tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24590841581351753192024-02-07T22:51:54.464-07:00Liberty Alumni DiscussionsCraig Green's blog discusses history, philosophy and economics from a free market perspective. See Craig's bio, premises, archives and links in the right column. From 2011, April's "Unchain the Builders" series begins with "Unchain The Builders 1," each linked to the other articles. March's "Subordinate Acts" is Craig's article on the U.S. Constitution. Also see March's LIFEPOWER articles from the 1990's. Anyone can comment without subscription, but leave email if you want to keep abreast.Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-5949653109470667852016-03-22T04:16:00.000-06:002016-04-30T09:47:18.458-06:00MY PATH TO KUHN'S KLASSIC<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Several
years ago, I was turned on to Thomas Kuhn’s revolutionary book, <b><i>The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions</i></b>. It is a book whose author took a
similar path to knowledge as I did, from engineer/scientist to philosopher
(junior grade) and back again, creating a more balanced, hearty and happy <b><i>ME</i></b>.
Along the way, after taking a year off from college to finally graduate at the
<b><i>Dawning of the Age of Aquarius</i></b> (1969), I became an Air Force officer stationed in Florida, then
the Republic of Turkey, California, and finally at Denver’s Lowry Air Force
base into 1973. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">I began my careers... first in space systems as an
orbital analyst. Then, after moving to Denver and leaving the Air Force, I got a Master's Degree in civil engineering (water resources and water
rights consulting) forming the bulk of my career from which I retired last
year (2014). Like Kuhn, I was profoundly impacted by a <b><i>History of Science</i></b>
course in college; what began as a serendipitous elective produced some
of the most profound <b>AH HA!</b> insights of my life. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">I
was extremely lucky to fall in love with science, philosophy – and the
opportunity to dabble in law (expert testimony more than 70 times as a Professional Engineer working
with more than 130 different lawyers). I overcame obstacles like inadequate
high school preparation for these rewarding careers. In 1963, I graduated
from Highland High School in Albuquerque, New Mexico, ranked 463<sup>rd</sup>
in my class of about 500. Growing up working in my Dad’s auto wrecking yard and
reading hot rod magazines, I had a D average, failing to qualify with the C
average required to enter the University of New Mexico (UNM) in my hometown.
But, after a year off from college working at various jobs, I began again at the College of St. Joseph (now the University of Albuquerque) to get my grades up and finally qualify for the engineering
curriculum at UNM.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">As
the old saying goes, <b><i>what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger</i></b>.
Apparently, it can also make you more successful and happy, if you allow it. Even today, at age
70, I look back with fondness to attribute both the bad and good decisions I
made in my early adult development. The good things I did were obvious, but after-the-fact, I also came to realize how certain challenges
and temporary failures of mine led to a more balanced, battle-tested personal
constitution that including a variety of sports, hobbies and diverse skills.
Along the way, I visited at least 45 states and enjoyed trips to England, Germany
and the middle east, spending a year in the Bronze Age (3500 year-old) city of Diyarbakir, Turkey before leaving the Air Force. I have owned and trained more than 30 dogs, and have judged more than 100 others in the vigorous outdoor sport of tracking (like search and rescue). I
ran marathons and other distance running and did scuba diving in Fiji, off
Cozumel Island and the Dos Ojos (two eyes) springs connected by a scary
underground traverse north of Cancun, Mexico, as well as other sites in
California and Florida (from the panhandle to many springs mid-state down to
and including Key Largo). For the last four decades, I have lived in the Denver, Colorado area.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Speaking
of challenges making you stronger - about a decade ago, I was diagnosed with a
tumor in one of my kidneys. After a few hours of online research, it became
obvious to me that the best course of action was to remove the entire kidney,
rather than cut it up and possibly spread cancer cells throughout my abdomen.
As it turned out, I have been cancer free for a decade now, and choose to
attribute at least some of my good luck heatlhwise to my body’s reaction to
these stresses, which must have improved my immune system and ability to fight
off disease. Without the early detection of my kidney cancer from a routine
checkup, I may not have made the best decisions for my health, which I now call
<b><i>the blessing of a curable cancer</i></b>. </span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
</span>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">As
my rambling here comes to a close, let me heartily recommend Kuhn’s attached book
which so elegantly integrates the rationality of logic (simple, easy,
predictable) with the irrational, difficult and unpredictable – the essential
essence of creativity and the underrated <b><i>bad twin</i></b> of science and
health. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
</span>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
</span>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
</span>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Here
are the first two paragraphs from Kuhn’s preface - a profound addition to my
life from the attached pdf copy of<b><i> The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions:</i></b> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
</span><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Preface
</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
essay that follows is the first full published report on a project</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">originally
conceived almost fifteen years ago. At that time I was a</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">graduate
student in theoretical physics already within sight of the end</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">of
my dissertation. A fortunate involvement with an experimental</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">college
course treating physical science for the non-scientist provided</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">my
first exposure to the history of science. To my complete surprise, that</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">exposure
to out-of-date scientific theory and practice radically</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">undermined
some of my basic conceptions about the nature of science</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">and
the reasons for its special success.</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Those
conceptions were ones I had previously drawn partly from</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">scientific
training itself and partly from a long-standing avocational</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">interest
in the philosophy of science. Somehow, whatever their</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">pedagogic
utility and their abstract plausibility, those notions did not at</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">all
fit the enterprise that historical study displayed. Yet they were and</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">are
fundamental to many discussions of science, and their failures of</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">verisimilitude
therefore seemed thoroughly worth pursuing. The result</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">was
a drastic shift in my career plans, a shift from physics to history of</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">science
and then, gradually, from relatively straightforward historical</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">problems
back to the more philosophical concerns that had initially led</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">me
to history. Except for a few articles, this essay is the first of my</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">published
works in which these early concerns are dominant. In some</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">part
it is an attempt to explain to myself and to friends how I happened</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">to
be drawn from science to its history in the first place….</span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-11443918812545840352016-03-13T06:11:00.000-06:002016-04-30T09:54:45.813-06:00PJ O'ROURKE AND CRAIG'S COMMENTS<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">I have always liked PJ O’Rourke’s unashamed, radical writing,
combining both humor and criticizing the most serious duplicity of ALL
politicians and other government criminals, including their minions and
protected hangers-on. He has produced some of the best anti-establishment
writing that panders to freedom – NOT the insane politics of today’s thoroughly
corrupt American welfare/warfare state, while so many people (politely called
public servants) manage to keep straight faces after taking oaths to protect
and defend the Constitution. Even after 27 amendments, that magnificent (though
flawed) historical document still describes a government mostly limited to the
tasks of small government listed in its elegant Article I, Sections 7-10, plus
the following never-changed amendments:<span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Consider </span><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Amendment IX</span></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> (nine) - </span><b><i><span style="font-family: "calibri";">The enumeration
in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">...and </span><b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Amendment X</span></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> (ten) - </span><b><i><span style="font-family: "calibri";">The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">These and the other first ten amendments to the US
Constitution (called the </span><b><i><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Bill of Rights</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">) have remained unchanged
since their adoption in 1791 – and STILL limit the US government to a much, much
smaller one than the Federal behemoth with whom we struggle and so often
glorify today. As usual, the US military’s primary purpose is war, not defense
(Astronaut Jack Swigert quote, 1982). It’s good for military contractors’
businesses, but creates hell to pay for the economies participating in this
wealth-destroying charade. </span></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Here is PJ’s excellent article, with which I wholeheartedly
agree, though I don’t risk much in going farther than him after I present it:</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><a href="http://thecrux.com/p-j-orourke-two-lessons-ive-learned-in-46-years-of-covering-politics/" title="http://thecrux.com/p-j-orourke-two-lessons-ive-learned-in-46-years-of-covering-politics/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "calibri";">http://thecrux.com/p-j-orourke-two-lessons-ive-learned-in-46-years-of-covering-politics/</span></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
</span></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">It took me several years AFTER I ran for Congress in 1982
and 1984 to finally conclude that politics is - by far - the most dangerous,
dishonest and destructive profession by which any human ever soiled himself.
Every “free lunch” it provides is funded by forcing innocents to pay for the
insane, unaccountable lists of wet dreams promoted by politicians for their own
aggrandizement, limited prosecutable liability and glorification as heroes. As
you will see – the </span><b><i><span style="font-family: "calibri";">apparently legal</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">, political theft built up
over the last century has now shifted from a minority to a majority of voters
in our overblown, “don’t stop the presses” economy. It has thoroughly shifted
the balance of power in the US by giving American politicians a 60% to 40%
incentive to vote for more government, as I describe in </span><b><i><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Chapter 14</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
of my pending book, </span><b><i><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Lasting Liberty Lost</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">, attached. This can, and
will, have only one outcome, and it’s not good. As I have written before, the
US has gone from the world’s largest creditor to the world’s largest debtor in
the last four decades. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">No private burglar, bully, child molester, rapist or
murderer - not even those organized into mafias, crime syndicates and other
criminal organizations NOT protected and/or subsidized by government - has ever
come close to the unsavory escalation of crime, war, destruction and tyranny
that is the modern welfare/warfare state. In other words, most - perhaps all -
governments and their minions murder many, many times more than private parties
and organizations not subsidized or otherwise protected by government. The
twentieth century included the murder, torture, rape and/or death by starvation
of more than 100 million people, by just three countries (Soviet Union,
Communist China and Hitler’s Germany). Bernie Madoff’s well-publicized
multi-BILLION dollar fraud to his investors was a drop in the bucket compared
to tens of thousands of American governments who LEGALLY enjoy this plunder,
protected from legal liability in most cases. The US alone suffered more than
400,000 casualties in the WW II.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties" title="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "calibri";">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties</span></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff" title="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "calibri";">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff</span></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">That is why you might be surprised, even shocked, by my last
two paragraphs. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Steven Pinker’s magnificent book </span><b><i><span style="font-family: "calibri";">The Better Angels of
our Nature</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> documents the following claim in painstaking detail.
Surprisingly (contrary to all media reporting), today’s Planet Earth (including
America) is by far the LEAST violent period of human history, after World War
II (1941-45) and the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962). The destructive policies of
the twentieth century were well-established long before top-of-the-world 20</span><sup><span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: x-small;">th</span></sup><span style="font-family: "calibri";">-century
dictators like US President Franklin Roosevelt and his cohorts Stalin and Mao
took up the task. My friend Jerry recently turned me onto Pinker’s wonderful
book, which shattered my long-held illusions about how today’s human societies
have been the least violent. Ironically, the ongoing and insistent overreach of
modern welfare/warfare states has wreaked havoc in every corner of our lives for
political (i.e., ever-fraudulent and coercive) goals, including taxing and
regulating us into lifetimes of tyranny, taxes and too-early deaths. Randolph
Bourne (quoted below) and General von Clausewitz understood why, but you may
not. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Mankind will find, as it has found in our lifetimes and long
before we were born, a better way to “govern”, “regulate” or “help” its
unfortunate victims than to torture, starve and bludgeon them into slavery,
death, wealth destruction and economic collapse. Ironically, the detonation of
two terrible atomic bombs in Japan a month before I was born was the LAST time
the Grand Old US of A followed its Constitution by declaring war before
dropping troops, bombs and inflated currencies into every backwater tyrant’s
backyard. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">War is the Health of the State</span></span></i></b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> –
Randolph Bourne (1918)</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><a href="http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/" title="http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "calibri";">http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/</span></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">War is politics carried on by other means</span></span></i></b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> –
Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz (1812)</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1946/1946-h/1946-h.htm" title="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1946/1946-h/1946-h.htm"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "calibri";">http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1946/1946-h/1946-h.htm</span></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-18019743135052083442016-01-02T06:04:00.001-07:002016-01-02T06:20:23.357-07:00THE DEMAND WIZARD<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 16.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">by James Craig Green</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">How Free Trade Increases Value</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">My friends and colleagues </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Paul Prentice</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> and </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Penn Pfiffner</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> are professional economists. They
were both Senior Fellows at Colorado's </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Independence Institute when they developed </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">their </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Free People, Free Markets</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> courses several
years ago. Paul, still a senior fellow in Colorado Springs, teaches a three
hour version of the course, and Penn, in the Denver metro area (no longer
affiliated with II) teaches a longer version.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I have taken both courses twice now, and learned something new
each time. I last took Penn's course on two consecutive Saturdays in Longmont,
Colorado in 2011, and originally took his 4-week course in 2007. I have also
gone to Colorado Springs twice now to see Paul's "Three Hour Tour"
(Independence Institute President Jon Caldara calls it the "One Night
Stand").<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">One of the most interesting features of their courses is a
segment called the </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Demand Wizard</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. It reveals an elegant insight into
market economics most people never think about, even longtime advocates of free
market economics. It can be a struggle to explain how markets work, especially
to those who think government should heavily regulate them. The Demand Wizard
makes it easier to understand.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">As shown in the following YouTube video, Penn Pfiffner plays the
part of the omniscient (all-knowing) </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Demand Wizard</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> who attempts to allocate wealth to improve the economy. The
demonstration begins with four food products (coke, chips, cookies and yogurt),
each of which sells in stores for about the same price. The Wizard hands out
one of these things to each student in the class. This unique demonstration
illustrates the variation and importance of each person's subjective opinion of
value and its contribution to an objective market value (about which too many
economists haven't got a clue). If the links have changed, or otherwise don’t
work, enter either </span><span style="color: #00b050; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Penn Pfiffner
Demand Wizard</span><span style="color: #00b050; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">”</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> into your search
engine, or for Paul’s video (next page), </span><span style="color: #00b050; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Paul Prentice Demand Wizard</span><span style="color: #00b050; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">”</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBSn00GZunA"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="color: #cc6611;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBSn00GZunA</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(<span style="color: #222222;">Penn Pfiffner 4 minutes)</span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">As the famous Austrian economist </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Ludwig von
Mises</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> pointed out in</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-themecolor: text1;">
</span><i><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-themecolor: text1;">Human Action</span></u></i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, each person places a subjective
value on everything he wants or uses, which is unique to him and varies with
time, place and conditions. For example, when you are at home, a glass of water
costs you practically nothing, because your monthly water bill may be less than
a penny per gallon. However, if you are at a sporting event or concert, you may
pay two or three dollars for a small bottle of water. If you were extremely
thirsty and a store was not convenient, you would gladly pay more. This concept
is at the heart of millions of sales and purchases each day that comprise the
American - and World – economies when prices are allowed to change with
variable supplies and demands, as</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-themecolor: text1;">
previously </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">discussed in Chapters 2, 4 and 6.<br />
<br />
</span><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Demand Wizard Results</span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
<br />
As you can see from Penn's video, when the Demand Wizard selects which products
each member of the class received, the total value of this mini-economy was 25
units, based on each class member assigning a relative value from 1 (least
preferable) to 4 (most preferable) for each of the four products handed out.
This ranking is done prior to the re-allocation of the same products based on
free trade among class members (representing the dynamics of market economies)
according to their different (subjective) individual preferences.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">After class members were allowed to trade the items, the total
value of the class economy almost doubled to 47 units. This is but a small,
simple example of the awesome power of markets to satisfy people's desires
without forcing other people to pay for them. It is important that this overall
increase in total (subjective) value occurred without any new production of
goods and services; only their more-efficient distribution by a voluntary
market process from the Win-Win transactions between traders acting in their
own self-interest.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Paul
Prentice</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> also presents the </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Demand
Wizard</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> exercise in his classes, with
similar results, though the numbers vary from class to class. Please note this
simple example involves only four products, contrasted with the large number of
economic decisions people make every day. It was Paul who first brought the
Demand Wizard concept to the FPFM classes. Also, the increased wealth from this
example does not consider increased production and innovation from profit incentives
and the freedom to pursue them – further market benefits not shown here.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In this three minute video…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87-W7NO5E3E"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="color: #cc6611;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87-W7NO5E3E</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(Paul Prentice 3 minutes) </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">…from a presentation at the </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Independence
Institute</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, Dr. Prentice
explains the connection between property rights and human liberty, which
counters popular arguments that they are contrary to each other.</span><br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 107%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Objective (Market) Value from Individual Subjective Values</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Demand Wizard demonstrates an important principle that few
people understand, including a lot of economists. From the subjective,
individual, whimsical </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">choices made by <span style="color: #222222;">many
people, a market develops - a voluntary collective in which each person trades
by his own whims and temporary choices. But, the collective action of many such
choices produces an objective value that is measurable and produces a permanent
record that can be seen by anyone. That is the "market price" of any
given product, service or commodity at any given time. The stock market is an
example. So is a store that sells anything. When demand falls off, the store
owner may lower the price, even below his cost if necessary to get rid of
inventory that is </span>not selling. <span style="color: #222222;">When demand
picks up, he may raise prices again. These prices are the objective value of
something or things in a market, integrating hundreds or thousands of
subjective individual decisions. They may remain constant for long periods of
time, or they may vary each hour or day, depending on the changing supplies and
demands that produce changing prices. Ebay auctions are excellent examples of
rapidly-changing prices among many different bidders.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This is something no Commissar or other pretend Demand Wizard
can possibly do, because no one has the complete knowledge necessary to make timely,
self-interested decisions for someone else. However, politicians, lobbyists,
regulatory agencies and other special interest groups daily make deals,
supposedly in your interest, but always in their own. This process cannot
possibly produce a better outcome than having individuals or voluntary groups
make their own decisions each day about what to buy and what not </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">to buy or
trade with their own money or other resources. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Simply stated, the complex dynamics of individual economic
choices cannot be modeled in all its complexity and uncertainty. This is why,
though some economists have better track records than others, no one can predict
future prices, supplies or demands without some error, due to the subjective
nature of individual opinions of value. Although the collective results of
these individual subjective opinions of value can be recorded and expressed as
historical data, their repetition cannot be accurately predicted with reliable
certainty. This is why the most successful investors, buyers and sellers of all
goods and services must hedge their bets with contingency plans for altering
projections based on comparing recorded historical results with actual
performance, which may change rapidly. Businessmen and other free traders
produce net positive wealth by making timely changes </span><span style="color: #00b050; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">to</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> their plans in response to market </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-themecolor: text1;">fluctuations. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Businessmen who
fail to respond to these responses are more likely to fail.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Unfortunately, these choices are denied by government for its
services, imposed on society by force of law and the threat of jail for
non-compliance. It almost always results in less overall value than the
individuals whose personal assets are at risk, such that they have an incentive
for changing their opinions of value frequently to conform to post-transaction
realities.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">It is the denial of individual choices and the lack of personal
involvement (risk of loss) in goods and services that creates the</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-themecolor: text1;"> oppressive </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">damage government does to economies in the name of the nebulous </span><span style="color: #00b050; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">public interest”. It is naive to
believe that 1) politicians have your best interest as their primary goal and
2) that they and their so-called "experts" armed with Keynesian
economics or other collective fantasies can know how to allocate goods and
services with any precision, timeliness or accuracy. A lifetime of applied
Keynesian theory by government has resulted in unprecedented, unsustainable
public debt (including unfunded liabilities) between 50 and 120 Trillion
Dollars, as discussed in Chapters 1-3.</span></div>
<br />Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-70943693114926559392015-12-28T07:01:00.000-07:002015-12-28T07:31:44.486-07:00HOW SUBJECTIVE VALUE BECOMES OBJECTIVE VALUE<strong><em>by James Craig Green</em></strong><br />
<br />
Alternative title "Adventures of the Demand Wizard?"<br />
<br />
The value that every person places on a particular transaction or decision not to transact is completely subjective, as the great Austrian Economist Ludwig von Mises said. Also, it is very fleeting. Before explaining this however, I'd like to introduce you to two of my kindred spirits.<br />
<br />
My friends Paul Prentice and Penn Pfiffner, both Senior Fellows at the Independence Institute, teach classes to students for which this blog was named. These classes are called <strong><em>Free People, Free Markets</em></strong>, emphasizing the importance of markets in producing useful goods and services, which led to an email list of alumni of those classes. This blog was created to encourage discussion of issues among course alumni and others, but so far, it has been a place for me to expound on my free market views.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting features in Paul's and Penn's classes is their presentation of the <strong><em>Demand Wizard</em></strong>.<br />
<br />
Paul and Penn dress up like a wizard, complete with hat and magic wand, and bestow generous benefits on each member of the class. Four items are available, like chips, soft drinks, cookies or bottled water, which comprise a sample economy. <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em><u>Step 1 - The Wizard Allocates</u></em></strong><br />
<br />
The wizard, in his infinite wisdom, hands out one item to each person. This begins a process in which the overall value of the items is increased without adding or subtracting any of them from the economy.<br />
<br />
Each member of the class is asked to value the four items available on a scale of 1 through 4. For example, you assign a value of 1 to the item you would least like to have, 2 to the next least valuable item, 3 for the next get a bag of cookies, but you would prefer to have any of the other items than the cookies, then you assign it a value of 1. If <br />
<br />
<strong><em><u>Step 2 - The Market Allocates</u></em></strong><br />
<br />
If you are hungry for sweets, you would value the cookies or soft drink over the chips. However, if you were thirsty, you might make another choice, maybe bottled water. So, von Mises' subjective value not only varies from person to person, but from minute to minute within thee person. This may be profound, but is only half the story.<br />
<br />
From the subjective, individual, whimsical choices by many people in contact with each other, you begin to have a market - a voluntary collective in which each person trades by his own whims, but the collective action of many such choices produces an OBJECTIVE value. That is the "market price" of any given commodity at any given time. The stock market is an example. So is a store that sells anything. When demand falls off, the store owner lowers the price, even below his cost if necessary to get rid of inventory that is not moving. When demand picks up, he may rise the prices again. These prices are the objective value of some thing or things in a market. They may remain constant for long periods of time, or they may vary each day, depending on the supplies and demands that produce changing prices.<br />
<br />
This connection between subjective, even whimsical, fleeting value for a person creates an objective value, which is the integration of many transactions.<br />
<br />
Value, in its various forms, is the essence of markets and the freedom they produce, along with the protection they can provide if people take seriously their responsibility to make decisions. Government "freebies," as well as restrictions, reduce the need to make decisions; producing sloth, dependency, lack of initiative and defense of the status quo. <br />
<br />
This is just as true for "justice" or "law" as it is for the price of widgets.Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-479230627108731552015-02-24T15:30:00.000-07:002015-11-24T07:19:30.604-07:00THE LAW excerpts<br />
<strong><em>Title, introductory notes and excerpts selected by James Craig Green</em></strong><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: large;">Excerpts
from THE LAW by Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850):<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: large;">1998 version
by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: large;">PDF file available as a free download from FEE
(</span><a href="http://www.fee.org/"><span style="font-size: large;">www.fee.org</span></a><span style="font-size: large;">)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><o:p><a href="http://fee.org/library/detail/the-law-3"><span style="font-size: large;">http://fee.org/library/detail/the-law-3</span></a><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: large;">Forward by Walter Williams</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: large;">Introduction by Richard Ebeling</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: large;">Introductory Bastiat quotes selected by James Craig Green
(craig@waterwind.com):<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Life,
liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary,
it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused
men to make laws in the first place…</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span></i><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The
Law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the
substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is
to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to
protect persons, liberties and properties; to maintain the right of each, and
to cause justice to reign over us all.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span></i><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">If a
nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail
among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a
nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited,
non-oppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable – whatever its political
form might be…</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span></i><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">It
can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private
affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a
logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction
before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of
rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see
the great displacements of capital, labor and population that are caused by
legislative decisions.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span></i><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The
sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these
state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government
with increased responsibilities…</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span></i><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">But,
unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And
when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some
inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it
has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to
destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that
it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real
purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal
of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty and
property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect
plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish
lawful defense…<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Property and Plunder</span></i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Man
can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless
application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin
of property.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span></i><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">But
it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and
consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of
plunder. </span></i><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Now
since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain – and since labor is pain itself
– it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than
work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither
religion nor morality can stop it.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span></i><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">When,
then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more
dangerous than labor. It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of the law
is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to
plunder instead of work… All the measures of the law should protect property
and punish plunder.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span></i><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">But,
generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot
operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must
be entrusted to those who make the laws. <o:p></o:p></span></span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">This
fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to
satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal
perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of
checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to
understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees
among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their
liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the
benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power he
holds.<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Men
naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when
plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the
plundered classes try somehow to enter – by peaceful or revolutionary means –
into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these
plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they
attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder,
or they may wish to share in it.<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Woe
to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of
lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! </span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Until
that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice
where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few
persons. But then, participating in the making of law becomes universal. And
then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder.
Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these
injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they
establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish
legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they
possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in
this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests. </span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span></i><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">It
is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to
suffer a cruel retribution – some for their evilness, and some for their lack
of understanding.<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></div>
Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-86921736591545046792014-09-20T08:34:00.001-06:002014-09-21T04:46:28.706-06:00KARL POPPER - Philosopher of Science<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">by James Craig Green</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Karl Popper (1902-1994) has become one of my favorite philosophers, because he dared to challenge the orthodoxy that so often permeates all fields of knowledge, including science itself and especially, popular examples of pseudo-science such as socialism, Marxism and today's angry, destructive obsession with political correctness.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I continue to be amazed at how many of my free market heroes started out flirting with, and then abandoned, Marxism and other forms of socialism, like Ayn Rand, Rose Wilder Lane, and Karl Popper.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I will begin with a link to a three-page bio of Popper, from which I have chosen some excerpts, copied below. I have added bold type, some of which is in italics and underlined, to emphasize what I consider to be some of Popper's particularly profound insights.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<a href="http://trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/popper.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">http://trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/popper.html</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Craig Green</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">EXCERPTS from Popper bio:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of this century. He was also a social and political philosopher of considerable stature, a self-professed `critical-rationalist', a dedicated opponent of all forms of skepticism, conventionalism, and relativism in science and in human affairs generally, a committed advocate and staunch defender of the `Open Society', and an implacable critic of totalitarianism in all of its forms. One of the many remarkable features of Popper's thought is the scope of his intellectual influence. In the modern technological and highly-specialised world scientists are rarely aware of the work of philosophers; it is virtually unprecedented to find them queuing up, as they have done in Popper's case, to testify to the enormously practical beneficial impact which that philosophical work has had upon their own...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">1919 was in many aspects the most important formative year of his intellectual life. In that year, he became heavily involved in left-wing politics, joined the Association of Socialist School Students, and became for a time a Marxist. However, he was quickly disillusioned with the doctrinaire character of the latter, and soon abandoned it entirely.... <strong><em><u>The dominance of the critical spirit in Einstein, and its total absence in Marx, Freud and Adler, struck Popper as being of fundamental importance: the latter, he came to think, couched their theories in terms which made them amenable only to confirmation, while Einstein's theory, crucially, had testable implications which, if false, would have falsified the theory itself</u></em></strong>... (emphasis added by Craig)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">...The principle objective of the members of the Circle was to unify the sciences, which carried with it, in their view, the need to eliminate metaphysics once and for all by showing that metaphysical propositions are meaningless. Thus was born the movement in philosophy known as logical positivism, and its chief tool became the verification principle... Popper was heavily critical of the main tenets of logical positivism, especially of what he considered to be its misplaced focus on the theory of meaning in philosophy and upon verification in scientific methodology. He articulated his own view of science, and his criticisms of the positivists, in his first work, published under the title of <strong><em>Logik der Forschung</em></strong> in 1934. The book - which he was later to claim rang the death knell for logical positivism - attracted more attention than Popper had anticipated, and he was invited to lecture in England in 1935. He spent the next few years working productively in science and philosophy, but storm clouds were gathering - the growth of Nazism in Germany and Austria compelled him, like many other intellectuals who shared his Jewish origins, to leave his native country.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">...In 1946 he moved to England to teach at the London School of Economics, and became professor of logic and scientific method at the University of London in 1949. From this point on Popper's reputation and stature as a philosopher of science and social thinker grew enormously, and he continued to write prolifically - a number of his works, particularly The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), are now universally accepted as classics in the field. He was knighted in 1965, and retired from the University of London in 1969, though he remained active as a writer, broadcaster and lecturer until his death in 1994.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">END OF EXCERPTS</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Two links follow, with more detail about Popper's revolutionary philosophy and logic. I cannot overemphasize the importance of Popper's work, which so completely destroyed the irrational bias and duplicity of many modern attempts to describe personal belief as "scientific."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">SCIENCE AS FALSIFICATION:</span><br />
<a href="http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">(excellent 7-page expansion and clarification of introductory article)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">And...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Wikipedia Article on Karl Popper:</span><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<br />Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-33673738218313638052014-05-22T13:12:00.001-06:002014-06-01T07:39:33.476-06:00THE DEATH OF POLITICS - EXCERPTSby Karl Hess (published in Playboy Magazine in 1969)<br />
<br />
Highlights in <strong><em>bold type</em></strong> selected by James Craig Green<br />
(see my full text blog in link below)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-death-of-politics.html">The Death of Politics by Karl Hess (full version)</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Libertarianism
is the view that <strong><em>each man is the absolute owner of his life</em></strong>, to use and dispose
of as he sees fit: that all man's social actions should be voluntary: and that
respect for every other man's similar and equal ownership of life and, by
extension, the property and fruits of that life is the ethical basis of a
humane and open society. In this view,<strong><em> the only</em></strong> — repeat, <em><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">only</span></em> — <strong><em>function of law or
government is to provide</em></strong> the sort of <strong><em>self-defense against violence</em></strong> that an
individual, if he were powerful enough, would provide for himself...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Libertarianism
is rejected by the <strong><em>modern Left</em></strong> — which <strong><em>preaches individualism but practices
collectivism</em></strong>. <strong><em>Capitalism is rejected by the modern Right</em></strong> — which preaches
enterprise but practices protectionism. The <strong><em>libertarian faith in the mind of
men is rejected by religionists</em></strong> who have faith only in the sins of man. The
libertarian insistence that men be free to spin cables of steel, as well as
dreams of smoke, is rejected by hippies who adore nature but spurn creation.
The libertarian insistence <strong><em>that each man is a sovereign land of liberty, with
his primary allegiance to himself, is rejected by patriots who sing of freedom
but also shout of banners and boundaries</em></strong>. There is no operating movement in the
world today that is based upon a libertarian philosophy. If there were, it
would be in the anomalous position of using political power to abolish
political power...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Once
the power of the community becomes in any sense normative, rather than merely
protective, <strong><em>it is difficult to see where any lines may be drawn to limit
further transgressions against individual freedom</em></strong>. In fact, the lines have not
been drawn. <strong><em>They will never be drawn by political parties</em></strong> that argue merely the
cost of programs or institutions <strong><em>founded on state power</em></strong>. Actually, the lines
can be drawn only by a radical questioning of power itself, and by the
libertarian vision that sees man as capable of moving on without the
<strong><em>encumbering luggage of laws and politics</em></strong> that do not merely preserve man's
right to his life but attempt, in addition, to tell him how to live it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">For
many conservatives, the bad dream that haunts their lives and their political
position (which many sum up as "law and order" these days) is one of
riot. To my knowledge, there is no limit that conservatives would place upon
the power of the state to suppress riots...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">The
most incredible convolution in the thinking that attacked Goldwater as
reactionary — which he isn't — rather than radical — which he is — came in
regard to nuclear weapons. In that area he was specifically damned for daring
to propose that the control of these weapons be shared, and even fully placed,
in the multinational command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, rather
than left to the personal, one-man discretion of the president of the United
States...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">To
return to the point: the most vital question today about politics — not in
politics — is the same sort of question that is plaguing Christianity.
Superficially, <strong><em>the Christian question seems simply what kind of religion should
be chosen</em></strong>. But basically, <strong><em>the question is whether any irrational or mystical
forces are supportable, as a way to order society, in a world increasingly able
and ready to be rational</em></strong>. The political version of the question may be stated
this way: Will men continue to submit to rule by politics, which has always
meant the power of some men over other men, or are we ready to go it alone
socially, in communities of voluntarism, in a world more economic and cultural
than political, just as so many now are prepared to go it alone metaphysically
in a world more of reason than religion?<br />
<br />
The radical and revolutionary answer that a libertarian, laissez-faire position
makes to that question is not quite anarchy. <strong><em>The libertarian, laissez-faire
movement is</em></strong>, actually, if embarrassingly for some, <strong><em>a civil-rights movement</em></strong>. But
it is antipolitical, in that <strong><em>it builds diversified power to be protected
against government</em></strong>, even to dispense with government to a major degree, <strong><em>rather
than seeking power to protect government</em></strong> or to perform any special social
purpose.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">The big
businessmen who operate the major broadcast networks are not known for
suggesting, as a laissez-faire concept would insist, that competition for
channels and audiences be wide open and unregulated. As a consequence, of course,
<strong><em>the networks get all the government control that they deserve</em></strong>, accepting it in
good cheer because, even if censored, they are also protected from competition...
<br />
<br />
In short, <strong><em>there is no evidence whatever that modern conservatives subscribe to
the "your-life-is-your-own" philosophy upon which libertarianism is
founded</em></strong>. An interesting illustration that conservatism not only disagrees with
libertarianism but is downright hostile to it is that the most widely known
libertarian author of the day, Miss Ayn Rand, ranks only a bit below, or
slightly to the side of, Leonid Brezhnev as an object of diatribe in National
Review. Specifically, it seems, she is reviled on the Right because she is an
atheist, daring to take exception to the National Review notion that man's
basically evil nature (stemming from original sin) means he must be held in
check by a strong and authoritarian social order...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"><strong><em>Governments
wage war</em></strong>. The power of life that they may claim in running hospitals or feeding
the poor is just the mirror image of the power of death that they also claim —
in filling those hospitals with wounded and in devastating lands on which food
could be grown. "But man is aggressive," Right and Left chant from
the depths of their pessimism. And, to be sure, he is. But if he were left
alone, if he were not regulated into states or services, wouldn't that
aggression be directed toward conquering his environment, and not other men?<br />
<br />
At another warlike level, it is the choice of aggression, against politically
perpetuated environment more than against men, that marks the racial strife in
America today. <strong><em>Conservatives</em></strong>, in one of their favorite lapses of logic —
states' rights — <strong><em>nourished modern American racism by supporting laws,
particularly in Southern states, that gave the state the power to force
businessmen to build segregated facilities</em></strong>. (Many businessmen, to be sure,
wanted to be "forced," thus giving their racism the seal of state
approval.)...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"><strong><em>Power
and authority, as substitutes for performance and rational thought, are the
specters that haunt the world today</em></strong>. They are the ghosts of awed and
superstitious yesterdays. And politics is their familiar. Politics, throughout
time, has been an institutionalized denial of man's ability to survive through
the exclusive employment of all his own powers for his own welfare. And
<strong><em>politics, throughout time, has existed solely through the resources that it has
been able to plunder from the creative and productive people whom it has</em></strong>, in
the name of many causes and moralities, <strong><em>denied the exclusive employment of all
their own powers for their own welfare</em></strong>.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Ultimately, this must mean that politics denies the rational nature of man</em></strong>.
Ultimately, it means that politics is just another form of residual magic in our
culture — a belief that somehow things come from nothing; that things may be
given to some without first taking them from others; that all the tools of
man's survival are his by accident or divine right and not by pure and simple
inventiveness and work.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Politics has always been the institutionalized and established way in which
some men have exercised the power to live off the output of other men</em></strong>. But even
in a world made docile to these demands, men do not need to live by devouring
other men.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Politics does devour men</em></strong>. A laissez-faire world would liberate men. And it is
in that sort of liberation that the most profound revolution of all may be just
beginning to stir. It will not happen overnight, just as the lamps of
rationalism were not quickly lighted and have not yet burned brightly. But it
will happen — because it must happen. Man can survive in an inclement universe
only through the use of his mind. His thumbs, his nails, his muscles, and his
mysticism will not be enough to keep him alive without it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br />
Karl Hess (1923–1994) was an American national-level speechwriter and author.
