what they do helps to spread the liberty-message to a lot of individuals who would otherwise never listen. And their efforts offer much-needed moral support to those already convinced.

Do I wish their actions were more principled at times? Yes, yes, yes. The more principled the better. Do I agree with them in every respect? No, no, no. So are they helping to perpetuate the big game by engaging in politics? Or are they helping, ultimately, to end it by enlightening and supporting others? Are they doing a little of each? Does one outweigh the other?

@Veresapiens once agreed with me, at least slightly, that local politics might be an exception to the no-engagement rule. I hope we still agree on that, because I think engaging in local and state-level politics is currently our only significant means of seeking protection from oppressive measures the globalists are imposing and hoping to impose through federal force.

Perhaps this is a tired analogy, but if we were more directly and visibly enslaved, imprisoned, than we are today, say, held inside a physical camp on a few acres of ground, would we be wrong to seek some measure of protection from the more sympathetic “guards”? Doing so could help us to maintain health until escape is possible. Perhaps some sympathetic guards could even be convinced to help us escape.

Would it be somehow better to disengage completely, refusing to cooperate in every way, and let ourselves starve or be beaten to death by the more brutal guards? I suppose we would offer inspiration and revelation to others through this approach. But is it morally superior and more effective than limited, principled engagement for the purpose of immediately easing suffering (less brutality), while trying to protect what little liberty remains and even to increase it?

National politics in this analogy would be, say, being allowed to choose one prison camp warden over another. We might be able to elect the less-brutal warden, but we could be certain the difference between any two wardens would be very small. And we could be certain the same governor has tight control over both.

For those somehow yet unaware of the futility of such an election, engaging in the process could lead to unfounded hope and to a prolonged failure to become cognizant of the extent of their enslavement. That would be the purpose of holding a vote in the first place, to create the illusion that the enslaved have some measure of control, granted by “benign” governors, into which illusion the enslaved then invest emotion and energy, thus detracting from their ability to grasp reality and seek to change it.

But for the enslaved ones who are aware, perhaps voting for the warden who MIGHT ease the daily pain just a little is not a terrible idea. Perhaps discussions among inmates of possible differences might lead to the enlightenment of others.

But again, whether one votes or not for warden does little or nothing to change the system or to physically free one from it. This particular system is already too corrupt, extensive, and powerful and the warden and governors are too distant from the inmates to care and to be swayed by them.

Within this same analogy, local politics could be seen as the creating of enclaves more sympathetic to preserving humanity and the ideals of liberty, through education and creative use of existing rules, with the ultimate goal being converting and enlisting the assistance of the guards or else escaping from the system, the camp, through coordinated action.

In this prison-camp world, failure to engage at the local level, with the guards, could mean that both individuals and ideals rapidly succumb to temptation or to extreme oppression and ultimately, to utter destruction. Coordinated civil disobedience, provided such coordination were possible, could result in easing conditions, at least temporarily, but would it be any more likely than engagement to result in greater freedom in the long run? Either approach alone, could be helpful. Both approaches combined–local engagement and civil disobedience–along with dialogue and education, could be even more helpful.  Of course no approach guarantees complete success.

Alas, we are already living in a prison-camp world. While its walls may be invisible for the moment, they exist, nonetheless. We are truly free only in our hearts and minds, if we are among the more fortunate ones. And while there isn’t much that most of us can do to directly change the national or world-wide picture, much can be done–in the form of engaging and enlightening others and in undoing or preventing harmful measures–closer to home. Simply offering moral support to other liberty-minded individuals is an important contribution.

I don’t think engagement in politics, even at the local level, is right for everyone. And I think that individuals who take the stance of refusing to interact with guards, wardens, and governors play an essential role. On the other hand, I also believe that liberty-seeking individuals who are willing to engage in certain aspects of politics are also essential and no less principled, but that they should not waste too much time or effort on national politics (wardens and governors) and instead look closer to home (guards and fellow inmates); I also believe they must be exceedingly careful not to succumb to temptation and to ensure any political action they support is truly aimed at reducing coercion.

-LMN

The excerpt from Tate’s message, the one that inspired me to get busy on this essay, follows:

The GOP establishment’s sheer HATRED for those of us who truly believe in liberty, limited government, and constitutional principles was on full display in Tampa, Florida, last summer.

New rules designed to weaken grassroots activists were RAMMED through at the hands of establishment-insider lawyer Ben Ginsberg over the SCREAMING objections of rank-and-file delegates at the Republican National Convention.

In the process of telling all Ron Paul supporters to hit the road, they stabbed our liberty movement, Tea Party types, and grassroots activists of every stripe in the back.

This next week – at the Republican National Committee’s spring meeting April 10-13 – you and I have a chance to reverse this outrage and guard against new assaults already rearing their ugly heads.

I’ll explain more about the new attacks shortly …

But the result of next week’s meetings will finally show you and me whether or not the GOP is serious about growing and winning – or if its insiders want to keep their party small, old, and impotent.

Now, Virginia RNC Committeeman Morton Blackwell – who led the fight against implementation of the new rules in Tampa – will be introducing a resolution to reverse them.