His career included stints on the Republican Right and the New Left before he
became a libertarian anarchist. The documentary film <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-574553336386396499"><span style="color: #222222; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Karl Hess:
Toward Liberty</span></a> won the Academy Award for best short documentary in
1981. See Karl Hess's <a href="http://mises.org/daily/author/1350/Karl-Hess"><span style="color: #222222; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">article archives</span></a>.</span>Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-68997031301131555052014-03-24T07:29:00.000-06:002014-06-01T08:29:18.712-06:00THE DEATH OF POLITICSby <strong><em>Karl Hess III</em></strong>, originally published in <strong><em>Playboy Magazine</em></strong> in March 1969<br />
<br />
INTRODUCTION BY CRAIG GREEN:<br />
<br />
I met Karl Hess a couple of years after joining the Colorado Libertarian Party in 1980. I was immediately taken by the elegance of the Libertarian Party platform, but more than this, the libertarian philosophy of Free Minds and Free Markets. But, I was very skeptical on some positions at first, so I volunteered to take over monthly discussion groups, which lasted four years. To say this changed my life is an understatement...<br />
<br />
As you will see from Karl's Magnum Opus (in my opinion) below, he covered the wide range of American political thought, and especially concentrated more on the similarities between Democrats and Republicans, rather than their pitifully small differences. Both major parties in American politics promote the superiority of the State above that of the individual, contrary to the ideas of America's Founders.<br />
<br />
Here is the best introduction to (small-l) libertarianism I have ever read or heard...<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Death of Politics</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
<div class="meta">
<strong>Mises Daily:</strong> Friday, October 16, 2009 by <a href="http://mises.org/daily/author/1350/Karl-Hess" rel="author">Karl Hess</a> </div>
<div class="meta">
</div>
<div class="meta">
[Originally published in <em>Playboy</em>, March 1969, this article was made available for the web by David Schatz and <a href="http://fare.tunes.org/">François-René Rideau</a>.]</div>
<div class="meta">
</div>
<div class="meta">
<a href="http://mises.org/daily/3768/The-Death-of-Politics">http://mises.org/daily/3768/The-Death-of-Politics</a><br />
</div>
<div class="meta">
</div>
This is not a time of radical, revolutionary politics. Not yet. Unrest, riot, dissent, and chaos notwithstanding, today's politics is reactionary. Both Left and Right are reactionary and authoritarian. That is to say, both are political. They seek only to revise current methods of acquiring and wielding political power. Radical and revolutionary movements seek not to revise but to revoke. The target of revocation should be obvious. The target is politics itself.<br />
<br />
Radicals and revolutionaries have had their sights trained on politics for some time. As governments fail around the world, as more millions become aware that government never has and never can humanely and effectively manage men's affairs, government's own inadequacy will emerge, at last, as the basis for a truly radical and revolutionary movement. In the meantime, the radical-revolutionary position is a lonely one. It is feared and hated, by both Right and Left — although both Right and Left must borrow from it to survive. The radical-revolutionary position is libertarianism, and its socioeconomic form is laissez-faire capitalism.<br />
<br />
Libertarianism is the view that each man is the absolute owner of his life, to use and dispose of as he sees fit: that all man's social actions should be voluntary: and that respect for every other man's similar and equal ownership of life and, by extension, the property and fruits of that life is the ethical basis of a humane and open society. In this view, the only — repeat, <em>only</em> — function of law or government is to provide the sort of self-defense against violence that an individual, if he were powerful enough, would provide for himself.<br />
<br />
If it were not for the fact that libertarianism freely concedes the right of men voluntarily to form communities or governments on the same ethical basis, libertarianism could be called anarchy.<br />
<br />
Libertarianism is rejected by the modern Left — which preaches individualism but practices collectivism. Capitalism is rejected by the modern Right — which preaches enterprise but practices protectionism. The libertarian faith in the mind of men is rejected by religionists who have faith only in the sins of man. The libertarian insistence that men be free to spin cables of steel, as well as dreams of smoke, is rejected by hippies who adore nature but spurn creation. The libertarian insistence that each man is a sovereign land of liberty, with his primary allegiance to himself, is rejected by patriots who sing of freedom but also shout of banners and boundaries. There is no operating movement in the world today that is based upon a libertarian philosophy. If there were, it would be in the anomalous position of using political power to abolish political power.<br />
<br />
Perhaps a regular political movement, overcoming this anomaly will actually develop. Believe it or not, there were strong possibilities of such a development in the 1964 campaign of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater">Barry Goldwater</a>. Underneath the scary headlines, Goldwater hammered away at such purely political structures as the draft, general taxation, censorship, nationalism, legislated conformity, political establishment of social norms, and war as an instrument of international policy.<br />
<br />
It is true that, in a common political paradox, Goldwater (a major general in the Air Force Reserve) has spoken of reducing state power while at the same time advocating the increase of state power to fight the Cold War. He is not a pacifist. He believes that war remains an acceptable state action. He does not see the Cold War as involving US imperialism. He sees it as a result only of Soviet imperialism. Time after time, however, he has said that economic pressure, diplomatic negotiation, and the persuasions of propaganda (or "cultural warfare") are absolutely preferable to violence. He has also said that antagonistic ideologies can "never be beaten by bullets, but only by better ideas."<br />
<br />
A defense of Goldwater cannot be carried too far, however. His domestic libertarian tendencies simply do not carry over into his view of foreign policy. Libertarianism, unalloyed, is absolutely isolationist, in that it is absolutely opposed to the institutions of national government that are the only agencies on earth now able to wage war or intervene in foreign affairs.<br />
<br />
In other campaign issues, however, the libertarian coloration in the Goldwater complexion was more distinct. The fact that he roundly rapped the fiscal irresponsibility of Social Security before an elderly audience, and the fact that he criticized the TVA in Tennessee were not examples of political naïveté. They simply showed Goldwater's high disdain for politics itself, summed up in his campaign statement that people should be told "what they need to hear and not what they want to hear."<br />
<br />
There was also some suggestion of libertarianism in the campaign of Eugene McCarthy, in his splendid attacks on presidential power. However, these were canceled out by his vague but nevertheless perceptible defense of government power in general. There was virtually no suggestion of libertarianism in the statements of any other politicians during last year's campaign.<br />
<br />
I was a speechwriter for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 campaign. During the campaign, I recall very clearly, there was a moment, at a conference to determine the campaign's "farm strategy," when a respected and very conservative senator arose to say, "Barry, you've got to make it clear that you believe that the American farmer has a right to a decent living."<br />
<br />
Senator Goldwater replied, with the tact for which he is renowned, "But he doesn't have a right to it. Neither do I. We just have a right to try for it." And that was the end of that.<br />
<br />
Now, in contrast, take <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hayden">Tom Hayden</a> of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Writing in <em>The Radical Papers</em>, he said that his "revolution" sought "institutions outside the established order." One of those institutions, he amplified, would be "people's own antipoverty organizations fighting for Federal money."<br />
<br />
Of the two men, which is radical or revolutionary? Hayden says, in effect, that he simply wants to bulldoze his way into the establishment. Goldwater says he wants, in effect, to topple it, to forever end its power to advantage or disadvantage anyone.<br />
<br />
This is not to defend the Goldwater campaign as libertarian. It is only to say that his campaign contained a healthy element of this sort of radicalism. But otherwise, the Goldwater campaign was very deeply in hock to regular partisan interests, images, myths, and manners.<br />
<br />
In foreign policy, particularly, there arises a great impediment to the emergence of a libertarian wing in either of the major political parties. Men who call upon the end of state authority in every other area insist upon its being maintained to build a war machine with which to hold the Communists at bay. It is only lately that the imperatives of logic — and the emergence of antistatist forces in Eastern Europe — have begun to make it more acceptable to ask whether the garrison state needed to maintain the Cold War might not be as bad as or worse than the putative threat being guarded against. Goldwater has not taken and may never take such a revisionist line — but, among Cold Warriors, his disposition to libertarian principles makes him more susceptible than most.<br />
<br />
This is not merely a digression on behalf of a political figure (almost an <em>anti</em>political figure) whom I profoundly respect. It is, rather, to emphasize the inadequacy of traditional, popular guidelines in assessing the reactionary nature of contemporary politics and in divining the true nature of radical and revolutionary antipolitics. Political parties and politicians today — all parties and all politicians — question only the forms through which they will express their common belief in controlling the lives of others. Power, particularly majoritarian or collective power (i.e., the power of an elite exercised in the name of the masses), is the god of the modern liberal. Its only recent innovative change is to suggest that the elite be leavened by the compulsory membership of authentic representatives of the masses. The current phrase is "participatory democracy."<br />
<br />
Just as power is the god of the modern liberal, God remains the authority of the modern conservative. Liberalism practices regimentation by, simply, regimentation. Conservatism practices regimentation by, not quite so simply, revelation. But regimented or revealed, the name of the game is still politics.<br />
The great flaw in conservatism is a deep fissure down which talk of freedom falls, to be dashed to death on the rocks of authoritarianism. Conservatives worry that the state has too much power over people. But it was conservatives who gave the state that power. It was conservatives, very similar to today's conservatives, who ceded to the state the power to produce not simply order in the community but <em>a certain kind of order</em>.<br />
<br />
It was European conservatives who, apparently fearful of the openness of the Industrial Revolution (why, <em>anyone</em> could get rich!), struck the first blows at capitalism by encouraging and accepting laws that made the disruptions of innovation and competition less frequent and eased the way for the comforts and collusions of cartelization.<br />
<br />
Big business in America today and for some years has been openly at war with competition and, thus, at war with laissez-faire capitalism. Big business supports a form of state capitalism in which government and big business act as partners. Criticism of this statist bent of big business comes more often from the Left than from the Right these days, and this is another factor making it difficult to tell the players apart. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kenneth_Galbraith">John Kenneth Galbraith</a>, for instance, has most recently taken big business to task for its anticompetitive mentality. The Right, meantime, blissfully defends big business as though it had not, in fact, become just the sort of bureaucratic, authoritarian force that rightists reflexively attack when it is governmental.<br />
<br />
The Left's attack on corporate capitalism is, when examined, an attack on economic forms possible only in collusion between authoritarian government and bureaucratized, nonentrepreneurial business. It is unfortunate that many New Leftists are so uncritical as to accept this premise as indicating that all forms of capitalism are bad, so that full state ownership is the only alternative. This thinking has its mirror image on the Right.<br />
<br />
It was American conservatives, for instance, who very early in the game gave up the fight against state franchising and regulation and, instead, embraced state regulation for their own special advantage. Conservatives today continue to revere the state as an instrument of chastisement even as they reject it as an instrument of beneficence. The conservative who wants a federally authorized prayer in the classroom is the same conservative who objects to federally authorized textbooks in the same room.<br />
<br />
Murray Rothbard, <a href="http://mises.org/daily/1842">writing in <em>Ramparts</em></a>, has summed up this flawed conservatism in describing a<br />
<blockquote>
<div class="quote-in">
new younger generation of rightists, of "conservatives" … who thought that the real problem of the modern world was nothing so ideological as the state <em>vs.</em> individual liberty or government intervention <em>vs.</em> the free market; the real problem, they declared, was the preservation of tradition, order, Christianity and good manners against the modern sins of reason, license, atheism, and boorishness.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
The reactionary tendencies of both liberals and conservatives today show clearly in their willingness to cede, to the state or the community, power far beyond the protection of liberty against violence. For differing purposes, both see the state as an instrument not protecting man's freedom but either instructing or restricting how that freedom is to be used.<br />
<br />
Once the power of the community becomes in any sense normative, rather than merely protective, it is difficult to see where any lines may be drawn to limit further transgressions against individual freedom. In fact, the lines have not been drawn. They will never be drawn by political parties that argue merely the cost of programs or institutions founded on state power. Actually, the lines can be drawn only by a radical questioning of power itself, and by the libertarian vision that sees man as capable of moving on without the encumbering luggage of laws and politics that do not merely preserve man's right to his life but attempt, in addition, to tell him how to live it.<br />
<br />
For many conservatives, the bad dream that haunts their lives and their political position (which many sum up as "law and order" these days) is one of riot. To my knowledge, there is no limit that conservatives would place upon the power of the state to suppress riots.<br />
<br />
Even in a laissez-faire society, of course, the right to self-defense would have to be assumed, and a place for self-defense on a community basis could easily be imagined. But community self-defense would always be exclusively defensive. Conservatives betray an easy willingness to believe that the state should also initiate certain <em>offensive</em> actions, in order to preclude trouble later on. "Getting tough" is the phrase most often used. It does not mean just getting tough on rioters. It means getting tough on entire ranges of attitudes: clipping long hair, rousting people from parks for carrying concealed guitars, stopping and questioning anyone who doesn't look like a member of the Jaycees, drafting all the ne'er-do-wells to straighten them up, ridding our theaters and bookstores of "filth" and, always and above all, putting "those" people in their place. To the conservative, all too often, the alternatives are social conformity or unthinkable chaos.<br />
<br />
Even if these were the only alternatives — which they obviously aren't — there are many reasons for preferring chaos to conformity. Personally, I believe I would have a better chance of surviving — and certainly my values would have a better chance of surviving — with a Watts, Chicago, Detroit, or Washington in flames than with an entire nation snug in a garrison.<br />
<br />
Riots in modern America must be broken down into component parts. They are not all simple looting and violence against life and property. They are also directed against the prevailing violence of the state — the sort of ongoing civic violence that permits regular police supervision of everyday life in some neighborhoods, the rules and regulations that inhibit absolutely free trading, the public schools that serve the visions of bureaucracy rather than the varieties of individual people. There is violence also by those who simply want to shoot their way into political power otherwise denied them. Conservatives seem to think that greater state-police power is the answer. Liberals seem to think that more preferential state-welfare power is the answer. Power, power, power.<br />
<br />
Except for ordinary looters — for whom the answer must be to stop them as you would any other thief — the real answer to rioting must lie elsewhere. It must lie in the abandonment, not the extension, of state power — state power that oppresses people, state power that tempts people. To cite one strong example: the white stores in many black neighborhoods, which are said to cause such dissatisfaction and envy, have a special unrealized advantage thanks to state power. In a very poor neighborhood there may be many with the natural ability to open a retail store, but it is much less likely that these people would also have the ability to meet all the state and city regulations, governing everything from cleanliness to bookkeeping, which very often comprise the marginal difference between going into business or staying out. In a real laissez-faire society, the local entrepreneur, with whom the neighbors might prefer to deal, could go openly into business — selling marijuana, whiskey, numbers, slips, books, food, or medical advice from the trunk of his car. He could forget about ledgers, forms, and reports and simply get on with the business of business, rather than the business of bureaucracy. Allowing ghetto dwellers to compete on their own terms, rather than someone else's, should prove a more satisfying and practical solution to ghetto problems than either rampages or restrictions.<br />
<br />
The libertarian thrusts away from power and authority that marked the Goldwater campaign were castigated from the Left as being "nostalgic yearnings for a simpler world." (Perhaps akin to the simplistic yearnings of the hippies whom the Left so easily tolerates even while it excoriates Goldwater.) Goldwater's libertarianism was castigated from the Right — he received virtually <em>no</em> support from big business — as representing policies that could lead to unregulated competition, international free trade, and, even worse, a weakening of the very special partnership that big business now enjoys with big government.<br />
<br />
The most incredible convolution in the thinking that attacked Goldwater as reactionary — which he isn't — rather than radical — which he is — came in regard to nuclear weapons. In that area he was specifically damned for daring to propose that the control of these weapons be shared, and even fully placed, in the multinational command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, rather than left to the personal, one-man discretion of the president of the United States.<br />
<br />
Again, who is reactionary and who is radical? The men who want an atomic king enthroned in Washington, or the man who dares ask that that divine right of destruction become less divine and more divided? Until recently, it was a popular cocktail pastime to speculate of the difference between the war in Vietnam under "Save-the-world-from Goldwater" Johnson, or as it might have been under wild Barry, who, by his every campaign utterance, would have been bound to share the Vietnam decision (and the fighting) with NATO, rather than simply and unilaterally going it alone.<br />
<br />
To return to the point: the most vital question today about politics — not <em>in</em> politics — is the same sort of question that is plaguing Christianity. Superficially, the Christian question seems simply what kind of religion should be chosen. But basically, the question is whether any irrational or mystical forces are supportable, as a way to order society, in a world increasingly able and ready to be rational. The political version of the question may be stated this way: Will men continue to submit to rule by politics, which has always meant the power of some men over other men, or are we ready to go it alone socially, in communities of voluntarism, in a world more economic and cultural than political, just as so many now are prepared to go it alone metaphysically in a world more of reason than religion?<br />
<br />
The radical and revolutionary answer that a libertarian, laissez-faire position makes to that question is not quite anarchy. The libertarian, laissez-faire movement is, actually, if embarrassingly for some, a civil-rights movement. But it is antipolitical, in that it builds diversified power to be protected against government, even to dispense with government to a major degree, rather than seeking power to protect government or to perform any special social purpose.<br />
<br />
It is a civil-liberties movement in that it seeks civil liberties, for everyone, as defined in the 19th century by one of Yale's first professors of political and social science, <a href="http://mises.org/articles.aspx?AuthorId=761">William Graham Sumner</a>. Sumner said,<br />
<br />
Civil liberty is the status of the man who is guaranteed by law and civil institutions the exclusive employment of all his own powers for his own welfare.<br />
<br />
Modern liberals, of course, would call this selfishness, and they would be correct with intense emphasis on self. Many modern conservatives would say that they agree with Sumner, but they would not be correct. Men who call themselves conservatives, but who operate in the larger industries, spend considerable time, and not a small amount of money, fighting government subsidies to labor unions (in the form of preferential tax and legal considerations) or to people (in the form of welfare programs). They do not fight <em>direct</em> subsidies to industries — such as transportation, farming, or universities. They do not, in short, believe that men are entitled to the exclusive employment of their own powers for their own welfare, because they accept the practice of taxing a good part of that power to use for the welfare of other people.<br />
<br />
As noted, for all the theoretical screaming that sometimes may be heard from the industrial Right, it is safe to say that the major powers of government to regulate industry were derived not only from the support of businessmen but actually at the insistence of businessmen. Uneconomical mail rates are cherished by businessmen who can profit from them and who, significantly, seem uninterested in the obvious possibility of transforming the postal service from a bureau into a business. As a business, of course, it would charge what it cost to mail things, not what is simply convenient for users to pay.<br />
<br />
The big businessmen who operate the major broadcast networks are not known for suggesting, as a laissez-faire concept would insist, that competition for channels and audiences be wide open and unregulated. As a consequence, of course, the networks get all the government control that they deserve, accepting it in good cheer because, even if censored, they are also protected from competition. <br />
<br />
It is notable, also, that one of the most fierce denunciations of pay TV (which, under capitalism, should be a conceptual commonplace) came not from the <em>Daily Worker</em> but from the <em>Reader's Digest</em>, that supposed bastion of conservatism. Actually, I think the <em>Digest</em> is such a bastion. It seems to believe that the state is an institution divinely ordained to make men moral — in a "Judeo-Christian" sense, of course. It abhors, as no publication short of William Buckley's <em>National Review</em>, the insolence of those untidy persons who today so regularly challenge the authority of the state.<br />
<br />
In short, there is no evidence whatever that modern conservatives subscribe to the "your-life-is-your-own" philosophy upon which libertarianism is founded. An interesting illustration that conservatism not only disagrees with libertarianism but is downright hostile to it is that the most widely known libertarian author of the day, Miss Ayn Rand, ranks only a bit below, or slightly to the side of, Leonid Brezhnev as an object of diatribe in <em>National Review</em>. Specifically, it seems, she is reviled on the Right because she is an atheist, daring to take exception to the <em>National Review</em> notion that man's basically evil nature (stemming from original sin) means he must be held in check by a strong and authoritarian social order.<br />
<br />
Barry Goldwater, during his 1964 campaign, repeatedly said that "the government strong enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take it all away." Conservatives, as a group, have forgotten, or prefer to ignore, that this applies also to government's strength to impose social order. If government can enforce social norms, or even Christian behavior, it can also take away or twist them.<br />
<br />
To repeat, conservatives yearn for a state, or "leadership," with the power to restore order and to put things — and people — back in their places. They yearn for political power. Liberals yearn for a state that will bomb the rich and balm the poor. They too yearn for political power. Libertarians yearn for a state that cannot, beyond any possibility of amendment, confer any advantage on anyone; a state that cannot compel anything, but simply prevents the use of violence, in place of other exchanges, in relations between individuals or groups.<br />
<br />
Such a state would have as its sole purpose (probably supported exclusively by use taxes or fees) the maintenance of a system to adjudicate disputes (courts), to protect citizens against violence (police), to maintain some form of currency for ease of commerce, and, as long as it might be needed because of the existence of national borders and differences, to maintain a defense force. Meanwhile, libertarians should also work to end the whole concept of the nation-state itself. The major point here is that libertarians would start with no outstanding predispositions about public functions, being disposed always to think that there is in the personal and private world of individuals someone who can or will come along with a solution that gets the job done without conferring upon anyone power that has not been earned through voluntary exchange.<br />
<br />
In fact, it is in the matters most appropriate to collective interest — such as courts and protection against violence — that government today often defaults. This follows the bureaucratic tendency to perform least-needed services — where the risk of accountability is minimal — and to avoid performing essential but highly accountable services. Courts are clogged beyond belief. Police, rather than simply protecting citizens against violence, are deeply involved in overseeing private morals. In black neighborhoods particularly, the police serve as unloved and unwanted arbiters of everyday life.<br />
<br />
If, in the past few paragraphs, the reader can detect any hint of a position that would be compatible with either the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or the National Association of Manufacturers, he is strongly advised to look again. No such common ground exists. Nor can any common ground be adduced in terms of "new politics" versus "old politics." New or old, the positions that parade around today under these titles are still politics and, like roses, they smell alike. Radical and revolutionary politicians — antipoliticians, if you will — should be able to sniff them out easily.<br />
<br />
Specific matters that illustrate the differences would include the draft, marijuana, monopoly, censorship, isolationism-internationalism, race relations, and urban affairs, to name a few. As part of his aborted campaign for the presidency, Nelson Rockefeller took a position on the draft. In it, he specifically took exception to Richard Nixon's draft stand, calling it "old politics" as contrasted with his own "new politics." The Rockefeller position involved a certain streamlining of the draft, but nothing that would change it from what it patently is — forced, involuntary servitude. Rockefeller criticized Nixon for having asserted that, someday, the draft could be replaced by a volunteer system, an old Republican promise.<br />
<br />
The new politician contended that the Nixon system wouldn't work because it never <em>had</em> worked. The fact that this nation has never offered to pay its soldiers at a rate realistic enough to attract them was not covered in Rockefeller's statement. Nor did the new politician address himself to the fact that, given a nation that not enough citizens can be attracted to defend voluntarily, you probably also have a nation that, by definition, isn't really worth defending.<br />
<br />