That is why I need you to contact your Republican National Committee representatives IMMEDIATELY to urge them to support Blackwell’s repeal effort.

You are represented at the RNC by the State Party Chairman, a National Committeeman, and a National Committeewoman from your state.

It requires a 75% vote of all RNC members to overturn these rules, so your action could not be more critical . . .

. . . Please remember, this fight could have ramifications that last for years.

Each one of the GOP’s new rules are designed to hand even MORE control to party insiders, fat-cat donors, and GOP hack consultants.

The new rules force more “winner take all” primaries, discourage states from allowing grassroots activists to have “too much” power over the selection of the eventual GOP nominee in state convention processes, create more national delegates beholden to campaign operatives, and raise the number of states needed to place a candidate’s name in nomination at the convention.

The effect will be to disenfranchise liberty candidates like Ron Paul in 2012, Ronald Reagan in 1976, and Barry Goldwater in 1964, who were powered by armies of small donors and activists inspired by principle rather than opportunism …

… the very people that are proven to create the foundation for a healthy and vibrant Republican Party.

I know you’re not surprised.

In recent months, you and I have seen more than our fair share of assaults coming from the establishment.

In fact, not long ago, Karl Rove launched his own Super PAC designed to combat liberty activists and Tea Party types.

Breitbart
news just reported that the RNC Chief of Staff “effectively declared war on the conservative grassroots” at an exclusive meeting at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, D.C.

Now, as part of the GOP’s “Growth and Opportunity Project,” the establishment is doubling down.

Buried amongst the report’s platitudes about building a more inclusive Republican Party are three recommendations designed to cement the establishment’s control over picking the nominee in 2016, including:

***    Requiring every state to hold primaries instead of caucuses and conventions.

Establishment candidates that can afford multi-million dollar ad campaigns have a built-in advantage over liberty candidates, who rely on grassroots donors and volunteers. And this would also cost already struggling state governments as much as $30 million;

***    Replacing individual state primaries with a series of “regional” primaries, further advantaging well-heeled        establishment candidates who can afford to run massive multiple-state campaigns at once;

***    Placing primary debates under the control of the GOP, virtually guaranteeing moderators favor their established frontrunners and that those who challenge the status quo are simply shut out.

I hope you’re as outraged as I am.  The liberty wing of the party is the only part of the GOP that is growing.

But I’m afraid far too many in the GOP establishment would rather lose to statist Democrats than see grassroots types gain party positions.

This next week is the GOP’s chance to prove that’s not true.

But it’s critical you act at once.

You and I simply must make clear that we will not settle for Obama-lite.

And we will not allow the GOP establishment to silence or control the liberty movement!

So please call your state’s RNC representatives today and ask them to support Morton Blackwell’s motion to repeal the Tampa rules changes and reject the three proposals in the “Growth and Opportunity Project” that further empower the establishment.

Please act at once . . .

*Politics – defined – http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/politics?q=politics

noun

  • 1 [usually treated as singular] the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power: the party quickly gained influence in French politics; thereafter he dropped out of active politics
  • the activities of governments concerning the political relations between states: in the conduct of global politics, economic status must be backed by military capacity
  • the academic study of government and the state: [as modifier]:a politics lecturer
  • a particular set of political beliefs or principles: people do not buy their paper purely for its politics
  • (often the politics of) the principles relating to or inherent in a sphere or activity, especially when concerned with power and status: the politics of gender
  • 2 activities aimed at improving someone’s status or increasing power within an organization: yet another discussion of office politics and personalities

Revised April 7, 2013

Tom Woods Announces the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum

Sharing this April 6, 2013 message from The Tom Woods Letter . . . . 

If you’re not familiar with Tom Woods (Thomas E. Woods, Jr.), please explore the information at the two links below.

http://www.tomwoods.com/about/

http://www.libertyclassroom.com/

Here’s the message:

Announcing the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum

Not long ago I noted that I was at work on a K-12 homeschool curriculum. What I didn’t say, because it hadn’t yet been made public, was that it’s Ron Paul’s homeschool curriculum I’m working on.

I’ll be teaching much of the history for the upper grades, as well as co-teaching a course on government for ninth graders. It’s a full-service curriculum, containing all the courses, including math and the sciences, that a student needs.

Here are seven things that are great about this curriculum:

(1) Grades K-5 will be available for free. You have six years to try out the program without having to spend a dime.

(2) Students will learn the origins and travails of liberty in the Western world and in the United States in particular.

(3) Students will learn the economics of the Austrian School.

(4) Students can learn at their own pace. If they’re advanced and move more quickly, they can quiz out of the first two years of college and enter college as juniors.

(5) The emphasis in this program is not simply on teaching from a different point of view, or teaching material that no other school or curriculum offers, although the Ron Paul Curriculum does both of these things. But it also emphasizes oral and written communication, so that students will be able to spread and defend their ideas effectively. Students will have their own blogs, start YouTube channels, and even learn the basics of video production, website design, and Internet marketing.

(6) It’s cheap. For access to the forums, it’s $250 per year, per family. (If you have ten children, it’s still just $250 for you.) Each course is just $50. No textbooks — they’re awful, and we use pdfs and primary documents to teach students — so you’ll save hundreds of dollars that way as well.

(7) Parents who wish they’d had the chance for this kind of education can listen to the lectures their children are hearing. We’ve made them of a length that works well with the average commute.

By September 2, we expect to have the material for grades 6-10 available. We’ll continue to add grades until December 2015 — our target date — when we expect to have the entire K-12 curriculum finished.

The website officially launched today. Check it out, and sign up. Right now the site has an excellent course on high school preparation, which covers such topics as how to study, personal goal-setting, time management, public speaking, speed reading, typing, note-taking and retrieval, software for essay writing, how to set up a YouTube channel, how to set up a WordPress blog site, and that most challenging skill, how to read a book. Between now and September 2 you can join the site and access that course for $25.

This, I am convinced, will prove to be Ron Paul’s most significant contribution to the cause of liberty — and that’s saying something. Please check out RonPaulCurriculum.com, and stay tuned for more news as we move forward with this exciting project!

P.S. Here’s my three-minute video pitch.

***

This is a great opportunity, especially for parents who are reluctant to homeschool their children without the guidance of a structured curriculum. And it is great that it’s available free of charge for K-5. This makes it a great resource for unschoolers who may wish to use it not as a daily curriculum but only when the offerings pertain to a particular line of inquiry. -LMN

Who will control the food supply? And other hard questions

A family with well-protected property rights (including, ideally, NO property tax), a good set of reference books, essential tools, a patch of relatively good ground, a little pasture, some heirloom seeds, some woods, relatively clean air, an adequate source of potable water, a few chickens, goats, rabbits, and some honey bees can live quite well with very little money. They can also feed a number of other people. Add a few good weapons and some ammunition and they can also hunt and protect themselves and their animals.

Moreover, the food they all eat will be nutritious and free of anything significantly injurious to their health and well-being. Sure there will be some dangers and risks, but these are low and can be kept to a minimum. And while a lot of hard work is required, it is doable, even for a small family, with time to spare for creating, reading, studying, playing, and socializing.

Of course, not everyone will choose this sort of life, and that is as it should be. However, it is a tried and true way of life to resort to during an economic crisis, one that will practically ensure the survival of individuals, the survival of others who turn to them for help, and the survival of a moral culture.

Most people, when given some information on these matters, even those who don’t live on a small farm and have no desire to, want healthy, nutritious food grown from seeds and plants with genes evolved through natural means, not by manipulation in the laboratory, at the micro-level of genetic material, and without excessive doses of toxic pesticides. They want nutritious food from naturally born animals that live in a healthy outdoor environment, eat what nature intended, and are spared from constant dosing with antibiotics, hormones, and toxic pesticides (through their feed).

This is a very intelligent desire. And it is also a reasonable one. It is quite possible to grow plenty of food for everyone, at an affordable price, in a manner in keeping with these natural principles. When necessary, people are even willing to pay a little more for groceries. And there are an increasing number of people willing to run larger-scale farms to help meet the increasing demand. Many people are growing their own, when and where they are able.

Meanwhile, there are too many in government acting in collusion with corrupt corporations, and they are pushing the other way, hard, sometimes openly, often stealthily. Why? Return on “investment”? Power? Status? The blind machinations of bureaucracy? But could there also be an even more nefarious reason?

To centralize control of most land, food, air, water, fuel, weapons, vehicles, and movement of individuals is to ensure the ability of a few to control most of humankind, in every aspect of life.

What is necessary to achieve this level of centralization?

1. A United Nations designed to undermine the sovereignty of individual nations (see below)

2. Corrupt officials at the highest levels of all the major countries and of the largest corporations

3. Central banks controlled by corrupt officials and their corporate cronies; fiat currency; artificially controlled interest rates; entitlement programs, i.e. food stamps, unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.; an income tax

4. A docile, compliant people who are drugged by doctors; dumbed-down and de-moralized by compulsory, collective schools; overworked by necessity owing to a struggling economy; and overstimulated by purulent media preying upon these created vulnerabilities

5. A steady flow of “news” stories designed to convey an underlying message that independent individualists (even if they revere and support real community) are old-school and frightening and that collectives (even forced ones) are cool and comforting, not to mention far more stylish

6. A means to disarm, thoroughly identify, and survey the remaining individualists and to crush any defiance: staged attacks and shootings; UN Treaties; weapons bans; registries; national ID cards, with biometric identifiers; issuing licenses to illegal immigrants (to bio-identify them and to make it easier for them to vote)

7. A means to control the food supply, access to medical care, fertility, comfort, and mobility–essential elements in the daily life of a “free” individual: Constant oversight and interference (including paying bribes in the form of subsidies) from the USDA and FDA; genetically engineered, patented seeds protected from the jurisdiction of courts; cloud seeding using poisons that contaminate the air, ground, and water; fluoridated water supplies (fluoride is a potent neurotoxin); nationalized health care systems or the equivalent (ObamaCare); easy, promoted abortions; genetically engineered foods that cause sterility in animals and humans, not to mention immune disorders; vaccines that cause miscarriages, infant deaths, brain damage, and immune dysfunction; false data and created hysteria about climate change and global warming to push prices for gasoline, oil, and electricity so high that individuals will lose not only comfort but also mobility; a massive electronic surveillance system, including drones and the “legal” authorization to disappear and assassinate citizens; a militarized police force and an enormous federal police force hoarding ammunition and amassing equipment and facilities