The old politician, on the other hand, did not present quite as crisp a position on the draft as the new politician tried to pin him with. Nixon, although theoretically in favor of a voluntary military, was — along with the presumably even <em>more</em> conservative Ronald Reagan — opposed to trying voluntarism until <em>after</em> the Vietnam war. Throughout the conservative stance one sees a repetition of this position. Freedom is fine — but it must be deferred as long as a hot war or the Cold War has to be fought.<br />
<br />
All should be struck by the implications of that baleful notion. It implies that free men simply cannot be ingenious enough to defend themselves against violence without themselves becoming violent — not toward the enemy alone, but to their own persons and liberty as well. If our freedom is so fragile that it must be continuously protected by giving it up, then we are in deep trouble. And, in fact, by following a somewhat similar course, we got ourselves in very deep trouble in Southeast Asia. The Johnson war there was escalated precisely on the belief that southern Vietnamese freedom may best be obtained by dictating what form of government the south should have — day by day, even — and by defending it against the North Vietnamese by devastating the southern countryside.<br />
<br />
In foreign relations, as in domestic pronouncements, new and old politicians preach the same dusty doctrines of compulsion and contradiction. The radical preachment of libertarianism, the antipolitical preachment, would be that as long as the inanity of war between nation-states remains a possibility, free nation-states will at least protect themselves from wars by hiring volunteers, not by murdering voluntarism.<br />
<br />
One of the most medievally fascinating minds of the 20th Century, that of Lewis Hershey, sole owner and proprietor of the Selective Service System, has put this unpretty picture into perfect perspective with his memorable statement, delivered at a National Press Club luncheon, that he "hate[s] to think of the day that [his] grandchildren would be defended by volunteers." There, in as ugly an example as is on public record, is precisely where politics and power, authority and the arthritis of traditionalism, are bound to bring you. Director Hershey is prevented from being a great comic figure by the rather obvious fact that, being involved with the deaths of so many unwilling men, and the imprisonment of so many others, he becomes a tragic figure or, at least, a figure in a tragedy. There is no new or old politics about the draft. A draft is political, plain and simple. A volunteer military is essentially commercial. And it is between politics and commerce that the entrant into radical or revolutionary politics must continually choose.<br />
<br />
Marijuana is an example of such a choice. In a laissez-faire society, there could exist no public institution with the power to forcefully protect people from themselves. From other people (criminals), yes. From one's own self, no. Marijuana is a plant, a crop. People who smoke it do not do so under the compulsion either of physiological addiction or of institutional power. They do so voluntarily. They find a person who has volunteered to grow it. They agree on a price. One sells; the other buys. One acquires new capital; the other acquires a euphoric experience that, he decides, was worth allocating some of his own resources to obtain.<br />
<br />
Nowhere in that equation is there a single point at which the neighbors, or any multitude of neighbors, posing as priesthood or public, have the slightest rational reason to intervene. The action has not, in any way, deprived anyone else of "the exclusive employment of all his own powers for his own welfare."<br />
<br />
The current laws against marijuana, in contravention even of all available evidence regarding its nature, are a prime example of the use of political power. The very power that makes it possible for the state to ban marijuana, and to arrest Lenny Bruce, is the same power that makes it possible for the state to exact taxes from one man to pay into the pockets of another. The purposes may seem different but upon examination they are not. Marijuana must be banned to prevent people from succumbing to the madness of its fumes and doing some mischief upon the community. Poverty, too, must be banned for a similar reason. Poor people, unless <em>made</em> unpoor, will angrily rise and do mischief upon the community. As in all politics, purposes and power blend and reinforce each other.<br />
"Hard" narcotics must be subjected to the same tests as marijuana in terms of politics versus antipolitics. These narcotics, too, are merely salable materials, except that, if used beyond prudence, they can be quite disabling to the person using them. (I inject that note simply because, in my understanding, there remains at all levels of addiction the chance of breaking or controlling the habit. This suggests that a person <em>can</em> exercise a choice in the matter; that he can, indeed, be prudent or not.)<br />
<br />
The person who uses drugs imprudently, just as the person who imprudently uses the politically sanctioned and franchised drugs of alcohol or tobacco, ends up in an unenviable position, perhaps dead. That, rationally, is his own business as long as he does not, by his actions, deprive you of your right to make your own decision not to use drugs, to assist addicts, or, if you wish, to ignore them. But, it is said, by Right and Left today, that the real problem is social and public — that the high price of the drugs leads the addict to rob and kill (rightist position), and that making drugs a public matter, for clinical dispensation, would eliminate the causes of his crime (leftist position).<br />
<br />
These both are essentially political positions and clearly inept in a society where the line between mind-expanders such as coffee or LSD is highly technical. By choosing the economic and cultural approach rather than a political one, the antipolitical libertarian would say, sell away. Competition will keep the price down. Cultural acceptance of the root ethic, that a man's life and its appurtenances are inviolate, would justify defense against any violence that might accompany addiction in others. And what is there left for the "public" to do? Absolutely nothing — except, individually, to decide whether to risk drugs or to avoid them. Parents, of course, holding the purse strings of their children, can exercise a certain amount of control, but only individually, never collectively.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, it is easy to imagine that, if drugs were left to economics and culture instead of politics, medical researchers would shortly discover a way to provide the salable and wanted effects of drugs without the incapacitation of addiction. In this as in similar matters — such as the unregulated competition from which it is felt people need protection — technology rather than politics might offer far better answers.<br />
<br />
Monopoly is a case in point. To suppose that anyone needs government protection from the creation of monopolies is to accept two suppositions: that monopoly is the natural direction of unregulated enterprise, and that technology is static. Neither, of course, is true. The great concentrations of economic power, which are called monopolies today, did not grow <em>despite</em> government's antimonopolistic zeal. They grew, largely, <em>because</em> of government policies, such as those making it more profitable for small businesses to sell out to big companies rather than fight the tax code alone. Additionally, Federal fiscal and credit policies and Federal subsidies and contracts have all provided substantially more assistance to big and established companies than to smaller, potentially competitive ones. <br />
<br />
The auto industry receives the biggest subsidy of all through the highway program on which it prospers, but for which it surely does not pay a fair share. Airlines are subsidized and so protected that newcomers can't even try to compete. Television networks are fantastically advantaged by FCC licensing, which prevents upstarts from entering a field where big old-timers have been established. Even in agriculture, it is large and established farmers who get the big subsidies — not small ones who might want to compete. Government laws specifically exempting unions from antitrust activities have also furthered a monopoly mentality. <br />
<br />
And, of course, the "public utility" and "public transportation" concepts have specifically created government-licensed monopolies in the fields of power, communications, and transit. This is not to say that economic bigness is bad. It isn't, if it results from economic efficiency. But it <em>is</em> bad if it results from collusion with political, rather than with economic power. There is no monopoly in the world today, of which I could think, that might not be seriously challenged by competition, were it not for some form of protective government license, tariff, subsidy, or regulation. Also, there isn't the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest that the trend of unregulated business and industry is toward monopoly. In fact, the trend seems in the opposite direction, toward diversification and decentralization.<br />
<br />
The technological aspect is equally important. Monopoly cannot develop as long as technology is dynamic, which it most abundantly is today. No corporation is so large that it can command every available brain — except, of course, a corporate state. As long as one brain remains unavailable, there is the chance of innovation and competition. There can be no real monopoly, just momentary advantage. Nor does technological breakthrough always depend on vast resources or, even where it does, would it have to depend upon a single source of financing — unless, again, only the state has the money. Short of total state control, and presuming creative brains in the community, and presuming the existence of capital with which to build even modest research facilities, few would flatly say that technological innovation could be prevented simply because of some single source enjoying a temporary "monopoly" of a given product or service. <br />
<br />
The exceptions, to repeat, are always governments. Governments can be — and usually are — monopolistic. For instance, it is not uneconomical to operate a private post-office department today. It is only illegal. The Feds enjoy a legal monopoly — to the extent that they are currently prosecuting at least one entrepreneur who operated a mail service better and cheaper than they do.<br />
<br />
Politics is not needed to prevent monopoly. Unregulated, unrestricted laissez-faire capitalism is all that is needed. It would also provide jobs, raise living standards, improve products, and so forth. If commercial activity were unregulated and absolutely unsubsidized, it could depend upon only one factor for success — pleasing customers.<br />
<br />
Censorship is another notable example in which politics, and politicians, interpose between customer and satisfaction. The gauge becomes not whether the customer is happy, but whether the politician (either singly or as a surrogate for "the public") is happy. This applies equally to "public" protection from unpopular political ideas as well as protection from pornography. Conservatives are at least consistent in this matter. They feel that the state (which they sometimes call "the community") can and must protect people from unsavory thoughts. It goes without saying who defines unsavory: the political — or community-leaders, of course.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most ironic of all manifestations of this conservative urge to cleanthink concerns the late Lenny Bruce. He talked dirty. He was, therefore, a particularly favorite target of conservatives. He was also an explicit and, I think, incisive defender of capitalism. In commenting that communism is a drag ("like one big phone company"), Bruce specifically opted for capitalism ("it gives you a choice, baby, and that's what it's about"). There is no traditional conservative who is fit to even walk on the same level with Lenny Bruce in his fierce devotion to individualism. Lenny Bruce frequently used what is for many conservatives the dirtiest word of all: he said capitalism. When was the last time that the National Association of Manufacturers did as much?<br />
<br />
Lenny Bruce wasn't the only man to alienate conservatives by opening his mouth. In 1964, Barry Goldwater alienated Southern conservatives in droves when, in answer to a regionally hot question about whether Communists should be permitted to speak on state-university campuses, Goldwater said, flatly and simply, "Of course they should."<br />
<br />
Even anticommunist libertarians have no choice but to deny the state the right to suppress Communists. Similarly, libertarians who are aesthetically repelled by what they deem pornography have no other course than not to buy it, leaving its absolutely unregulated sale to producer, purchaser, and no one else. Once again, a parent could intrude — but only by stopping an individual, dependent purchaser, never by stopping the purveyor, whose right to sell pornography for profit, and for absolutely no other socially redeeming virtue whatever, would be inviolate. An irate parent who attempted to hustle a smut peddler off the street, as a matter of fact, should be sued, not saluted.<br />
<br />
The liberal attitude toward censorship is not so clear. At this point, it needn't be. Liberals practice it, rather than preach it. The FCC's egregious power to insist that broadcasting serve a social purpose is both a liberal tenet and an act of censorship. In the FCC canons, social purposes are defined so that a station can get good points for permitting a preacher free time but no points — or even bad points — for extending the same gift of free air to an atheist.<br />
<br />
It is partly in the realm of air, also, that differences regarding nationalism between the old left/right politicians and the libertarian antipolitician show up. If today's conservative has his fervent jingoism for old nations, the liberal has just as fanatic a devotion to the jingoism of new nations. The willingness of modern liberals to suggest armed intervention against South Africa, while ignoring, even in terms of major journalistic coverage, slaughters in Nigeria and the Sudan, is a demonstration of interest only in politics — and in particular persons — rather than in human life per se.<br />
<br />
Of course, conservatives have a similar double standard in regard to anticommunist slaughter and anticommunist dictatorship. Although it is not as whimsically selective as the liberal decision to be revolted or cheered by each particular bloodbath, the conservative double standard can have equally tragic results. The distinct undercurrents of anti-Semitism that so obviously muddle many conservative movements probably can be traced to the horrid assumption that Adolf Hitler's anticommunism excused his other, but comparatively minor, faults. Somehow, anticommunism seems to permit anti-Semitism.<br />
<br />
I have met in my time many anticommunists who view communism as simply a creature of Jewish plotting for world dominion. The John Birch Society's separate chapter for Jewish members is a seriocomic reflection, I think, of such good old WASP anti-Semitism. The widely reported admiration of Hitler by the head man of the right-wing Liberty Lobby is a reflection, presumably, of the "you need a strong man to fight atheistic Communism" school of thought. There are, of course, notable Jewish anticommunists. And there are many anticommunists who condemn anti-Semitism. But the operating question for most of the full-time anticommunists that I have met is simply: Are you anticommunist? Being also anti-Semitic is not automatically a disqualification on the Right, though it usually is on the Left.<br />
<br />
Conservatives and liberals alike hold in common the mystical notion that nations really mean something, probably something permanent. Both ascribe to lines drawn on maps — or in the dirt or in the air — the magical creation of communities of men that require sovereignty and sanction. The conservative feels this with exaltation when he beholds the Stars and Stripes. The liberal feels this with academic certitude when he concludes that Soviet boundaries must be "guaranteed" to prevent Soviet nervousness. Today, in the ultimate confusion, there are people who feel that the lines drawn by the Soviet Union, in blood, are better than the lines drawn, also in blood, by American foreign policy. Politicians just think this way.<br />
<br />
The radical and revolutionary view of the future of nationhood is, logically, that it has no future, only a past — often an exciting one, and usually a historically useful one at some stage. But lines drawn on paper, on the ground or in the stratosphere are clearly insufficient to the future of mankind.<br />
Again, it is technology that makes it feasible to contemplate a day in which the politics of nationhood will be as dead as the politics of power-wielding partisanship. First, there is enough information and wealth available to ensure the feeding of all people, without the slaughtering of some to get at the possessions of others. Second, there is no longer any way to protect anything or anybody behind a national boundary anyway.<br />
<br />
Not even the Soviet Union, with what conservatives continue to fear as an "absolute" control over its people, has been able to stop, by drawing lines or executing thousands, the infusion of subversive ideas, manners, music, poems, dances, products, desires. If the world's pre-eminent police state (either us or them, depending on your <em>political</em> point of view) has been unable to protect itself fully behind its boundaries, what faith can or should we, the people, retain in boundaries?<br />
<br />
It is to be expected that both liberals and conservatives respond to the notion of the end of nationhood with very similar shouts of outrage or jerks of reaction. The conservative says <em>it shall not be</em>. There will always be a US customs inspector and long may he wave. The liberal says that far from ending nationhood, he wants to expand it, make it world-wide, to create a proliferation of mini- and micronations in the name of ethnic and cultural preservation, and then to erect a great super-bureaucracy to supervise all the petty bureaucracies.<br />
<br />
Like Linus, neither liberal nor conservative can bear the thought of giving up the blanket — of giving up government and going it alone as residents of a planet, rather than of a country. Advocates of isolationism (although some, admittedly, defend it only as a tactic) seem to fall into a paradox here. Isolationism not only depends upon nationhood, it rigidifies it. There is a subcategory of isolationism, however, that might avoid this by specifying that it favors only military isolationism, or the use of force only for <em>self</em>-defense. Even this, however, requires political definitions of national self-defense in these days of missiles, bases, bombers, and subversion.<br />
<br />
As long as there are governments powerful enough to maintain national boundaries and national political postures, then there will be the absolute risk, if not the certainty, of war between them. Even the possibility of war seems far too cataclysmic to contemplate in a world so ripe with technology and prosperous potential, ripe even with the seeds of extraterrestrial exploration. Violence and the institutions that alone can support it should be rendered obsolete.<br />
<br />
Governments wage war. The power of life that they may claim in running hospitals or feeding the poor is just the mirror image of the power of death that they also claim — in filling those hospitals with wounded and in devastating lands on which food could be grown. "But man is aggressive," Right and Left chant from the depths of their pessimism. And, to be sure, he is. But if he were left alone, if he were not regulated into states or services, wouldn't that aggression be directed toward conquering his environment, and not other men?<br />
<br />
At another warlike level, it is the choice of aggression, against politically perpetuated environment more than against men, that marks the racial strife in America today. Conservatives, in one of their favorite lapses of logic — states' rights — nourished modern American racism by supporting laws, particularly in Southern states, that gave the state the power to force businessmen to build segregated facilities. (Many businessmen, to be sure, wanted to be "forced," thus giving their racism the seal of state approval.) <br />
<br />
The states' rights lapse is simply that conservatives who would deny to the Federal government certain controls over people, eagerly cede exactly the same controls to smaller administrative units. They say that the smaller units are more effective. This means that conservatives support the coercion of individuals at the most effective level. It certainly doesn't mean that they oppose coercion. In failing to resist state segregation and miscegenation laws, in failing to resist laws maintaining racially inequitable spending of tax money, simply because these laws were passed by states, conservatives have failed to fight the very bureaucracy that they supposedly hate — at the very level where they might have stopped it first.<br />
<br />
Racism has been supported in this country not despite of, but thanks to, governmental power and politics. Reverse racism — thinking that government is competent to force people to integrate, just as it once forced them to segregate — is just as political and just as disastrous. It has not worked. Its product has been hatred rather than brotherhood. Brotherhood could never be a political product. It is purely personal. In racial matters, as in all other matters concerning individuals, the lack of government would be nothing but beneficial. What, actually, can government do for black people in America that black people could not do better for themselves, if they were permitted the freedom to do so? I can think of nothing.<br />
<br />
Jobs? Politically and governmentally franchised unions do more to keep black men from good jobs than do all the Bull Connors of the South. Homes, schools, and protection? I recall very vividly a comment on this subject by Roy Innis, the national director of the Congress of Racial Equality. He spoke of Mayor John Lindsay's typically liberal zeal in giving money to black people, smothering them with it — or silencing them. Innis then said that the one thing Mayor Lindsay would not give the blacks was what they really wanted: political power. He meant that the black community in Harlem, for instance, rather than being gifted with tax money by the bushel, would prefer to be gifted with Harlem itself. It is a community. Why shouldn't it govern itself, or at least live by itself, without having to be a barony of New York City Ward politics? However, I take exception to the notion of merely building in Harlem a political structure similar to but only separate from New York City's. And I may be doing Mr. Innis, who is an exceptional man, an injustice by even suggesting that that is what he had in mind.<br />
<br />
But beyond this one instance, there is implicit in the very exciting undercurrents of black power in this country an equally exciting possibility that it will develop into a rebellion against politics itself. It might insist upon a far less structured community, containing far more voluntary institutions within it. There is no question in my mind that, in the long run, this movement and similar ones will discover that laissez-faire is the way to create genuine communities of voluntarism. Laissez-faire is the only form of social/economic organization that could tolerate and even bless a kibbutz operating in the middle of Harlem, a hippie selling hashish down the street, and, a few blocks farther on, a firm of engineers out to do in Detroit with a low-cost nuclear vehicle.<br />
<br />
The kibbutz would represent, in effect, a voluntary socialism — what other form could free men tolerate? The hash seller would represent institutionalized — but voluntary — daydreaming, and the engineers would represent unregulated creativity. All would represent laissez-faire capitalism in action and none would need a single bureaucrat to help, hinder, civilize, or stimulate. And, in the process simply of variegated existence, the residents of this voluntary community, as long as others voluntarily entered into commerce with them, would solve the "urban" problem in the only way it ever can be solved; i.e., via the vanishment of politics that created the problem in the first place.<br />
<br />
If cities cannot exist on the basis of the skills, energy, and creativity of the people who live, work, or invest in them, then they should not be sustained by people who do <em>not</em> live in them. In short, every community should be one of voluntarism, to the extent that it lives for and through its own people and does not force others to pay its bills. Communities should not be exempted from the civil liberty prescribed for people — the exclusive enjoyment of all their own powers for their own welfare. This means that no one should serve you involuntarily and that you should not involuntarily serve anyone else. This means, for communities, existing without involuntary aid from other communities or to other communities.<br />
<br />
Student dissenters today seem to feel that somehow they have crashed through to new truths and new politics in their demands that universities and communities be made responsive to their students or inhabitants. But most of them are only playing with old politics. When the dissenters recognize this, and when their assault becomes one against political power and authority rather than a fight to gain such power, then this movement may release the bright potential latent in the intelligence of so many of its participants. Incidentally, to the extent that student activists the world over are actually fighting the existence of political power, rather than trying to grab some of it for themselves, they should not be criticized for failing to offer alternative programs; i.e., for not spelling out just what sort of political system will follow their revolution. What ought to follow their revolution is just what they've implicitly proposed: no political system at all.<br />
<br />
The style of SDS so far seems most promising in this respect. It is itself loosely knit and internally anti-authoritarian as well as externally revolutionary. Liberty also looks for students who, rather than caterwauling the establishment, will abandon it, establish their own schools, make them effective, and wage a concerned and concerted revolt against the political regulations and power that, today, give a franchise to schools — public and private — that badly need competition from new schools with new ideas.<br />
<br />
Looking back, this same sort of thinking was true during the period of the sit-ins in the South. Since the enemy also was state laws requiring separate facilities, why wasn't it also a proper tactic to defy such laws by building a desegregated eating place and holding it against hell and high water? This is a cause to which any libertarian could respond.<br />
<br />
Similarly with the school situation. Find someone who will rebel against public-education laws and you will have a worthy rebel indeed. Find someone who just rants in favor of getting more liberals, or more conservatives, onto the school board, and you will have found a politically oriented, passé man — a plastic rebel. Or, in the blackest neighborhood, find the plumber who will thumb his nose at city hall's restrictive licenses and certificates and you will have found a freedom fighter of far greater consequence than the window breaker.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
----------***---------</div>
<br />
Power and authority, as substitutes for performance and rational thought, are the specters that haunt the world today. They are the ghosts of awed and superstitious yesterdays. And politics is their familiar. Politics, throughout time, has been an institutionalized denial of man's ability to survive through the exclusive employment of all his own powers for his own welfare. And politics, throughout time, has existed solely through the resources that it has been able to plunder from the creative and productive people whom it has, in the name of many causes and moralities, denied the exclusive employment of all their own powers for their own welfare.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, this must mean that politics denies the rational nature of man. Ultimately, it means that politics is just another form of residual magic in our culture — a belief that somehow things come from nothing; that things may be given to some without first taking them from others; that all the tools of man's survival are his by accident or divine right and not by pure and simple inventiveness and work.<br />
<br />
Politics has always been the institutionalized and established way in which some men have exercised the power to live off the output of other men. But even in a world made docile to these demands, men do not need to live by devouring other men.<br />
<br />
Politics does devour men. A laissez-faire world would liberate men. And it is in that sort of liberation that the most profound revolution of all may be just beginning to stir. It will not happen overnight, just as the lamps of rationalism were not quickly lighted and have not yet burned brightly. But it will happen — because it must happen. Man can survive in an inclement universe only through the use of his mind. His thumbs, his nails, his muscles, and his mysticism will not be enough to keep him alive without it.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
------------------------------------------</div>
<br />
Karl Hess (1923–1994) was an American national-level speechwriter and author. His career included stints on the Republican Right and the New Left before he became a libertarian anarchist. The documentary film <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-574553336386396499#"><i>Karl Hess: Toward Liberty</i></a> won the Academy Award for best short documentary in 1981. See Karl Hess's <a class="archives" href="http://mises.org/daily/author/1350/Karl-Hess">article archives</a>. Comment on the <a href="http://blog.mises.org/archives/010848.asp">blog</a>.<br />
<br />
Originally published in <em>Playboy</em>, March 1969, this article was made available for the web by David Schatz and <a href="http://fare.tunes.org/">François-René Rideau</a>.<br />
<br />
You can subscribe to future articles by Karl Hess via this <a class="archives" href="http://mises.org/Feeds/articles.ashx?AuthorId=1350">RSS feed</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://mises.org/daily/3768/The-Death-of-Politics">http://mises.org/daily/3768/The-Death-of-Politics</a>Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-18167106911356390872014-03-15T08:31:00.000-06:002014-03-15T08:48:13.525-06:00VOLUNTARISM: THE ABSENCE OF FORCE<strong>by <em>James Craig Green</em></strong><br />
<br />
The following article was written by L.K. Samuels, as Chapter 2 in a book called <strong><em>Facets of Liberty: A Libertarian Primer</em></strong>, published in 1985 by <strong><em>Freeland Press</em></strong> (Santa Clara CA). It is an excellent introduction to the philosophy of libertarianism.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong><em>VOLUNTARISM: THE ABSENCE OF FORCE</em></strong></span><br />
<strong><em>by L.K. Samuels</em></strong><br />
<strong><em></em></strong><br />
<strong><em>...the State calls its own violence law, and that of the individual crime</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>-Max Stirner</em></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<em><strong>Voluntarism</strong>,</em> as a philosophy advocating the absence of aggression, underlies every important issue of the day. Basically, every issue has two directions in which it may be approached: (1) individuals may attempt to solve problems by <em><strong>voluntary</strong></em> interaction among people; or (2) individuals may attempt to solve problems by <em><strong>involuntary</strong></em> interaction among people. The difference is that the latter implements <em><strong>force</strong></em>.<br />
<br />
The best method to show the striking contrast between voluntarism and force is to give an explicit example. For instance, one of the worst crimes is to assault another human being, especially by rape. When one is sexually assaulted, a coercive action has been perpetrated against the body and liberty of another person. No <em><strong>consent</strong></em> has been given to the rapist, therefore, the victim's right <em><strong>not to be physically aggressed upon</strong></em> is violated. That is to say, the victim is forced by the physical strength of the attacker. The victim is robbed of his or her freedom, and made a slave of the attacker until the attacker either leaves the victim or the victim submits to the attacker's wishes.<br />
<br />
When a person consents freely to engage in sex, no crime has been committed as there is no victim. Commonly called prostitution, the prostitute gives her consent to her customer - otherwise it is rape. Brute force characterizes the one; peaceful consent, the other.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>VOLUNTARISM</em></strong><br />
<br />
Voluntarism simply holds that people should be at liberty to choose, their own lifestyles without being forced to follow someone else's. Followers of voluntarism (i.e., voluntaryists) believe people cannot be forced to protect people from themselves through the use of violence.<br />
<br />
Voluntarism opposes any compulsory or mandatory program no matter what reasons are justifications are cited. It is true, for instance, that slums need to be cleared, the unemploed need jobs and the poor need money. However, at whose expense are these wrongs to be righted? Should society of government, in the name of the slum dwellers, the unemployed or the poor, rob those who were fortunate to gather some wealth? And who, by the way, decides whose wealth is to be confiscated, and by how much?<br />
<br />
Should slum dwellers be physically dragged from their rooms to make way for urban renewal? Should apartment owners have their land forcibly seized under eminent domain? If so, who decides whose land is to be condemned and seized?<br />
<br />
Certainly, problems of the community and the individual need to be resolved, but must we resort to threats of jail and violence to control people and situtations? And when physical control of each person by government is accepted and practiced, where will this ultimately end? How far can aggression and force go before they are declared to be out of hand? It should be remembered that if government has the authority to give what everybody <em><strong>wants</strong></em>, then it has the authority to take what everybody <em><strong>has</strong></em>.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>AGGRESSION</em></strong><br />
<br />
The opposite of voluntarism is <strong><em>aggression</em></strong>. Aggression is an unprovoked and unjustified assault or invasion upon peaceful individuals (and their property), who pose no physical threat to the attacker. For example, there is nothing inherently moral or immoral concerning transportation of people by bus. Yet, when people are compelled by fear of arrest or jail for refusing to comply with forced busing programs, aggression againts the parents has been committed. The parents have lost their <em><strong>right of consent</strong>.</em> They have been abused. What was their so-called crime? They refused to comply. They have committed no acts of violence against anyone.<br />
<br />
Again, persons or authoritarian persuation abandon voluntary approaches to problems because they often fail to accomplish what they believe ought to be accomplished. If someone fails to follow along, then, by George, the authoritarian believes, that person must suffer the consequences. After all, they believe, it is for the <em><strong>good of society</strong>.</em> And society is seen as some grand institution based on foundations of granite. In actuality, there is no physical structure known as "society." Society is not physical; it cannot be touched with a finger. Society is merely a concept. Individuals are real. The authoritarian who argues for the "good of society" concepts is usually the one who benefits the most from society's social and bureaucratic programs.<br />
<br />
The main trouble with aggression is that it can never be limited. It is commonly believed that a little force is acceptable, if limited. But what is the limit? And who sets the limitations? How far can taxation go? Can government take 90% of a workers income? It has the authority. Only certain circumstances prevent a particular government from going to far. And in the case of Hitler or Stalin's government, it indeed went too far. To paraphrase Prof. Murray Rothbard, <em><strong>once you justify the existence of aggression, once you santion the use of force to control people, for no matter what reason, you can justity every other evil and excess of the state</strong>.</em><br />
<br />
After one form of aggression is legislated or dictated, what prevents the enactment of another? For example, if it is permissible to draft men into the military, then why not draft teachers into schools and workers into factories? Where is the limit? In fact, a number of U.S. politicians introduced federal legislation to draft workers into war-related industries during World War II. Why not? they reasoned; Hitler was doing it.<br />
<br />
DRAFT NOT COMPLETED<br />
<em></em><br />
<br />
<br />Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-75457542986225067722014-02-27T04:50:00.002-07:002014-02-27T08:47:05.474-07:00FARMERS ALMANAC More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models<div class="ecxMsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal;">
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">THANKS to my friend Terry Donze for sending this...</span></span></b><br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span></strong><br />
See linked Comments, including this <u>prescient</u> quote from President Eisenhower's Farewell Address:<br />
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: #0072c6; font-size: medium;"></span></span></span></b><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em><strong>Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.</strong></em></span><br />
<em><span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong></strong></span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong>The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.</strong></span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong></strong></span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong>Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.</strong></span></em><br />
<strong><em><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span></em></strong><br />
<strong><em><span style="font-family: Arial;">Dwight David Eisenhower (1961)</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #0072c6; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black; font-size: small;">
</span></span><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: #0072c6; font-size: medium;"><a href="http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022114-690857-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-climate-models.htm#disqus_thread" target="_blank">http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022114-690857-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-climate-models.htm#disqus_thread</a></span></span></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="ecxMsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal;">
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;"></span></span></b> </div>
<div class="ecxMsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;">
<b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Bad Science: </span></span></b><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="background: yellow;">It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year's harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can't even predict the past.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="ecxMsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="background: yellow; color: #333333; font-size: 11pt;">Last fall, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted above-normal temperatures from November through January across much of the continental U.S. The Farmers' Almanac, first published in 1818, predicted a bitterly cold, snowy winter.</span></span></div>
<div class="ecxMsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 11pt;">The Maine-based Farmers' Almanac's still-secret methodology includes variables such as planetary positions, sunspots, lunar cycles and tidal action. It claims an 80% accuracy rate, surely better than those who obsess over fossil fuels and CO2.</span></span></div>
<div class="ecxMsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="background: yellow; color: #333333; font-size: 11pt;">The winter has stayed cold in 2014, and snowfall and snow cover are way above average. USA Today reported on Feb. 14 that there was snow on the ground in part of every state except Florida. That includes Hawaii</span>.</span></div>
<div class="ecxMsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 11pt;">"Sometimes trying to figure out why something happened is as hard as making the forecast of what will happen," CPC Acting Director Mike Halpert said in a Feb. 14 interview. Such uncertainty is what we are supposed to be basing our industrial and economic policy on.</span></span></div>
<div class="ecxMsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 11pt;">As Bloomberg notes, the CPC underestimated the "mammoth December cold wave, which brought snow to Dallas and chilled partiers in Times Square on New Year's Eve." The Almanac didn't, though Caleb Weatherbee, its prognosticator, apologized for being a few days off on two of the season's biggest storms.</span></span></div>
<div class="ecxMsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 11pt;">The CPC seems to have completely missed the "polar vortex" that swept down and caused every state except Florida to experience snowfall and brought about 4,406 record low temperatures across the U.S. in January, along with 1,073 record snowfalls.</span></span></div>
<div class="ecxMsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="background: yellow; color: #333333; font-size: 11pt;">As John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has noted, global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there's been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years — contradicting the predictions made by 73 computer models cited in the United Nations' latest (wrong) global warming report.</span></span></div>
<div class="ecxMsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 11pt;">In recent years we've seen predictions of snowless winters, an ice-free Arctic, and island nations disappearing under the rising seas. We've also seen climate expeditions stick in ice that wasn't supposed to be there and polar bear populations rising.</span></span></div>
<div class="ecxMsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="background: yellow; color: #333333; font-size: 11pt;">Maybe Al Gore should check the Farmers' Almanac</span>.</span></div>
Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-5122058807230200162014-02-17T06:57:00.000-07:002014-03-05T09:26:28.594-07:00The ORIGIN OF CONFLICT and Spontaneous Creation of Justice<center>
<h1 style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;">by James Craig Green</span></h1>
</center>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">(Original written about 1997)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the following, I will define certain words in ways that are
unconventional, and perhaps confusing to some. These definitions are not
proposed to be part of a universal model imposed on people who do not agree with
them, but rather a means to better understand conflicts between humans and the
various ways people choose to resolve them. This essay is biased from an
individualist point of view, recognizing that each person views the world from a
unique, egocentric point of view. (I don't claim that all people subscribe to
egocentric ethics; just that we each see the world differently due to location,
culture, ability, experience, etc.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><strong><em>Why Do People Become
Criminals?</em></strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At some point in a child's life, (s)he tries aggression toward someone else.
Depending on how these early aggressions are dealt with (if at all), children
may learn that aggression is successful in some cases, and unsuccessful in
others. Like all other learning, the individual experience of each person
concerning aggression is unique. No two people have the exact same experience as
to limits of aggression, and therefore every person has a different belief about
it. Although there may be common beliefs spread throughout thousands (or
millions) of people in a society, the exact conditions of when, where and under
what circumstances each individual may choose to commit aggression are quite
unique.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Some people become criminals because earlier, small offenses were not dealt
with effectively. Beginning in childhood, most humans learn that there are
social limits to their natural aggression. While some are inherently more
aggressive than others, virtually all humans have a potential for becoming
aggressive. This is due to a rich genetic past which favored aggression in early
humans. Humans still have the remnants of a reptilian brain that told its host,
"kill, eat, reproduce." </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Through a combination of bad parenting, institutional failure and the
weakness of people they learn to exploit, some children grow up learning they
can get away with aggressive actions, if they're clever enough about it. They
also learn that the "rules of the game" can be turned upside down by focusing on
the intricate details of those rules, which always contain loopholes. When they
commit offenses that are serious enough for police, courts and social workers to
deal with, it is often too late - a cumulative pattern of successful aggression
is already established. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This essay focuses on original offenses, disputes and individual human
responses to them. It recognizes the inherent subjectivity of offenses, and
presents a series of definitions that may be used to better understand the
nature of conflict. Unfortunately, conflict, dispute and other things often are
lumped together in the vaguely-defined word, "<b>crime</b>." No definition for
the word "<b>crime</b>" is presented here. Using a word that has so many
different, confused and contradictory meanings in common language, law and
philosophy simply adds to the present confusion. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This essay is written from the perspective of the individual human beings who
make all decisions in any society. This is a "bottom-up" approach, without
automatically imposing "top-down" rules from law, custom, society or government.
It is an attempt to dissect and understand the underlying patterns of human
conflict. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I begin with the origin of any conflict, which is an offense.</span> <br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><strong><em>Offense</em></strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">An <b>OFFENSE</b> is a negative response by someone to the action of another.
<b>OFFENDER</b> is used here to mean someone accused of an offense, and
<b>OFFENDED</b> is used to mean someone who claims to be offended. Notice that
only the offended decides who is an offender. This definition recognizes offense
as a subjective thing, similar to Ludwig von Mises' conclusion that all value is
subjective (see his book, <b>HUMAN ACTION</b> for an explanation of subjective
value. It can be found at <b>Laissez-Faire Books</b>). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Examples</b>:
</span><br />
<blockquote>
<dl><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">An innocent misunderstanding </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">An inappropriate comment </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Fraud </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A property dispute </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Theft </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Murder</span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the case of murder, the victim can no longer claim offense. However, the
family of the victim, or anyone else, might claim offense. Someone offended by
the murder of a homeless person with no family or friends might claim offense.
If no one able to express offense is offended by an act (even one as serious as
murder), then no offense has been committed, by definition. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>I suggest a pause here to digest what you just read</b>. A few
deep-breathing exercises should calm you down before proceeding. Please don't
bail out on me yet. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Does this mean murder is not inherently "wrong?" I don't care. I don't
believe there is any objective standard of behavior, because human nature is
neither universal nor fixed. In science, there is no postulate, theory or fact
that is not subject to change when better information comes along. To impose a
particular opinion of human behavior on those who don't share it is arrogant,
unnecessary and totalitarian. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Need a few more breathing exercises? I'll wait. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Moralizing murder and other unpleasant human actions only serves to trick
people into defaulting their critical thinking to others. I will touch on the
inherent subjectivity and arbitrariness of morality later in this essay. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The viewpoint presented here is the opposite of traditional "top-down"
criminal justice systems (that focus on punishment rather than dispute
resolution). This viewpoint recognizes that an offense begins with a
<b>SUBJECTIVE OPINION</b> by the offended party. Until such an offense is
perceived, there is nothing to discuss. How such an offense gets resolved, if at
all, is discussed below. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><strong><em>Justice</em></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>JUSTICE</b> is the resolution of an offense. I purposely make no claim
here to know what justice is in any particular case, since I am not necessarily
the offended party, and cannot possibly decide for someone else when they are
offended, or how important such an offense is to them. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Justice occurs only when the offended decides to pursue the offender, or
forgives the offense. The purpose of justice is to reach a state where neither
party remains offended. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Examples</b>: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Offender apologizes to offended, or pays mutually-agreed-to restitution.
</span></div>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Offender tells offended to go to hell, and offended takes no further action,
simply chalking it up to a bad experience. This may lead to a change of
lifestyle or habit by the offended, such as avoiding people who act or look like
the offender. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Offended decides the offense is not serious enough to spend more effort to
resolve. (Imagine an unknown thief stealing a penny from you at the mall and
disappearing into the crowd). </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Offended conducts a boycott or public humiliation campaign against offender.
(This may lead to escalation, defined below.) </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Offended convinces a service provider to refuse some useful service to
offender, pending resolution of the offense. This may involve a contractual
arrangement with an agent or other association. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Offended hires an agent to pursue, negotiate with, enforce, or otherwise
resolve a dispute. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Offended joins a collective organization to be an agent for possible future
disputes. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Offended hires someone to hurt, jail, kill or otherwise offend the
offender.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I'm not promoting any of these as recommended solutions; just listing some
plausible examples. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">An important consideration when it comes to defining, asserting and achieving
justice is what and whose resources are available to accomplish it. All existing
legal systems depend on 1) defining what justice is ahead of time, without any
consideration for the complexity of differing human opinions, 2) imposing one
person's justice on another without consent, and 3) almost complete, total
disregard for resource allocation. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Life may be viewed as nothing more than a resource allocation process.
Resources include time, energy, property, emotions, money, beliefs and anything
else that a living thing controls or uses to further life goals. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All current legal systems provide commonly-pooled resources, which are
allocated by confusing, contradictory rules and procedures. These have nothing
to do with effectiveness, fairness (whatever that subjective word means) or
<b>REAL</b> importance. That's why someone can win a multi-million dollar
lawsuit for spilling hot coffee on herself. The whole concept of deciding
justice ahead of time in some collective, societal way is confused. This is
because justice is treated as a completely different commodity than most other
aspects of human life. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">People can often see that these other aspects work best with market choice,
rather than centralized force. But for some reason justice, like religion, has
achieved some mystical quality which places it outside the normal universe in
which other, less mystical things can be understood. In my opinion, justice (and
the successful protection of property which makes justice unnecessary) is no
different than any other service, commodity or desire. It shouldn't be used as
an excuse to abandon principles that work so well in other areas of human
action.</span> <br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><strong><em>Escalation</em></strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>ESCALATION</b> is expanding the scope of an offense to a new offense. This
may include retaliation and punishment. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Examples</b>:
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Offended claims offense, which prompts mentally disturbed offender to commit
a new offense. At this point, offended may realize offender is disturbed, and
may terminate offense claims. Offended may then cautiously avoid offender in the
future, if any ongoing threat is perceived. This could lead to long term,
unresolved offense. </span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Offended does something that offends offender. This immediately produces two
offended offenders. Of course, each party likely views the other as 100 percent
wrong. </span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Offended steals property from original offender, thinking it is compensation
for previous theft. In so doing, the previous offender is now offended. (One
reason this invariably leads to escalation is the two parties' unequal opinions
of value and fairness). </span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Offended hoots offender for stealing property. </span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Either offended or offender uses an agent who creates a new offense against
the other party. (This is not escalation until and if a new offense has been
created)
Others, not originally offended, are brought into the dispute through family
ties, fraternity alliance or other association. This may eventually lead to
private, public, gang or government warfare.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Retaliation</b> for a first offense is sometimes used as an excuse to
escalate a conflict. That is, because someone else strikes first (stealing your
property, for example), some people think, because of the "non-aggression"
principle, that they have a moral, righteous, legal right to strike back. They
often "justify" doing this in any way they think appropriate, without regard to
the consequences of the other person's perception. But this simple principle
(retaliation) is nothing more than the old biblical "eye for an eye," often
having the same destructive, escalating result that Israelis and Palestinians
demonstrate regularly (and others in Lebanon, Northern Ireland and elsewhere).
Another word for this is <b>revenge</b>. This is the primary focus, the
cornerstone, of all current legal systems. NOT protection. NOT restitution. But
revenge. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Non aggression is a very useful and potentially important principle, but not
as a MORAL standard. It is useful because it helps people get more of what they
want through cooperation, rather than the destructive, escalating use of force.
Attempts to moralize human action most often result in top-down, overly
simplistic impositions of a few people's views of how other people should live
their lives. I have enough trouble figuring out how to live my life than to
spend my valuable time telling others how to live theirs. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">OK, here it is. Brace yourself: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>MORALITY IS A SUBJECTIVE HUMAN OPINION</b>, biased by each person's unique
life experience. The arrogance of morality is the driving force behind war,
politics, organized religion and other popular forms of chauvinism. I detest
morality, and the silly idea that anyone thinks they can tell me how I "should"
live my life, what to consider "right" or "wrong," or whether my actions conform
to their unique, biased and arbitrary view of the world. Of course, I appreciate
information others give me from their experience that I may use to guide my
actions. However, I may not understand that information if it is presented in a
way that suggests I'm an idiot for not seeing it earlier, or not blindly
accepting all of it. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The arrogance of orthodoxy (which I call <b>ARROGOXY</b>) is the primary
barrier to more efficient and beneficial dispute resolution (justice). Also,
treating real people problems as academic contests to find the most obscure,
uncomfortable and longest words to express them has become a very effective
means to maintain the historic monopoly that justice elitists have promoted to
protect their careers and exalted status.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><strong><em>Protection</em></strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>PROTECTION</b> is action taken by someone to prevent being offended in the
future. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong>Examples:</strong>
</span><br />
<blockquote>
<dl><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Building friendships and other rewarding relationships </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Avoiding offending others unneccesarily </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Avoiding situations where one is likely to be offended</span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Developing communication skills and learning to deal with people effectively,
including negotiation </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Living in a low-crime neighborhood </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Locks on the doors, burglar alarm systems and other physical devices designed
to prevent or discourage theft </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Massive retaliation (offending offenders) to create a deterrent against
future offense </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Moving to a different place </span> </dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
Terminating destructive relationships.</span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I do not define <b>crime</b> here, as the word too easily abandons the
individual responsibility which I think is crucial for <b>REAL</b> protection.