8. High property taxes, zoning, EPA regulations, and low interest rates: If one must pay property tax one can never really own a property; property taxes and regulations push people off the land; restrictive zoning and regulations restrict ability to use land efficiently and for growing food and fuel; interest rates held so low that savers are punished and retirees forced to take excessive risks and possibly to spend their principle, thus impoverishing them and ensuring they cannot pass wealth to the next generation

9. Constant meddling in the affairs of other nations, at great cost, in blood and treasure, to our own people and to the people of other nations, ensuring the steady growth of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned of

10. Perpetuation of the artificially created War-on-Drugs ensuring a steady flow of money through drug trafficking to clandestine operations in government and corporations and ensuring a large proportion of the population is imprisoned and held back from their potential

Sadly, I am certain to be leaving out a number of other significant horrors . . . as if this list isn’t awful enough.

Lamentably, this is the world we live in. Is it an accident? Is it simply the application of the law of unintended consequences to the well-intended meddling of a lot of good people with terrible ideas? Is it merely the crude patchwork of moronic politicians easily swayed and bought? Is it a conspiracy of the power-elite, drunk with arrogance and power and determined to have their eugenics, their excesses, and a lion’s share of resources? Is it all of the above?

Whatever it is, it isn’t good.

Whatever it is, it isn’t easy to stop.

Whatever it is, the brunt of it has not hit most people yet.

What can we do, through peaceful means, to stop it?

Here’s a collection of supporting information. I hope to add to it over time. I know of many more relevant articles and sites but I am too tired tonight to locate and link to all of them. Many of these first few are just the ones I happened to have open today. Please do your own research and see where it leads.

ONE

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/14914-gun-control-calls-for-strict-control-of-arms-ammo-in-un-treaty

TWO

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/03/24/nullification-for-lawyers/

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2013/03/doj-tries-to-turn-fedex-and-ups-into-cops-big-pharma-aplauds/

http://shoebat.com/2013/03/27/secretary-of-state-john-kerry-demonstrates-why-huma-abedins-background-mattered/

THREE

Investments

http://moneymorning.com/ob-article/jim-rogers-major-crash-ahead.php?p=PPYRP206&utm_campaign=content&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=taboola#.UVShwjenefi

Currency, Money

http://lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff213.html

Meddling

http://mises.org/daily/6390/Stopping-the-Keynesian-Death-March

FOUR

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm

FIVE

http://memoryholeblog.com/

http://www.corbettreport.com/

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/component/content/frontpage.html

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/about-us/

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/

http://www.mises.org/

http://www.tomwoods.com/

http://mises.org/daily/6389/Elizabeth-Warrens-Unwarranted-Wage#.UVIfDUi-TTc.twitter

SIX

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5518

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/14927-senators-cruz-lee-and-paul-promise-to-protect-the-second-amendment

SEVEN

Food Supply

http://naturalsociety.com/obama-signs-monsanto-protection-act-into-law-after-promising-gmo-labeling-in-2007/

http://naturalsociety.com/surprised-monsanto-openly-wrote-own-monsanto-protection-act/

http://www.naturalnews.com/039668_Monsanto_Protection_Act_Obama_deception_GMOs.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/039652_USDA_agriculture_census_government_surveillance.html

http://www.heirloomsolutions.com/?utm_source=OTGA_HSship_Mar27&utm_medium=OTGA_HSship_Mar27&utm_campaign=OTGA_HSship_Mar27

Individual Liberty

http://lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano93.1.html

http://markstoval.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-dark-heart-of-the-people/

Militarization

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/03/26/the-militarization-of-american-life/

EIGHT

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/cobb/130219

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/14833-oklahoma-house-passes-bill-to-ban-un-agenda-21

NINE

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/14904-u-s-involvement-in-syrian-war-becoming-more-apparent

TEN

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/follow-money-how-former-anti-drug-officials-ridiculously-still-say-pot-dangerous-order-make

-LMN

Hank’s Story

Only 21 and already so brilliant and thoughtful and kind . . . thoughts from a young liberty-friend:

Hank’s Story.

Freeman DeFacto “Fighting for a Lost Clause: The Case for the Sovereign Individual”

Below you will find another guest-post from my friend Freeman DeFacto. I am so pleased he is allowing me to share his thinking and writing with you. He deserves a much wider audience than I have here at the moment.

Those not yet familiar with the actual history of the United States, as opposed to the propaganda so often taught in schools and purveyed by politicians and the media, may wish to read the next paragraph, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, as a prologue to Freeman’s work. I believe it will contribute greatly to your understanding. The full article is at the link.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo242.html

Jim Powell’s book, Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery, provides chapter and verse of how real statesmen of the world, in sharp contrast to Lincoln, ended slavery without resorting to waging total war on their own citizens. Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves. There were some incidents of violence, but nothing remotely approaching the violence of a war that ended up killing 800,000 Americans.

It is important to recognize that when individuals are truly free, they are free to pursue any goals of their choosing, regardless of whether others deem these worthy or appropriate, as long as they use voluntary, individual cooperation (as opposed to governmental or other coercion, fraud, or physical force) to achieve them; any harm done to others or to their property in the pursuit of goals will not easily be done without appropriate consequences.

Government routinely “legalizes” illegitimate force and separates actions from appropriate consequences.

It is ironic that most people view government as the great protector against injustices such as slavery, yet “legal” slavery and segregation could never have existed without the approval and support of an overly-powerful government.

One of the many beauties of Liberty is that it works to the benefit of everyone.

Happy reading!

-LMN

********

Fighting for a Lost Clause: The Case for the Sovereign Individual

by Freeman DeFacto

These are the times that try men’s souls.

― Thomas Paine, opening line of American Crisis I, 23 DEC 1776

INTRODUCTION ― The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is the key that contains the framework for building the freest and greatest nation ever founded. It deserves to be read, thoroughly understood, and held sacred by advocates of individual freedom the world over. Here it is:

WE hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness [originally Property] ― That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . .

The clause the Consent of the Governed, right in the middle of that paragraph, is crucial to the concept of individual liberty. We show below how it has been “lost” over the years.

The remaining paragraphs in the Declaration go into great detail listing the innumerable, unreasonable, oppressive measures that the British King and Parliament were trying to force upon the early American colonists.

HAMILTON’S CURSE  ― Alexander Hamilton is usually viewed as a hero and one of the “Founding Fathers.” He was very close to George Washington during the Revolution, serving as the general’s aide de camp. President George Washington
appointed him to be the very first Secretary of the Treasury and as such he created the first Bank of the United States. It’s purpose was the same as that of the Federal Reserve System today.

Historian Thomas J. DiLorenzo has documented that Hamilton was a monarchist and mercantilist who advocated a collectivist government modeled after the British system that had just been defeated in the Revolution. He even vigorously lobbied for George Washington to be king instead of president. Luckily for us, Washington refused.

DiLorenzo spells out all the details in his monumental book Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch-Enemy Betrayed the RevolutionAnd What it Means to Americans Today. Please be sure to read DiLorenzo’s very short summary at URL: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo136.html Hamilton’s legacy is his establishment of the model for all the “Progressive” politicians who came along after him.

BIG CHANGE ― Beginning with Abraham Lincoln’s winning of the presidency in the election of 1860, the American ruling class, “the power elite,” began more vigorously siphoning political power away from the supposedly sovereign states and centralizing it in the growing, centralized national government. Lincoln’s defeat of the Confederate States of America enabled the newly-formed Republican Party essentially to control the US political scene.

From the very beginning of the union, the main theme of the prevailing Democrat-Republican Party led by the agrarian southern states was “free trade with no tariffs.” The northeastern manufacturing and financial interests (Hamilton-followers) along with the Whig and Free Soil Parties, opposed the Democrats. They greatly resented the southern policy of free trade and waged a long fight for “protective tariffs against foreign competition.”

In 1854 anti-slavery activists initiated the formation of the Republican Party (GOP). They were led by Hamiltonian northeastern “modernizers” who were joined by ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers. Their campaign slogan was: “Free labor, Free land, Free men.”

The GOP goal was to win control of the centralized national government so they could impose protective tariffs and thereby put the southern agrarians at an economic and political disadvantage. They aimed to diminish the south’s economic and political power by destroying the system of slave labor on the plantations.

Lincoln’s War of Northern Aggression [sometimes erroneously called the American Civil War* (1861-1865)] delivered a crushing defeat to the Patrick Henry-Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Confederate States of America. As a result the newly-
formed GOP dominated the national political scene from 1860 unto 1928.

[*A civil war is defined as a battle between two or more factions seeking to take control of the same central government. The so-called American Civil War was no such thing. The southern states merely wished to secede peacefully and form their own separate government called the Confederate States of America.]

In 1900 William McKinley ran for president and the vivacious Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt ran for vice-president. Teddy’s energetic advocacy of a GOP platform of high tariffs, the gold standard, world-imperialism, prosperity at home, and victory abroad greatly helped William McKinley win the presidency.

Upon McKinley’s assassination in 1901, Roosevelt became the youngest person ever to ascend to the US presidency. He immediately began trying to expand the powers of the centralized national government by advocating “trust-busting” and Federal controls on all businesses. In 1903 he established two new Cabinet Departments:  Commerce and Labor.

In 1904 TR won re-election in a landslide with the slogan: “Square Deal,” implying that the average citizen would get his “fair share” and that the rich “would get theirs.”  In 1906 he pushed the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act through congress. He also championed Federal control and takeover of wilderness areas through Federally-controlled conservationism of 230 million acres. He created the US Forest Service, five National Parks, and 150 National Forests.