For example, if I use a common law definition of crime such as "don't hurt
others," it is meaningless until the word, "hurt" gets defined. While judges,
philosophers and lawyers can come up with brilliant definitions of what this
word should mean, they are all irrelevant to someone who holds a different
opinion of what "hurt" is. This is why I use the word, "offense" to include
everything from inappropriate comments to murder. By doing this, the
responsibility for dealing with anything is placed squarely on the shoulders of
the offended party. The offended party must then make choices, which may include
the allocation of resources controlled by the offended. Of course, this may also
include membership in an association to which the offended party has previously
chosen to belong to deal with such matters. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">By treating crime as a societal thing, resource allocation (necessary to
determine which things are most important) is left almost completely out of the
picture. Although there are public resources at stake with traditional
approaches to crime, no rational means exist by which to allocate them, since
the subjectivity and unique, relative importance of offenses are ignored. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Top-down" law is based on the idea that all offenses must be pursued,
regardless of their importance to the offended party. This bypasses individual,
subjective opinions about how important each particular offense is, and what
(and whose) resources are available to pursue it. For the same reason market
choice is superior to a top-down authority in economic matters, the same
principle holds for offensive behavior and justice. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Since virtually all existing legal systems rely exclusively on punishment and
revenge, these will be briefly addressed. The main excuse for concentrating on
punishment is to provide deterrence which discourages criminals from repeating
crimes. The conditions for this deterrence rarely occur, however. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><strong><em>Punishment and
Deterrence</em></strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One person does something someone else doesn't like. If the offended party
doesn't say or do anything, the other person doesn't know (s)he has done
anything offensive, and has no reason to change behavior. Likewise, if someone
steals your money, and you don't follow up and claim restitution, the thief
naturally thinks (s)he can get away with theft. Whether it is considered right
or wrong by either party is beside the point. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It takes labor (energy, discomfort, physical movement) to confront someone
else who you believe has offended or injured you. For this reason, some people
often let small aggressions pass, thinking it isn't worth their effort to deal
with. Of course, letting people get away with small aggressions encourages them
to comit more serious aggressions in the future. They learn that aggression is
rewarded, so that "crime pays." (A.J. Galambos said, "crime doesn't pay - until
you get elected.") At some point, a person who has learned that (s)he can get
away with small aggressions gets confronted by someone (s)he has injured. This
confrontation, if successful, may have a deterrent effect on the aggressor.
However, it will have such a deterrent effect only if the cost of aggression
consistently outweighs the benefits of aggression. So if a thief gets caught
only once out of every 10 times, it may still pay to be a thief. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If the cost of theft (when and if caught) is to pay back what was stolen,
this might not have as much a deterrent effect as if the consequences are more
severe. For example, if the price for being caught for theft is one year in
jail, this additional risk might be considered by the thief in making decisions
about whether to rob someone. However, if jail includes certain amenities such
as free food, television and recreation without having to work, the deterrent
effect might not be important. In fact, such an environment might actually be a
REWARD for theft. People who are chronically unhappy and unsuccessful,
especially those with stressful financial, job or family obligations, might find
jail a much better alternative than continuing their stressful lives. Giving up
freedom for security and comfort is one of the most common of human choices,
although most people don't go to the extreme of choosing incarceration. Let's
not kid ourselves that jail is automatically a deterrent. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Punishment can be a deterrent, but only if:
</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1) it is a REAL negative consequence (this can only be decided by the
subjective opinion of the aggressor, not any legal system), </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2) if the offender believes there is a significant risk of suffering it, and </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3) if the offender is thinking logically while deciding to comit the offense. </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All three of these must be in place for punishment to be an effective
deterrent. If any one is missing, punishment doesn't work to deter offensive
behavior.
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><strong><em></em></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><strong><em>Summary</em></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In summary, the underlying stucture I have concluded that exists in human
conflict is the following:
</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. Perception of an offense </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. A resource allocation decision by the
offended </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. A possible claim by the offended, if the resource allocation
decision is positive (that is, to spend resources to deal with the
offense) </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<dl><dd><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4. An attempt at resolution of the offense (seeking
justice)</span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A spiral of downward confusion results when this process in interrupted. One
common way this happens is "guaranteed justice" supplied by an agency whose
apparent authority extends beyond those who have consciously made a prior choice
to be associated with it. While such a "top-down" approach might appear to
minimize conflict, this is just a temporary hallucination, and one of the most
common and devastating mistakes of human judgment. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The more a "super parent" imposes top-down rules on fighting children,
temporarily keeping "the peace," the more handicapped they become. This inhibits
them from learning how to resolve disputes without depending on a "free lunch"
criminal justice system that decides this for them (a free lunch occurs even
without the transfer of wealth, since decisions are imposed without requiring
their choice). In short, they never learn to resolve disputes, because they
don't have to. This has a terribly crippling effect later in life. When the
parent is gone, their escalation of fighting appears to be the result of not
having a strong enough parent. However, this destructive result (increasing
conflict) is actually caused by the stifling conformity and obedience previously
imposed on them by the parent. By teaching children to be dependent on parents
for resolving disputes, parents teach children not to think for themselves or to
learn dispute resolution skills. They are like baby eagles whose wings were
clipped, never able to fly. This makes them weak and dependent. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Punishment and revenge, the twin handmaidens of existing legal systems,
rarely work effectively to discourage criminals. <b>Punishment</b>, in fact,
often turns out to be a reward. Modern prisons, with all their amenities, are
nothing more than "criminal welfare" in some cases. Compounding this whole
problem is the fact that prisons turn small criminals into big ones, while most
of the space taken up in prison is by those who have committed non-violent
crimes. The United States has a larger percentage of its citizens in prison than
any other country.</span>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><strong><em>Conclusion</em></strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Whether an offense actually gets resolved is such a complicated, individual,
subjective process, that no person can possibly understand what the outcome
should be ahead of time for someone else. While many people might agree on a
general strategy or principles; dogmatically imposing any one approach,
structure, institution, sheriff, constable, government, law, constitution,
morality or other ethical consideration on this process is likely to be
counterproductive in the long run. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Justice, in my humble opinion, should be every bit as diverse, creative,
responsive and limited by resources available as any other human action. It is
nothing special, but just another activity that requires conscious thought and
custom design for a particular, unique situation. Imposing anyone's idea on this
process as a top-down, authoritative approach is inherently destructive, except
in those cases where certain people have chosen to abide by such an approach
ahead of time.</span>
<br />
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-66482270795863695242013-12-06T11:33:00.000-07:002014-03-05T09:49:50.826-07:00ONLY COURAGE CAN SAVE AMERICA!<div dir="ltr">
by <strong><em>James Craig Green</em></strong></div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
As I get older, I no longer care so much about how my ideas may be perceived by other people, though I enjoy lively debates and criticisms of my beliefs (when respectfully courteous). Call it maturity, insanity, or just plain, old-fashioned dementia or delusion... it is where I am now in my life. I wouldn't be twenty again if I could.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
It never ceases to amaze me that so many people - especially Americans - still see the STATE, or some other coercive, monopolistic, wealth-destroying GOVERNMENT as some kind of savior.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Government is, BY FAR, the most addicting and destructive narcotic ever invented. By comparison, Bernie Madoff and other private criminals were pikers... Amateurs really... compared to the STATE. In fact, it was only after private financial interests and victims of Madoff had repeatedly, without success, tried to get him charged with multiple crimes of fraud, that the STATE finally consented to prosecute him, after it was too late for his victims. He stole about $65 million from his victims, and pissed it all away.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
How ironic that most people seem to trust the STATE to catch criminals, when the STATE itself is the biggest one of all. One of my most treasured mentors is <strong><em>Thomas Sowell</em></strong>, who said...</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<strong><em>"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay</em></strong></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<strong><em>for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think we can</em></strong></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<strong><em>afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a govern-</em></strong></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<strong><em>ment bureaucracy to adminster it."</em></strong></div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
**********<br />
Republicans and Democrats argue over a very small portion of the federal government's ON BUDGET spending, while the most significant portions of government spending (entitlements) enjoy ongoing, hardwired increases, completely on automatic pilot, without any need for ongoing, endless debates in Congress. This protects duplicitous (i.e., ALL) Congressmen and women against having to be seen as voting against them - not even small, silly, trivial reductions. Are you beginning the get the picture???</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
AND now, the secret of all secrets even your parents never knew - REPUBLICANS grow government faster than DEMOCRATS... At least, after Roosevelt but before Obama. It's just that my conservative friends (including most of my relatives and all my ancestors) have actually taken the hook, line and sinker LIE that Republicans are for small government and free markets.<br />
<br />
I don't mean ALL Republicans necessarily believe in growing the State - only a majority of those elected to federal office. Only a small MINORITY in most Congresses ever have been, <strong><em>at least in the last Century:</em></strong> </div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
(CLICK GRAPH TO ENLARGE)<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJFPBPwTYAStRHRDuH0QmK9uPaOgDJgSGTmnMp0UXp_rcoqmGK2Vz2fM1lkuJO_PB-LVoeddiHQMTpVQ4orj-XynbYBG_h8dmonJZA1qTxDz_XCKzbkt2QBkvH0AuBedG_tGUhlBanQ9w/s1600/GovSpendGraf50-07.jpg" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="302" src="https://snt149.mail.live.com/Handlers/ImageProxy.mvc?bicild=&canary=76reEWHk2P5%2fKfPay8pJCDVr3xCzCQg3tVsYrZ6e4cQ%3d0&url=http%3a%2f%2f4.bp.blogspot.com%2f-ZlMo9y2n1ig%2fTxic58nTN2I%2fAAAAAAAAAFc%2faPdtdpIx3CE%2fs400%2fGovSpendGraf50-07.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
I originally published this graph in 2009, later updated in 2012, on my blog, LIBERTY ALUMNI DISCUSSIONS. It graphs government spending AND public debt, which I created in early 2009 (shortly after OBAMA was elected). In other words, both major political parties are screwing all of us BIG TIME, contrary to what the well- meaning but completely neutered, so-called LIMITED GOVERNMENT conservatives have to say. Today, a black President has most of them shaking in their boots so as to not be called racist... a trump card that no other President in history was able to play. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Combine that with Obama's upbringing by a Marxist mentor (FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS) and other radicals like terrorist Bill Ayers, with unique, anti-American influences at every turn of his young life, well... you know the rest. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
There... I've said it. Think what you like. Now, back to the main issue...</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
See my November 2012 blog post to see this article in which my government spending/debt graph was first published:</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-problem-with-government.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0072c6;">http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-problem-with-government.html</span></a> </div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
The Republican Party, ever since its creation just in time for Abraham LINCOLN to become America's first Dictator, has ALWAYS been a big government party - but they just believe in DIFFERENT government subsidies than Democrats, and both promote special favors from government to themselves and their friends. The complicity with Democrats that modern Republicans display - allowing KING BARACK the FIRST to get away with turning our Facist state (which he did not create ) into a Socialist one is more than criminal... it is TREASONOUS.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Read Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, and see if you agree. If you can stomach it, also read Article II (Congress), Section 8 for most of the limited but approved duties of Congress. You won't find most modern government agencies there, which comprise the bulk of federal government spending. Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve DID NOT change the Constitution, unlike the 16th Amendment's Income Tax in the same year (1913).</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Besides LINCOLN, who were the other America Dictators? Simple - WILSON, both ROOSEVELTS, JOHNSON (58,000 dead in Vietnam without any tangible reason), NIXON (my Commander-In-Chief during the Vietnam War), and <strong><em>before-the-fact</em></strong> Nobel Laureate, savior of the whole human race... OBAMA. Others might be included, but these are my all-time list of SEVEN FREEDOM DESTROYERS. Each had in common an extraordinary ability to sway, intimidate, defraud and cajole large majorities in Congress. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
To put it simply, separation-of- powers is no longer a real feature of American politics, though it's still right there in the Bill of Rights (first TEN Amendments, never changed). </div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
My dear conservative friends won't like my inclusion of LINCOLN, but he was responsible for more American lives lost needlessly - <strong><em>By Far</em></strong> -than any other President. There were better ways to eliminate the uneconomic practice of slavery than some Americans murdering 600,000 others. Like most wars, that one was completely unnecessary for all it accomplished (or didn't). We can't change history, but we can learn from it and do better.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<strong><em>MY SOLUTION</em></strong></div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
I have a simple, but not-so-easy solution to this dilemma of a runaway Congress: Pass a Constutional Amendment abolishing the election of INCUMBENTS. In my opinion, only this refrorm could likely work to break the chronically-destructive cycle of LIFETIME POLITICAL CAREERS. Few will vote for freedom if the addictive power of decades-long political careers and the hyper-wealth they bring is not fixed.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Absent this reform, we'll just have to wait until the next crash destroys the economy from a lifetime of fiscal irresponsibility enjoyed by both major parties. Frankly, I think this latter, WORST alternative is the most likely way government will ultimately be reduced. But, without something this fundamental, government will simply grow until the STATE becomes so SOCIALIST instead of FASCIST, that its control of the economy is largely broken.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
When I was running for Congress as a Libertarian twice in the 1980's, I was always confronted with the criticism, "...But we don't want to get rid of the GOOD ones (politicians). I didn't have the presence of mind or understanding then for a good answer, but I do today... EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS IS CORRUPTABLE, and will become so when the dull-normal people, or Worse, the geniuses who get elected to Congress can MAKE LIFETIME CAREERS and lucrative retirement packages for a few terms in Congress. This unsavory incentive corrupts the uncorruptable, or at the very least, keeps principled people like the Ron Pauls of the world (Yes, there are more than a few) chronically irrelevant in Congress. The beast will NEVER reform itself, because it is too lucrative a profession to entice many REAL government-limiters. The incentives are all too anti-freedom, anti-limited government, and too anti-AMERICA in the way the Founders saw it.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
************<br />
The MARKETS that create all wealth are repeatedly reviled, rejected and demonized by too many Americans educated in government schools who "drank the Kool-Aid," lacking the mental tools to see the idiocy of Today's Government-Gone-Wild.<br />
<br />
When a thief (government) steals money from those who earned it (taxpayers) and gives half of it to those who didn't (moochers), most Americans seem to say or think... "AW, How Compassionate."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
What they should say is, "SHIT, there goes another wealth-destroying, money-losing, corrupt lie and fraud."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
WELCOME to (Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush)-CARE. Without the others, Obama would have been just another Chicago gangster thug/pimp. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Every one of these (some even exalted) demagogues continued the insanity of his predecessor. AND, each and every one of them grew government when they had the help of at least one part of Congress (House or Senate). EVERY public official in the entire US (not just Congress, President, Judges and State legislatures) TAKES AN OATH to uphold and defend the Constitution, which is by far the greatest government-limiting tool ever created by any government. Unfortunately, it has been ignored by all three branches of government for AT LEAST a Century.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Many of the idiots in Congress think the three branches of the federal government are the President, House and Senate. You should read Article I (Congress), Article II (President) and Article III (Supreme Court) to make yourself much, much better informed and smarter than the 535 idiots who call themselves CONGRESS. (If you attended public school, I hope you won't be offended by my reminding you that the HOUSE has 435 members, and the SENATE has 100). They represent only ONE branch of federal government. If your confused, re-read Article III above.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
*****</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Government CONSUMES wealth; it does not PRODUCE it, EXCEPT AT A FINANCIAL LOSS to the economy. For every government program for which you can name, more money is LOST than is gained by its beneficiaries. This is exactly why the Founding Fathers promoted the virtues of private property protection, a DEFENSIVE military (not one like ours that seems to be primarily a jobs program for Generals or other warmongers, or to tell other countries how they should run their societies).</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
If any part of this makes sense to the small minority of you who will notice it, you MIGHT enjoy being further corrupted further by the following:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/libertarianism-beyond-nozick/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0068cf;">http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/libertarianism-beyond-nozick/</span></a> </div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Have a GREAT day, year and life, what's left of it. Our screwed up society will NEVER change enough by voting, but it will change, because it has adopted hook, line and sinker the conservative and liberal PROGRESSIVISM that has destroyed the Founders' dreams long before you, I, or OBAMA was born... which is completely unsustainable in the long run. Unfortunately, John Maynard Keynes said in response... "In the Long Run, We are All DEAD," which seems to inspire more American politicians than ever to take the anti-Founding-Father concept of unlimited government focusing on the Fascist-toward-Socialist model. Unfortunately, Karl Marx is alive and well in America.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
You might think I am a pessimist, but I am not. Although we have a long, long road on which things are going to get worse, eventually, they will get better, for one simple reason I have been writing about for decades... THE HUMAN SPIRIT always finds a way, especially in this special, unique place we call AMERICA, which even to my Canadian and Mexican friends, means the <strong><em>United States of </em></strong><strong><em>America</em></strong>. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
************</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Get busy living, or Get busy dying... (credits to the movie SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION).</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-49934669827617347822013-11-16T06:39:00.002-07:002013-11-18T04:38:20.005-07:00OBAMA HOGWASH!By <strong><em>James Craig Green</em></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
Cafe Hayek posted the following article about the Obamacare debacle - especially the President's deceitful handling of it - on November 15, 2013:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/mo66bkb">11-15-2013 CAFE HAYEK Article</a> <br />
<br />
<br />
I especially liked the question by Major Garett, followed by Obama's long-winded non-response:<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em>GARETT'S QUESTION:</em></strong><br />
<br />
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You say, while the law was being debated, if you
like your plan you can keep it. You said, after the law was implemented or
signed, if you like your plan you can keep it. Americans believed you, sir, when
you said that to them over and over.<br />
<br />
Do you not believe, sir, the American people deserve a deeper, more
transparent accountability from you as to why you said that over and over when
your own statistics published in the Federal Register alerted your policy staff
— and, I presume, you — to the fact that millions of Americans would in fact
probably fall into the very gap you’re trying to administratively fix now?