In addition, he coined the phrase: “Speak softly but carry a big stick” while he vastly increased the US Navy. He then “showed the flag” by sending “The Great White Fleet” on a world tour, dispatching several warships to intimidate the government of Columbia into allowing Panamanians to secede peacefully. The Panamanians formed a new nation and sold him the isthmus so he could complete the Panama Canal. To top it all off, he was the very first US president to win the Nobel Peace Prize (1906).

THE TAKEOVER ― Around 1891 a young GOP congressman from Wisconsin, Robert M. LaFollette, Sr, formed and led a group of Republican political activists calling themselves “Progressives” or “The Insurgent Faction.” Their goal was to reform the GOP and to make government even more centralized, efficient, caring, and democratic (“responsive to the people”).

Teddy Roosevelt was the first Progressive president (1901-1909). And although only several presidents have actually called themselves Progressives [Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945), and Lyndon Baines Johnson (1963-1969)] almost every president since TR has embraced at least
some portions of the Progressive agenda.

WHAT IS PROGRESSIVISM?  ― Historian William Leuchtenburg summed up the Progressive agenda as follows:

The Progressives believed in the Hamiltonian concept of positive government, of a national government directing the destinies of the nation at home and abroad. They had little but contempt for the strict construction of the Constitution by conservative judges, who would restrict the power of the national government to act against social evils and to extend the blessings of democracy to less favored lands. The real enemy was particularism, state rights, limited government.  

The following table of Progressive agenda-items includes a long list of social causes, programs, and slogans:

  • Efficiency in business and government
  • Economic interventionism
  • Social justice
  • Environmental justice
  • Fair trade
  • Feminism & Women’s suffrage
  • LBGT rights
  • Labor rights
  • Social welfare
  • Square Deal
  • New Nationalism
  • New Freedom
  • New Deal
  • Second Bill of Rights
  • Fair Deal
  • New Frontier
  • Great Society
  • Compulsory “Voluntarism”
  • Direct primary elections
  • Direct election of senators (Amndmt XVII)
  • Commission form of local governments by expert Scientific Professionals
  • Government regulation of corporations
  • Government schools (John Dewey)
  • Trained professional social workers
  • Government regulation of monopolies
  • Collective bargaining and unions
  • Child labor laws
  • National parks and wildlife refuges
  • Prohibition of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco
  • Instant voting
  • Reclamation and inland waterways
  • Same-sex marriage
  • Popular-vote election of president
  • Affordable housing
  • Universal (single-payer) health care
  • Living wage & equal pay for women
  • Elimination of death penalty
  • Climate change/global warming
  • Immigration reform & amnesty
  • United Nations
  • Smart growth (planning & zoning)
  • New World Order/Agenda 21
  • One-World Government
  • Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (Can be useful against **EXIC governments, Ha Ha–see below)

THE PROGRESSIVE RESULT ― The Progressives and their allies have been very successful in maintaining control of the powerful political offices of the US centralized national government by gradually blurring and obscuring the vision of the Founders.

They found stealthy ways to abandon the principles of the Declaration and “morph” our representative republic (the original federation of individual sovereign states) into a strong, centralized, national so-called democracy with its tyranny of the majority.

[A simple majority (50 percent of the votes plus one more) always produces a tyranny of the majority because the 50+ percent who won will be happy, while the 49+ percent who lost will be unhappy and forced to act against their will. To more nearly approach a consensus with overwhelming general agreement, all votes should require a super-majority; seven-eights (87.5%) would be a nice number to start with.]

One of the signal accomplishments of the Progressives was the ratification on April 8, 1913 of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.  This amendment removed the last vestige of sovereignty that remained with the states. It changed the method of election for US Senators.

The Constitution originally specified that the legislature of each state shall choose its two senators. The XVIIth changed the procedure to the same method used to elect US Representatives: a popular vote of the people, a simple majority, a tyranny of the majority. This was the fatal step that turned electing Federal officials into a popularity contest. (To the winner goes the spoils.) The ultimate result has been The Lost Clause.

THE LOST CLAUSE ― This clause, The Consent of the Governed, consisting of five crucial words in the sixth line of the key paragraph of the Declaration, forms the basis of individual liberty. Each time government forces a person to act against his will, he loses part of his individual freedom. In the Declaration, the Founders emphasized the importance of The Consent of the Governed to keeping a society free.

Government’s actions are either legitimate or illegitimate. Legitimate actions are those that maintain the dignity, freedom, integrity, and individuality of every person by applying the universal natural laws of justice (to each, that which he deserves).

Illegitimate actions  are those that violate the dignity, freedom, integrity, and individuality of people by enforcing (usually whimsical) “positive” (man-made) rules, laws, mandates, orders, and statutes.

SOVEREIGNTY ― The person (or group) who makes the final decisions as the head of government is called the sovereign. There is no one of higher authority. The sovereign is boss, independent of all others; he is sovereign as defined in the following:

sovereign (sov’rin, sov’ễr-in, suv’rin), adj. [ME. soveraine, sovereyn, ; OFr. soverain, souverain; LL. *superanus, < L. super, above, over.] 1. above or superior to all others, chief; greatest; supreme. 2. supreme in power, rank, or authority. 3. of or holding the position of a ruler; royal; reigning. 4. independent of all others, as a sovereign state. 5. excellent; very effectual, as a cure or remedy.  n. 1. a person who possesses sovereign authority; monarch; ruler. 2.  a group of persons or a state that possesses sovereign authority. 3.  a British gold coin valued at 20 shillings or one pound sterling. Also sovran. Abbreviated sov.

The sovereign stands highest in the community, above, supreme and separate from all others. He (or they) impose their powers from a position external to the governed, the populace; thus the government is an EXternally-Imposed, Coercive (**EXIC) government.

[We shall show below that EXIC government is not the only form of government available to mankind.]

The Declaration made it clear that the sole legitimate purpose for an EXIC government is “. . to secure these Rights” (Life, Liberty, and Property)]; that is, to keep the peace by thwarting crimes that individuals commit against each other.

[An individual cannot commit a "crime against society or humanity." In actuality, there is no such thing. There are only crimes of one person against individuals.]

The Declaration asserts:

. . . that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends (securing the Rights of Life, Liberty, and Property) it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government …

The Declaration enshrines individual liberty and private property; the Founders deemed them to be sacred. However, the Constitution is seriously flawed because it allows the ruling class, the power-elite to ignore the requirement for consent of the governed. True individual liberty can exist only with the consent of the governed. Government without consent of the governed is involuntary servitude.

[Ironically, Amendment XIII to the Constitution specifically prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.]

John Adams brilliantly tied individual freedom to private property rights when he said:

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘”Thou shalt not covet” and “Thou shalt not steal” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

–John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitution, 1787

But private property is not sacred when EXIC government can use the power of eminent domain to “legally” steal it; or by using just plain old every-day statutes, passed with a simple majority, to take or tax anything they wish without consent of the governed.

WHAT IS EXIC GOVERNMENT? ― The Founders envisioned the only legitimate function of their government to be: thwarting crimes perpetrated by individuals against each other. Otherwise every person would be free to conduct his life in the manner best suited to him.

However, the Old World ideas of strong centralized-governmental-control immediately began to seep into the plans of those who had seized the reins of the new national government of the USA.

They saw government as simply nothing more than standardized, centralized-control of human behavior. And they saw their job as supplying that control in a manner similar to that of the Old World Europeans, Africans, and Asians. Unfortunately, even today most people presently think of government as EXIC, described as:

The legalized monopoly of a sovereign power to initiate violent, physical coercive force or threat of force in order to bring about specific desired human behavior in the populace.

In other words: most people envision government as legally and rightfully using threats and actual force to bring about government-desired behavior in the populace.

The understood rule is: When government tells you to do something, you had better do it, OR ELSE ! ! No one will ask for your consent. Obey, or government will use the ultimate “persuasion”: a threat, or when necessary, the actual application of force.

Force can take many different forms, such as:  fines, hostage-holding, incarceration, intimidation, kidnapping, beatings, torture, maiming, and/or even death. Recent examples of modern, “up-to-date” coercion have given us the “tazering” of feeble great-grandmothers and ten-year-old students with 50,000 volts of electrical energy in the hands of a trigger-happy psychopath.

THE LIBERTY ALTERNATIVE: SELF-GOVERNMENT ― By thinking “outside the box” of the conventional concept of EXIC government we find that the concept and process of governing also includes self-government: control of human behavior at the lowest possible level.

Some Republicans and libertarians already advocate government at the lowest possible level. Of course, they have in mind an EXIC government at state-, county-, municipal-, city-, town-, or district-level. They also glibly repeat the well-known phrase:  “That government is best that governs least.”

Yet they have in mind neighborhood, town, municipality, or county EXIC governments. Rarely, if ever, does the average person entertain the idea that the lowest possible level is that of the individual person.

Individuals always control their own behavior. It is an organic, natural law of human behavior that humans take conscious actions solely to improve their present condition.

Each time a person does something, he does it because he perceives his action will improve his immediate condition. Even prisoners under tyrannical conditions can co-operate or refuse to co-operate. If they think it will make things better, they co-operate. If they think it will make things worse, they refuse to co-operate. They control their own behavior and suffer the consequences.

The overwhelming majority of people in the world pursue their daily lives without “Big Brother,” a policeman, or a slave-driver peering over their shoulders to make sure they are under control. Were all governmental controls suddenly removed, it might take a little  time for some people to learn to run their own lives, but every “normal” adult has the full faculties and latent capabilities to be completely self-governing.

THE SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL ― Taken to its logical conclusion, a person who is totally responsible for all his own actions is a sovereign individual. There is no one of higher authority in his life. The questions of individual freedom ultimately come down to:

Whose life is it anyhow?

Do I own my life, or not ?

Must I get permission from someone else before I can take an action?

I assume total responsibility for all my actions.

A TRULY-FREE SOCIETY ― A society can be truly-free, even if it has an EXIC government, so long as it provides for individuals to “opt-out” without punishment or retribution of any kind. In a truly-free society, each (adult) person is a sovereign individual.

A sovereign individual has totally-free choice. He can “opt-in” (consent to be governed) under the control of an EXIC government; OR, the truly-free individual can “opt-out” (withdraw his consent to be governed) from the control of an EXIC government, without punishment or retribution.