That’s one question.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em>OBAMA'S RESPONSE:</em></strong><br />
<br />
With respect to the pledge I made that if you like your plan you can keep it,
I think — you know, and I’ve said in interviews — that there is no doubt that
the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate. It was not
because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise. We
put a grandfather clause into the law but it was insufficient.<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that the individual market accounts for 5 percent of the
population. So when I said you can keep your health care, you know, I’m looking
at folks who’ve got employer-based health care. I’m looking at folks who’ve got
Medicare and Medicaid. And that accounts for the vast majority of Americans. And
then for people who don’t have any health insurance at all, obviously that
didn’t apply. My commitment to them was you were going to be able to get
affordable health care for the first time.<br />
<br />
You have an individual market that accounts for about 5 percent of the
population. And our working assumption was — my working assumption was that the
majority of those folks would find better policies at lower cost or the same
cost in the marketplaces and that there — the universe of folks who potentially
would not find a better deal in the marketplaces, the grandfather clause would
work sufficiently for them. And it didn’t. And again, that’s on us, which is why
we’re — that’s on me.<br />
<br />
And that’s why I’m trying to fix it. And as I said earlier, my — I guess last
week, and I will repeat, that’s something I deeply regret because it’s scary
getting a cancelation notice.<br />
<br />
Now, it is important to understand that out of that population, typically,
there is constant churn in that market. You know, this market is not very stable
and reliable for people. So people have a lot of complaints when they’re in that
marketplace. As long as you’re healthy, things seem to be going pretty good. And
so a lot of people think, I’ve got pretty good insurance, until they get sick,
and then suddenly they look at the fine print and they’ve got a $50,000 out-of-
pocket expense that they can’t pay.<br />
<br />
We know that on average over the last decade, each year premiums in that
individual market would go up an average of 15 percent a year. I know that
because when we were talking about health care reform, one of the complaints
was, I bought health care in the individual market, and I just got a notice from
the insurer they dropped me after I had an illness or my premiums skyrocketed by
20 or 30 percent; why aren’t we doing something about this?<br />
<br />
So part of what our goal has been is to make sure that that individual market
is stable and fair and has the kind of consumer protections that make sure that
people don’t get a rude surprise when they really need health insurance.<br />
<br />
But if you just got a cancelation notice and so far you’re thinking, my
prices are pretty good, you haven’t been sick, and it fits your budget, and now
you get this notice, you’re going to be worried about it. And if the insurer is
saying the reason you’re getting this notice is because of the Affordable Care
Act, then you’re going to be understandably aggravated about it.<br />
<br />
Now, for a big portion of those people, the truth is, they might have gotten
a notice saying, we’re jacking up your rates by 30 percent. They might have
said, from here on out we’re not going to cover X, Y and Z illnesses. We’re
changing the — because these were all 12- month policies. They — the insurance
companies were no — under no obligation to renew the exact same policies that
you had before.<br />
<br />
But look, one of the things I understood when we decided to reform the — the
health insurance market, part of the reason why it hasn’t been done before and
it’s very difficult to do, is that anything that’s going on that’s tough in — in
the health care market, if you initiated a reform, can be attributed to your
law. And — and so what we want to do is to be able to say to these folks, you
know what, the Affordable Care Act is not going to be the reason why insurers
have to cancel your plan. Now, what folks may find is the insurance companies
may still come back and say, we want to charge you 20 percent more than we did
last year, or we’re not going to cover prescription drugs now. But that will —
that’s in the nature of the market that existed earlier.Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-39846695364785319692013-11-14T11:47:00.001-07:002014-03-05T14:04:24.488-07:00THE MARKET FOR LIBERTYby Morris and Linda Tannehill<br />
(Introduction and excerpts by James Craig Green)<br />
<br />
<br />
This was one of the most important books I ever read. The Tannehills capture the radical, anti-statist principles of individual freedom exemplified by the American Revolution. Better yet, the modern libertarian movement was not so focused on eliminating monarchy - addressing issues the Founders couldn't imagine - so the Tannehills' classic (1970's) was profoundly important to me during my libertarian epiphany in the seventies and eighties.<br />
<br />
I suddenly realized I was a libertarian in 1980, though I had been positively influenced by Roger MacBride of Virginia in 1976 - Libertarian for President, when I decided NOT to vote. I had voted for Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972, but by the mid-seventies I was already disgusted with politics. I joined the Colorado Libertarian Party in 1980, then started reading Murray Rothbard, Robert LeFevre, Ayn Rand, John Locke, Ludwig von Mises and countess others. This changed my life more than anything else I had ever known.<br />
<br />
I recently acquired a newly-published copy of this book, which except for copyright date and credits, is an exact reproduction of the original. I congratulate Cobden Press and Laissez-Faire Books for returning this outstanding classic of freedom principles to the forefront. I like to think of this book as very much like the sentiments of America's great founders, had they lived in the Twentieth Century.<br />
<br />
<br />
You can download the 175-page book in PDF format from the Mises Institute here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf">http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf</a> <br />
<br />
OR, if you want a clean, handy perfect bound printed version, you can order the commemorative paperback from Laissez Faire Books, for $10.95, plus shipping.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://lfb.org/shop/civil-liberties/the-market-for-liberty/">MARKET FOR LIBERTY BOOK</a><br />
<br />
<br />
This blog post includes excerpts below from the first paragraph or two of each chapter. I would encourage anyone interested in human freedom to buy copies of this, read it, and if you like it, buy copies for your friends. <br />
<h2>
</h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">MARKET FOR LIBERTY EXCERPTS:</span></h2>
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 1 - If We Don't Know Where We Are Going...</em></strong><br />
<br />
If we don't know where we are going, chances are we won't get there.<br />
<br />
Our world is increasingly disturbed with dissatisfaction. Myriads of people on every continent are whispering or shouting or rioting their discontent with the structures of their societies. And they have a lot to be dissatisfied with - poverty which increases instep with increasingly expensive anti-poverty programs, endless heavier burdens of taxation and regulation piled on by unmindful bureaucrats, the long death-agonies of meaningless mini-wars, the terrible iron-fisted knock knock of secret police...<br />
<br />
Youth are especially dissatisfied. Many long to turn the world upside down, in hopes that a better, freer, more humane society will emerge. But improvements in man's condition never come as a result of blind hope, pious prayers, or random chance; they are the product of knowledge and thought...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 2 - Man and Society</em></strong><br />
<br />
In all of recorded history, men have never managed to establish a social order which didn't institutionalize violations of freedom, peace and justice - that is, a social order in which man could realize his real potential. This failure has been due to the fact - that thinkers have never clearly and explicitly understood three things - namely, 1- the nature of man, 2- what kind of society this nature requires for men to realize their full potential, and 3- how to maintain and achieve such a society<br />
<br />
Most self-styled planners and builders of societies haven't even considered that man might have a particular nature...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 3 - The Self-Regulating Market</em></strong><br />
<br />
Government bureaucrats and their allies among the currently influential opinion-molders have made a practice of spreading misinformation about the nature of a free market. They have accused the market of instability and economic injustice and have misrepresented it as the origin of myriads of evils from "poverty" to "the affluent society." Their motives are obvious. If people can be made to believe that the laissez-faire system of a free, unregulated market is inherently faulty, then the bureaucrats and their cohorts in the classrooms and editorial offices will be called in to remedy the situation. In this way, power and influence will flow to the bureaucrats... and bureaucrats thrive on power.<br />
<br />
The free-market system, which the bureaucrats and politicians blame so energetically for almost everything, is nothing more than individuals trading with each other in a market free from interference. Because of the tremendous benefits of trade under a division of labor, there will always be markets...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 4 - Government - An Unnecessary Evil</em></strong><br />
<br />
Because the weight of governmental power has such influence on the structure and functioning of any society, ideas concerning social organization have typically centered on the structure of the proposed society's government. Most "social thinkers" however, have taken government as a given. They have debated over the particular form of government they wished their ideal societies to have but have seldom attempted to examine the nature of government itself. But if one doesn't know clearly what government is, one can hardly determine what influences government will have on society...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Government is a coercive monopoly which has assumed power over and certain responsibilities for every human being within the geographical area which it claims as its own.</em></strong> A coercive monopoly is an institution maintained by the threat and/or use of physical force - the <strong><em>initiation</em></strong> of force - to prohibit competitors from entering its field of endeavor...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 5 - A Free and Healthy Economy</em></strong><br />
<br />
Imagine a feudal serf, legally bound to the land he was born on and to the social position he was born into, toiling from dawn to dusk with primitive tools for a bare existence which he must share with the lord of his manor, his mental processes enmeshed with fears and superstitions. Imagine trying to tell this serf about the social structure of Twentieth Century America. You would probably have a hard time convincing him that such a social structure could exist at all, because he would view everything you described from the context of his own knowledge of society. He would inform you, no doubt with a trace of smug superiority, that unless each individual born into the community had a specific and permantly fixed social place, society would speedily deteriorate into chaos.<br />
<br />
In a similar way, telling a Twentieth Century man that government is evil and, therefore unnecessary, and that we would have a far better society if we had no government at all, is likely to elicit polite skepticim... especially if the man is not used to thinking individually...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 6 - Property - The Great Problem Solver </em></strong><br />
<br />
Most social problems which perplex national leaders could be solved fairly simply by an increase of the amount of property owned. This would entail the equally important, general recognition that ownership is and must be total, rather than merely a governmental permission to possess and/or manage property so long as certain legal rules are complied with and "rent" in the form of property taxes is paid. When a man is required to "rent" his own property from the government by paying property taxes on it, he is being forbidden to fully exercise his right of ownership. Although he owns the property, he is forced into the position of a lessee, with the government as landlord. The proof of this is if he fails to pay the taxes the government will take the property away from him...<br />
<br />
In a governmentally controlled society, the unrestricted enjoyment of property ownership is not permitted, since government has the power to tax, regulate, and sometimes even confiscate (as in eminent domain) just about anything it pleases...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 7 - Arbitration of Disputes </em></strong><br />
<br />
Whenever men have dealings with each other, there is always a chance for disagreements and disputes to arise. Even when there has been no initiation of force, two persons can disagree over such matters as the terms and fulfillment of a contract or true title to a piece of property. Whether one party to the dispute is trying to cheat the other(s) or whether both (or all) are completely honest and sincere in their contentions, the dispute may reach a point where it can't be settled without binding arbitration by a disinterested arbiter. If no mechanism for such arbitration existed with a society, disputes could only be resolved in violence in every situtation in which at least one person abandoned reason - man's only satisfactory means of communication. Then, that society would disintegrate into strife, suspicion, and social and economic breakdown, as human relationships too dangerous to tolerate on any but the most limited scale. <br />
<br />
Advocates of "limited government" contend that government is necessarsy to maintain social order because disputes could never satisfactorily settled without a single, final court of appeal for everyone and without the force of rules to compel disputants to submit to that court and abide by its decision(s)...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 8 - Protection of Life and Property </em></strong><br />
<br />
Because man has a right to life, he has a right to defend that life. Without the right to self-defense, the right to life is a meaningless phrase. If a man has a right to defend his life against aggression, he also has a right to defend all his possessions, because these possessions are the result of his investment of time and energy (in other words, investments in part of his life) and are, thus, extensions of that life.<br />
<br />
Pacifists deny that man may morally use force to defend himself, objecting that the use of physical force against any human being is never justified under any circumstances... Having made this assertion, they offer no evidence... but merely treat it as an arbitrary primary...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 9 - Dealing With Coercion </em></strong><br />
<br />
Throughout history, the means of dealing with aggression (crime) has been punishment. Traditionally, it has been held that when a man commits a crime against society, the government, acting as an agent of society, must punish him. However, because punishment has not been based on the principle of righting the wrong but only of causing the criminal "to undergo pain, loss, or suffering," it has actually been revenge. This principle of vengeancy is expressed by the old saying, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," which means: "When you destroy a value of mine, I'll destroy a value of yours." ...Because destroying a value belonging to the criminal does nothing to compensate the innocent victim for his loss but only creates additional destruction, the principle of vengeance ignores, and in fact opposes, justice.<br />
<br />
When an aggressor causes the loss, damage, or destruction of an innocent man's values, justice demands that that the aggressor pay for his crime, not by forfeiting a part of his life to "society," but <strong><em>by repaying the victim</em></strong> for his loss, plus all expenses directly occasioned by the aggression (such as the expenses of apprehending the aggressor)...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 10 - Rectification of Injustice </em></strong><br />
<br />
Since aggression would be dealt with by forcing the aggressor to repay his victim for the damage caused (whenever the use of force was required), rather than by destroying values belonging to the aggressor, the free market would evolve a reparations-payment system vastly superior to and different from the present governmental prisons.<br />
<br />
If the aggressor had the money to make his entire reparations payment immediately or could sell enough property to raise the money, he would do so and be free to go his way with no more than a heavy financial loss....<br />
<br />
Assuming the aggressor could not make immediate payment of his entire debt, the method used to collect it would depend on the amount involved, the nature of the aggression, the aggressor's past record and present attitude, and any other pertinent variables...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 11 - Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime </em></strong><br />
<br />
Some opponents of a laissez-faire society have contended that, because a governmentless society would have no single, society-wide institution able to legitimately wield superior force to prevent aggression, a state of gang warfare between defense agencies would arise. Then (as they argue), brute force, rather than justice, would prevail and society would collapse in internecine conflict. This contention assumes that private defense service entrepreneurs would find it to their advantage, at least in some circumstances, to use coercive, rather than market, means to achieve their ends. There is a further, unstated assumption that governmental officials would not only prevent coercion but would themselves consistently refrain from initiating force (or that the force they initiated would be somehow preferable to the chaos it is feared would result from an unhampered market).<br />
<br />
The second of these assumptions is obviously groundless, since (as was shown in Chapter 4) government is a coercive monopoly which must initiate force in order to survive, and which cannot be kept limited. But what of the first assumption?...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 12 - Legislation and Objective Law </em></strong><br />
<br />
It has been objected by advocates of government that a laissez-faire society, since it would have no legislative mechanism, would lack the objective laws necessary to maintain social order and justice. This is to assume that objective law is the product of the deliberations of some legislative body, and this assumption, in turn, springs from a confusion about the meaning and nature of law.<br />
<br />
The adjective "objective" refers to that which has an actual existence in reality. When used to refer to the content of one's mind, it means ideas which are in accordance with the facts of reality. Mental objectivity cannot be "apart from the human mind," but it is the product of perceiving the facts of reality, integrating them in a non-contradictory manner into one's consciousness, and, thereby, reaching correct conclusions...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 13 - Foreign Aggression </em></strong><br />
<br />
Many people ask, "But how in the world would a laissez-faire society deal with aggression by foreign nations, since it would have no government to protect it?" Behind this question are two unrealized assumptions: first, that government is some sort of extra-societal entity with resources of its own - resources which can only be tapped for defense by the action of the government - and, second, that government does, in fact, defend its citizens.<br />
<br />
In reality, government must draw all its resources from the society over which it rules. When a governmentally controlled society takes defensive action against an aggression by a foreign power, where does it get the resources necessary to that action? The men who fight are private individuals, usually conscripted into government service. The armaments are produced by private individuals working at their jobs. The money to pay for these armaments and the pittance doled out to the conscripts, as well as the money to pay the salaries of that small minority comprising the other members of the armed forces, is confiscated from private individuals by means of taxation. Government's only contribution is to organize the whole effort by the use of force - the force of the draft, taxation, and other more minor coercions, such as rationing, wage and price ceilings, travel restrictions, etc. So, to maintaing that government is necessary to defend a society from foreign aggression is to maintain that it is necessary to use domestic aggression against the citizens in order to protect them from foreign aggression...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 14 - The Abolition of War </em></strong><br />
<br />
A few hundred years ago, the devastation of periodic plagues and famines was unthinkingly accepted as a normal and inescapable part of human existence - they were held to be either visitations from the indignant God or nature's means of wiping out "excess population." Today, in spite of the volumes of frantically hopeful talk about peace, many people accept the necessity of wars in the same unthinking manner; or at least they feel that wars will be necessary for the rest of foreseeable future. Are wars an unavoidable part of human society? And if not, why have all the years of negotiations, the reams of theories, the solumn treaties and unions of nations, and the flood of hopes and pious prayers failed to bring peace? After all the talking, planning and effort, why is our world filled with more brutal and dangerous strife than ever?<br />
<br />
War is a species of violence, and the most basic cause of violence is the belief that it is right or practical or necessary for human beings to initiate force against one another - that coercion is permissible or even unavoidable in human relationships. To the extent that men believe in the practicality and desirabilitiy of initiating force against other men, they will be beset with conflicts...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 15 - From Government to Laissez Faire </em></strong><br />
<br />
The prospect of real freedom is a laissez-faire society is a dazzling one, but how can such a society ever be brought about? Through the decades, government has silently grown and spread, thrusting insidious, intertwining tentacles into nearly every area of our lives. Our society is now so thoroughly penetrated by government bureaucracy and our economy so engangled in government controls that dissolution of the State would cause major and painful temporary dislocations. The problems of adjusting to a laissez-faire society are somewhat like those facing an alcoholic or heroin addict who is thinking of kicking the habit, and the difficulties and discomforts involved may make some people decide that we'd be better off just staying as we are.<br />
<br />
It is naive, however, to assume that we can "just stay where we are." America, and most of the rest of the world, is caught in a wave of economic decay and social upheaval which nothing can stop. After decades of governmental "fine tuning," our economy is now so distorted and crippled that we have a tremendous and ever growing class of hopeless and desparate poor... Government attempts to to aid them,... merely make the situtation worse.... As the poor see their lives becoming increasingly miserable in spite of all the political promises of help, their resentment must grow more violent...<br />
<br />
<strong><em>CHAPTER 16 - The Force Which Shapes the World </em></strong><br />
<br />
But a discussion of how government could be dismantled and how free men could then build a laissez-faire society out of the pieces still doesn't answer the question, "How do we get there?' Politicians are politicians because they enjoy wielding power over others and being honored for their "high positions." Power and plaudits are are the politician's life, and a true politician will fight to the death (your death) if he thinks it will help him hold on to them. Even the gray, faceless bureaucrats cling to their little bits of power with the desperate tenacity of a multitude of leaches, each squirming and fighting to hold and increase his area of domination. How can we successfully oppose this vast, cancerous power structure? Where can we find a force strong enough to attack, undermine, and finally destroy its power...?<br />
<br />
...Throughout history, the vast majority of people have believed that government was a necessary part of human existence... and so there have always been governments. People have believed they had to have a government because their leaders said so, because they had always had one, and most of all because they found the world unexplainable and frightening and felt a need for someone to lead them. Mankind's fear of freedom has always been a fear of self-reliance - of being thrown on his own to face a frightening world, with no one else to tell him what to do. But we are no longer terrified savages making offerings to a lightning god or cowering Medieval serfs hiding from ghosts and witches. We have learned that man can understand and control his environment and his own life, and we have no need of high priests or kings or presidents to tell us what to do. Government is now known for what it is. It belongs in the dark past with the rest of man's superstitions. <em>It's time for men to grow up</em> so that each individual man can walk forward into the sunlight of freedom... in full control of his own life!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-24473493646568770592013-11-06T13:57:00.002-07:002013-11-16T09:23:42.015-07:00BLOGS on SCIENCE, REALITY and POLITICS<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">Some of Craig's
Blog Posts on Science, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reality and
Politics:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p></o:p></span> </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2012/02/fallacy-of-truth.html">THE FALLACY OF TRUTH</a> </o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2011/05/science-induction-deduction.html">SCIENCE = INDUCTION + DEDUCTION</a> </o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2012/02/updated-agw-skeptics-case.html">UPDATED AGW SKEPTIC'S CASE</a> </o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2011/03/subordinate-acts.html">SUBORDINATE ACTS</a> </span></span></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2011/04/solar-jobs.html">SOLAR JOBS</a> </span></span></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2011/09/critique-of-ayn-rands-nature-of.html">CRITIQUE OF RAND'S "NATURE OF GOVERNMENT"</a> </o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><o:p></o:p></span> </div>
Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-8199338386020307322013-04-05T15:38:00.000-06:002013-04-13T06:35:37.498-06:00PRIVATE PROPERTY - PUBLIC PLUNDER<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">(original post May 2011)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong><em>By James Craig Green</em></strong></span><br />
<br />
Today, the size and scope of American government have grown far beyond the design of the Republic’s founders. It tries to be everything to everyone - intervening in everyone’s lives for the <strong><em>common good</em></strong> or <strong><em>public interest</em></strong>. This forceful elevation of the collective over the individual has produced nothing but false hope, tyranny and unsustainable debt, undermining the markets and property rights that prevented or limited them before. In short, government, producing nothing without destroying something else, is eating America alive. The best proof for this is <strong><em>16 TRILLION</em></strong> dollars in admitted public debt, much of it owed to foreign banks, plus another <strong><em>50 trillion</em></strong> in unfunded liabilities for future government promises like Social Security and Medicare (See: <a href="http://www.pgpf.org/">http://www.pgpf.org/</a>). Baby boomers are retiring, reversing their decades of positive contributions. <br />
<br />
The <strong><em>American Republic</em></strong> began with limited size and scope to prevent it from becoming what it is today. Unlike the democratic French Revolution that produced the Reign of Terror, the guillotine and the Emperor Napoleon; the American Revolution was based on respect for the individuals and their property rights that produce the wealth all collectives need. Ignoring or minimizing property protection has been a common theme of every government, including the federal government of the U.S. It is now a bloated, destructive monster, spending almost 50% of GDP for the first time since WWII - an eightfold increase in percentage over the last century, without including the costs of its oppressive mandates. Today, it conspires against America, promoting its self-serving illusion of security over freedom while waving the flag to cheering millions addicted to its "free" lunches.<br />