A truly-free person ALWAYS has the choice of peacefully “opting-out.” At the present time there may be only one known,  truly-free, society on earth, the Kapauku Papuans of Papua, New Guinea. They can opt-out without retribution.

In a truly-free society, the sovereign individual is completely free to exercise his own will, to do anything he pleases so long as he does not violate the property rights of another person by committing any of the following crimes: (1) fraud; (2) extortion; (3) theft; and (4) unprovoked, violent, physical aggression.

[When a person commits a crime against another, he should fully-expect to receive the appropriate wrath and vengeance of the victim, his extended family, friends, and justice-minded strangers.]

When a person chooses to opt-out he immediately becomes totally responsible for every aspect of his own life. He owes neither allegiance nor submission to any other person or group of persons. The sovereign individual has no claims against others, nor any obligations to others, except those willingly and mutually agreed upon by contract, verbal or written.

However, the sovereign individual is totally responsible for tort damages caused to others by his own negligence.

A sovereign individual is akin to a “mini-state” or “micro-country”:

  • He has a sovereign: himself.
  • He has a deliberative legislature: in his mind.
  • He has a self-defense force: himself, friends, neighbors, and contractors.
  • He asserts his sovereignty: by refusing to be dominated by any others.
  • He conducts trade and foreign relations: with other sovereign individuals.
  • He negotiates peaceful agreements: with other sovereign individuals.
  • He settles disputes: by voluntary binding arbitration.
  • He forms alliances and confederations for co-operation, trade, and mutual self-defense: with friendly sovereign individuals.

Freedom Strategy

THE GOAL ― The ideal primary, long-range, ultimate, overriding goal is the establishment of the conditions of liberty for all in the shortest possible time.

OPT-OUT SOLUTION: RESISTANCE ― One good thing Alexander Hamilton did during the Revolution was to urge American colonists to:

Resist, resist, resist, until we hurl the demagogues and tyrants from their imaginary thrones.

This was part of his early advocacy for them to throw off the yoke of the British monarchy and parliament. But just how should we resist?

STEP-BY-STEP STRATEGY TO RE-ESTABLISH UNIVERSAL LIBERTY

A. Identify a specific offense to liberty

B.  Start at the level where you determine you can be most effective

1. Neighborhood, district, town, city, county, state

2. Federal (almost hopeless at the present time)

C. Research the history of the offense and identify the alleged reasons for its existence

1. Creation Details

a. Authority to create (question that authority)
b. Constitutionality (research and debate)
c. Date drafted, date debated, and date enacted
d. Identify the instigators, champions, constituency, & beneficiaries
e. Identify the injured, disadvantaged, exploited, plundered

2. Purpose

a. Question necessity
b. Question effectiveness of achieving purpose
c. Suggest alternatives

3. Budget

a. Revenue sources (taxpayers, grants, etc.)
b.  Expenditures (vendors, bureaucratic staff, management, PR)
c. Money trail (follow the money — all of it)

i. Beneficiaries (legal and illegal)
ii. Bribes, payoffs, etc.

4. Administration and Application

a. Enforcement agency
b. Mechanism (fine, jail, torture, death. etc.)

5. Resulting Effect (how does it restrict liberty)

a. Opportunity costs
b. Benefited or favored parties
c. damaged, diminished, and plundered Parties

6. Expected Results of Repeal of Offense to Liberty

7. Restitution, Restoration, and Retribution

a. Can Injustices be corrected and compensated?
b. Did officials commit criminal acts?
c. Is punishment (retribution) justified?

D. Identify the focal point (target agency) in government at which to direct action

E. Carefully design and think-out at least one approach to solutions for
eliminating the offense to liberty

1. Apply Philosophy of Liberty ala Jonathan Gullible
URL: http://jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.sw

2. Was the offense necessary in the first place? Was the intended goal just,
reasonable, and logical?

3. The first thought for a solution to a problem should be:  What could or
should have been done to solve this in a peaceful, non-coercive
manner without government help or interference?

4. The second thought for a solution to a problem should be: What can I
(we) do to solve this in a peaceful, non-coercive manner
without government help or interference and prevent a future re-
occurrence?

F. Draft proposed plan and legislation (when necessary) to accomplish the change

G. Prepare and distribute press releases to support the effort

H. Personally (or your alternate) attend every meeting of the target agency

1. Obtain copy of meeting agenda ahead of time

2. Prepare incisive questions to ask agency members

3. Sign-up to speak and/or ask questions of the members

4. Make audio recording of proceedings

I. Plan and hold public meetings, seminars, and educational sessions to engender support

1. Expand as fully as possible

J. Continue to repeat the above process-cycle until every offense to liberty has been repealed, withdrawn, or expunged.

***********************************************************************
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audientor ito.
“Do not give in to evil, but proceed evermore boldly against it.”
Virgil, The Aeneid, VI, 95 ― Motto of Ludwig von Mises
***********************************************************************

A lady shares her family story and thoughts on collectivism

An excellent post from Mark Stoval’s blog:

A lady shares her family story and thoughts on collectivism.

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.