<br />
The <strong><em>U.S. Constitution</em></strong> and its <strong><em>Bill of Rights</em></strong> have been largely ignored or re-interpreted by all three branches of government, to appease every special interest that can package itself with the magic words, <strong><em>public interest</em></strong>. Presidents, congresses and courts have destroyed the Founders' dreams.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>A Different Animal</strong></span><br />
<br />
Today’s American government has made important things like protection and dispute resolution trivial -- confused and diluted by an endless growth of new laws each year to appease every whim of the collective mob. <strong><em>The People</em></strong>, a phrase never or vaguely defined, encourage legislators and their friends to create huge unearned advantages (jobs, contracts, handouts, economic restrictions) for some over others, by force of law.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>The law has become a hammer instead of a shield</em></strong>. <br />
<br />
Some may agree with the inherent problems of today's government, but may be cautious to support fundamental changes too rapidly or too sweeping in their scope. However, today's unprecedented and unstable economic conditions beg you to consider the following:<br />
<br />
1. Most Americans feel they are entitled to your money, and need only vote to get it - unlike the work ethic that existed before the New Deal and other government welfare programs. <br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
2. Government should be limited to people and property protection; NOT guaranteeing jobs, insurance or success. It cannot protect your property by giving it to others.<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
3. The next economic crash will again be sudden and unexpected. No political action can prevent it, despite false promises from Republicans and Democrats. Words are cheap.<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
4. Prudence suggests a backup plan for those who still believe the economy is fixable by politics, with a soft landing. This is not your grandfather's; nor Founders' America.<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
5. Creating alternative networks and institutions that do not depend on government may become essential if pessimistic scenarios occur. Do you believe Obama's projections?<br />
<br />
In 1917, the Soviet Union was created to implement the ideas of Karl Marx’s <strong><em>Communist Manifesto</em></strong> that took Europe by storm after its publication in 1848. The Soviet Union eventually failed from its forced collectivism, but not before starving and murdering tens of millions of its citizens and relegating others to lifetimes of poverty and tyranny. As a lifelong, card-carrying member of the American Communist Party once told me, <strong><em>Communists believe the means of production should be owned by the Public</em></strong>. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>A Silly Little Word</strong></span><br />
<br />
There it was, stripped naked for all to see - that awful, nebulous little 6-letter word that encourages people to excuse, and celebrate, their destructive tendencies without accepting responsibility. It is that word - <strong><em>public</em></strong> - that allows the plunder of innocent people for any grand, stupid, fantastic, or destructive purpose without blaming anyone. This silly little word is why <strong><em>public interest</em></strong> is a euphemism for tyranny, <strong><em>public servant</em></strong> for parasite and <strong><em>public property</em></strong> for socialism. Almost half the land in the U.S. is owned by government, with the remainder taxed to provide a cash cow for any and all <strong><em>public</em></strong> purposes. By this measure alone, America is already HALF socialist, sacrificing essential people and property protection for too many subsidized, free-riding voters. Read the <strong><em>Communist Manifesto</em></strong> to see where <strong><em>progressive</em></strong> taxation came from.<br />
<br />
Forceful collective action, like any lynch mob, disguises and minimizes the responsibility of each individual. This allows Democrats and Republicans to constantly grow government for the benefit of their friends, despite rhetoric to the contrary. Too many of your fellow citizens, perhaps yourself, depend on this insane collective gang bang for their livelihoods. It gets worse each year, now seeming likely that only economic collapse will stop government's cancerous growth.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, this process will reverse itself, but not because you voted for or against someone, or promoted some public policy, or fought against a tax increase. It will happen because a sizeable minority of productive people, at great risk to themselves, with the most rare and difficult kind of courage (opposing the majority) will take back their lives and choose not to support, excuse or placate this bloated monster. At this critical time in its history, America desperately needs people like Thoreau, Gandhi and Rosa Parks more than the self-absorbed politicians who pimp for your vote so they can continue to increase government every year. Read Thoreau's <strong><em>Civil Disobedience</em></strong>.<br />
<br />
Like so many others, American government has learned to promise endless prosperity without effort or responsibility. To break this destructive cycle, we must build new institutions that help us instead of hurt us – from the ground up, not from the top down, which has always been tried and has always failed. The U. S. Government is repeating the same mistakes of the <strong><em>Roman Empire</em></strong> and the <strong><em>Soviet Union</em></strong>, and its economy will collapse for the same reason – you can’t consume more than you produce forever. Today's <strong><em>unthinkable</em></strong> will be tomorrows <strong><em>necessity</em></strong>.<br />
<br />
It’s long past time for Americans to take back their lives, property and dreams from a fog of collectivism and the lies that are <strong><em>public interest</em></strong>, <strong><em>public service</em></strong> and <strong><em>public property</em></strong>.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Government is the great fiction by which everybody expects to live at the expense of everybody els</em></strong>e - Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-85432090482725881642013-04-05T14:46:00.003-06:002013-04-13T06:38:16.964-06:00MY FAVORITE BLOG POSTS<div dir="ltr">
by <strong><em>James Craig Green</em></strong></div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
I've been blogging about two years now.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr">
Most of the following - <strong><em>my favorites</em></strong> - are about the government BEAST destroying America to the <strong><em>most resounding</em></strong> applause and PUBLIC praise:<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Adam Smith's Dismal Science</span></em></strong> (Mar 2011):<br />
<a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2011/03/adam-smiths-dismal-science.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0068cf;">http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2011/03/adam-smiths-dismal-science.html</span></a> <br />
(MALTHUS' BLUNDER, <strong><em>Great Myths of the Great Depression</em></strong> and the illogic of a</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<strong><em>century of</em></strong> <strong><em>overblown government regulation</em></strong>, while blaming markets)<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Science = Deduction + Induction</span></em></strong> (May 2011):<br />
<a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2011/05/science-induction-deduction.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0068cf;">http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2011/05/science-induction-deduction.html</span></a> <br />
(Why SCIENCE can never be <strong><em>settled</em></strong>... please stay with it; you'll be rewarded)<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Private Property, Public Plunder</span></em></strong> (May 2011)<br />
<a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/04/private-property-public-plunder.html">http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/04/private-property-public-plunder.html</a><br />
(Private Property PRODUCES ALL the wealth that Government <strong><em>consumes</em></strong> and <strong><em>wastes</em></strong>)</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<strong><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Problem With Democracy</span></em></strong> (Jun 2011):<br />
<a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2011/06/democratic-family.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0068cf;">http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2011/06/democratic-family.html</span></a> <br />
(VOTERS in a Democracy overwhelm <strong><em>producers</em></strong>, like in the ROMAN EMPIRE and today's <strong><em>Post-Peaked </em></strong>WELFARE STATES)</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<br />
<strong><em>DON KIRKLAND</em></strong> on <strong><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Gap Between Rich and Poor</span></em></strong> (Mar 2012):<br />
<a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2012/03/gap-between-rich-and-poor-in-america.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0068cf;">http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2012/03/gap-between-rich-and-poor-in-america.html</span></a> (Excellent Summary of GOVERNMENT-GONE-WILD by my <strong><em>Best Friend</em></strong>)</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Junkie Nation</span></em></strong> (Dec 2012):<br />
<a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2012/12/junkie-nation.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0068cf;">http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2012/12/junkie-nation.html</span></a> <br />
(More on the WELFARE STATE and <strong><em>Government Junkies</em></strong> <strong><em>voting for a living</em></strong>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">How to Cook a Golden Goose</span></em></strong> (Jan 2013)<br />
<a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-to-cook-golden-goose.html">http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-to-cook-golden-goose.html</a><br />
(<strong><em>Crony Capitalism</em></strong> of the Welfare State; <strong><em>Bush & Obama</em></strong> = <strong><em>Hoover & Roosevelt</em></strong>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">THE LAW</span></em></strong> by Frederic Bastiat - <strong><em>highlights</em></strong> (Feb 2013):<br />
<a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-excerpts.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0068cf;">http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-excerpts.html</span></a> <br />
(THE BEST FREEDOM BOOK EVER - what Government should -- and <strong><em>should not</em></strong> do)<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">CONSENT of the Governed</span></em></strong> (Mar 2013):<br />
<a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/03/consent-of-governed.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0068cf;">http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/03/consent-of-governed.html</span></a> <br />
(DEMOCRACY IS DESTROYING AMERICA - and the <strong><em>Founders' Limited Republic</em></strong>)</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-83937604323228985842013-03-15T10:19:00.000-06:002013-03-24T10:09:19.489-06:00CONSENT OF THE GOVERNEDby <strong><em>James Craig Green</em></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
Fifteen years before the <strong><em>Bill of Rights</em></strong> was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1791, the foundation of the American Republic was built on the most
radical idea in human history – that government exists to serve people - not
the other way around. This idea was brilliantly stated in the <strong><em>Declaration of
Independence</em></strong> on July 4<sup>th</sup>, 1776:</div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt 57.6pt; text-align: center;">
<em><strong>Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just Powers from the </strong><u><strong>Consent of the Governed</strong></u></em></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<strong><em>CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED</em></strong> are the four most important words
in American History. Although other governments have paid lip service to <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the people</i></b>,
none has been formed from scratch, without the remnants of monarchy or other
old tyrannies, based on this principle. Unfortunately, the principle of consent
has been so widely confused and corrupted that today, it is no longer believed to be required by many Americans. This lack of
<u>explicit</u> consent by citizens is one reason why government today
is so large and invasive, regulating virtually every aspect of human behavior,
as an abusive parent <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">dominates</i></b> his children.</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">America’s Forgotten Courage<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
On July 4<sup>th</sup>, 1776, a handful of brave men openly
committed high treason to pledge - in their words <strong><em>...our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor</em></strong>
to the cause of liberty. The <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Declaration of Independence</i></b> was the
most important and unique political document in human history. It did not form
a new government, but simply rejected an existing one. 56 Americans signed the
Declaration of Independence. It is rumored that John Hancock, first to sign,
used a large, sweeping script so King George III could read it …<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">without
his spectacles</i></b>. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
According to the <strong><em>Founders Almanac</em></strong> (Heritage Foundation,
2002), seventeen of the signers served in the military, five were captured by
the British during the war, some were killed, several had to move their
families repeatedly, many donated large sums of money never repaid and eleven
had homes and property destroyed. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">THESE</i></b>, my friends, were patriots -
unlike the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Red</i></b> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and</i></b> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Blue</i></b> demagogues who pimp
for your votes today.</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Remnants of Liberty’s Past<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
American governments today promise to give their most favored citizens <strong><em>- and others -</em></strong> almost anything, for “free.” Of course, government largesse is not really <strong><em>free</em></strong>.
Someone else has to pay for every dollar you receive from government – after it
<strong><em>skims half</em></strong> for itself. Gullible voters
continue to participate in the charade of political elections, in which candidates
selected by powerful elites compete to see how much of other people's money (forced by threat of imprisonment)
they can promise to their <strong><em>constituents</em></strong>, which now don't even have to be citizens. The most honest word for this is <strong><em>plunder</em></strong>.
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
Political elections pretend to demonstrate control of
government by the people, but one vote in 60 million or so every few years is
<strong><em>trivial</em></strong> compared to the daily influence that lobbyists and other power brokers
have on legislators and other government officials. Government <strong><em>by the people</em></strong>
today is actually government by special interests, whose private <strong><em>wants</em></strong> are
sold to a gullible public as <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">needs</i></b>. All you have to do is say
your private <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">want</i></b> is in the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">public interest</i></b>, and politicians of
every stripe will stampede to sponsor a bill in your behalf. The trouble is,
this also works for every petty tyrant who wants to control every aspect of
your life, or force you to pay for his failures. After an income tax was
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1894, the Constitution was amended
in 1913 to allow it (<strong><em>16th Amendment</em></strong>). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The Big “D”<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
The word <strong><em>democracy</em></strong> comes from the Greek <strong><em>demos</em></strong>, meaning
people, and <strong><em>kratien</em></strong>, meaning rule. Literally, democracy means <strong><em>people rule</em></strong>.
Today, however, democracy is a smokescreen to perpetuate the false idea that
citizens control government. To the chagrin of thinking and productive people
everywhere, the most democratic governments in the world today are controlled
by self-absorbed special interests, who successfully manipulate <strong><em>public servants</em></strong>
into believing their selfish agendas are somehow in the <strong><em>public interest</em></strong>. As a
card-carrying member of the American Communist Party told me in 1985,
communists believe the <strong><em>PUBLIC</em></strong> should own the means of production. No clearer
statement of the reality of modern politics in so-called <strong><em>democratic</em></strong> states
was ever made. It is not citizens who control today’s governments, but
lobbyists, who seduce your favorite politicians and
their minions for the 364 days in the year you are NOT voting. The idea that
pulling a lever in a voting booth once every two, four, or six years by <strong><em>one out
of five people</em></strong> to elect a <strong><em>public servant</em></strong> is citizen control of government is preposterous. BUT,
it is widely believed and promoted by those educated in government schools to
conform, not think. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">It’s not democracy that creates prosperity, but freedom's productive
commerce.<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
The false promises of democratic government today are <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">prosperity
without effort</i></b>, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">freedom without responsibility</i></b> and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">security
without risk</i></b>. America, the cradle of liberty, has become the most
shining current example of lynch-mob collectives, led by dictatorial demagogues
from the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Roosevelts</b>, to <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Nixon</b>, to <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Obama</b>. It was Republican President Nixon (my Commander-in-Chief) who unconstitutionally - <strong><em>without serious
challenge</em></strong> - removed the last bit of gold backing from the dollar in 1971.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Galt's Gulch?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
John Galt, the heroic figure in Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas
Shrugged,” figured the producers, workers and thinkers of the world could bring
governments, tyrants and agencies to a halt by simply withholding their
services. As America continues its destructive path of seemingly <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">endless
consumption</i></b> while <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inhibiting production</i></b>, this may soon
be more realistic than you ever imagined.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
Until Americans and other hard-working, independent and
productive people of the world can legally say “NO!” to the funding of
government, they will not be free, independent or “democratic.” In case you
were educated in government schools like most of us, you may not realize that America's
founding <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">was not</i></b> based on democracy, except for the House of
Representatives. The Constitutional Republic founded in 1787, modified by its
Bill of Rights in 1791, was a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Republic</i></b>, not a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Democracy</i></b>. This means
government limited to certain listed powers granted to it by the sovereign
people, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">who retain all rights not granted to government</i></b> by the U.S. Constitution. This concept was
lost long before your grandparents were born, though it is still right there,
unchanged, in the Bill or Rights... especially <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Amendments IX</i></b> (nine) and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">X</i></b> (ten). <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u>Not
one word of the Bill of Rights</u></i></b> (first ten Amendments) has ever been
changed.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
Today, it is the height of arrogance, duplicity and insanity
that the President and every member of Congress, plus all other
federal and state officials, take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, while they implement unconstitutional programs faster than ever before.
It would be funny, if it were not so ironic - and tragic.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
As the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">unfunded liabilities</i></b> of the federal
government continue to bankrupt it, the Founding Fathers' vision of the
American Republic has been almost completely lost. About 40% of every dollar spent by the federal government today is borrowed. America transformed itself from the world's largest creditor, to the world's largest debtor, in a few decades.<br />
<br />
Only by returning to
government with limited powers focused on protecting its citizens instead of
plundering them, will the productive spirit of the American Revolution return
to its rightful place in history... and posterity. Until then, the worst among
us will continue to abuse the U.S. Constitution, produce more and more
unconstitutional laws, ignore the rule of law and continue America's
century-long march down the road to <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism</i></b>, toward its cousin <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">socialism</i></b>.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
In 1850, one of my favorite freedom thinkers in history -
Frenchman <strong><em>Frederic Bastiat</em></strong>, published a little book called <a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-excerpts.html">THE LAW</a>. I have said many
times, and continue to believe - that American government today is hopelessly
corrupt, violent and oppressive, because it has lost the original vision of its
Founders.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
I hope you will read <a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-excerpts.html">THE LAW</a> to better understand the
point at which a government - like the one begun in America more than two centuries ago - goes beyond its legitimate purpose (to <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">protec</i>t</b> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">people</i></b>
and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">property</i></b>), to turn precious liberty into tyranny, as it has today.
This happens once the government and a minority of its citizens discover
that it is <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">cheaper and easier</i></b> to petition government for special favors
(<strong><em>Always</em></strong> at the expense of others <strong><em>by force</em></strong>), instead of promoting policies that
either benefit all, or are left to the private sector which produces ALL wealth.</div>
<o:p> </o:p><br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">“Make government what it ought to be, and it
will support itself.”</span></i></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">-Thomas Paine</span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-40995709948872927342013-03-10T08:20:00.000-06:002013-03-10T08:20:49.598-06:00BONNER: The Core of American Liberty<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Introduction by <strong><em>James Craig Green</em></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
Today, I subscribed to Bill Bonner's Diary. <br />
<br />
I can't remember when I became aware of Bill Bonner (more than a decade ago), but I remember a few years ago buying his book, EMPIRE OF DEBT, an expose' of the American Empire, which long ago replaced the American Republic created by America's Founding Fathers.<br />
<br />
Bill explicitly allows his articles to be reproduced on blogs, with appropriate links to his online newsletter.<br />
<br />
<br />
I begin with the following article, which originally appeared at:<br />
<a href="http://www.billbonnersdiary.com/articles/bonner-american-freedom.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #7c6ecc;">http://www.billbonnersdiary.com/articles/bonner-american-freedom.html</span></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR:</strong><br />
<br />
Bill Bonner founded Agora, Inc in 1978. It has since grown into one of the largest independent newsletter publishing companies in the world. He has also written three New York Times bestselling books, Financial Reckoning Day, Empire of Debt and Mobs, Messiahs and Markets.<br />
<br />
His free daily e-letter <a href="http://www.billbonnersdiary.com/" target="_blank"><em><span style="color: #7c6ecc;">Bill Bonner’s Diary of a Rogue Economist</span></em></a> is your gateway to Bill’s decades of accrued knowledge about history, politics, society, finance and economics. Sometimes funny, sometimes frightening – but always entertaining and packed with useful insight, <em>Diary of a Rogue Economist</em> can help you make sense of the complex world we live in today.<br />
<br />
<br />
<dd class="ecxcreate"></dd><br />
<div class="ecxcreate">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: medium;"><strong><em>THE CORE OF AMERICAN LIBERTY</em></strong></span></div>
<div class="ecxcreate">
Friday, 08 February 2013 10:20 </div>
<span id="ecxstartOfPage"></span><br />
<br />
<div class="ecxjwDisqusArticleCounter">
<div class="ecxclr">
</div>
</div>
<br />
<img alt="Founder Bill Bonner" height="119" hspace="8" src="http://www.insidersstrategygroup.com/images/web/editors/Bill-Bonner.jpg" style="padding-right: 8px;" title="Founder Bill Bonner" width="100" /><br />
<br />
<em>I've been at the beck and call of rich men all my life. But I'll be damned if I'll be at the beck and call of every son-of-a-bitch with a 3¢ stamp.</em><br />
<br />
– William Faulkner on losing his job at the Oxford, Miss., post office<br />
<br />
One of the rarely cited advantages of having money is that you're less beholden to others who have it too. The more you have, at least in theory, the more you can ignore the other fellow with it, and go about your business. Nor need you drink the same cocktail or rush to the same mall so you can outfit yourself in the same duds.<br />
<br />
In short, with a little capital of your own you can do what you want.<br />
<br />
And the fellow who said "money can't buy happiness" has apparently not read yesterday's <em>New York Times</em>:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>Broadly speaking, the data now indicate that as people get richer, they report getting happier too. Though it's not quite that simple.</em></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Michigan who helps advise the U.S. government on happiness statistics, told me that poor people in poor countries are not unhappy simply because they don't have wads of cash. They are more likely to have fewer choices, more children who die in childbirth and other grave problems. And while wealthier nations are generally happier, there is no evidence, Wolfers says, that an artist would be happier if she became a hedge-fund trader.</em></div>
<br />
<br />
<h3 align="center">
The Importance of Capital</h3>
<br />
But we're talking capital, not cash flow. The trouble with cash flow is that it doesn't spring <em>ab ovo</em> from nowhere. It comes to your hands from the greasy mitts of someone else.<br />
<br />
If they don't keep the cash flowing, you may not have any. Unless you're a government employee or a tenured professor, a job is just a job. You serve at the pleasure of others. If you give them displeasure, they can cut off your income.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.billbonnersdiary.com/articles/bonner-middle-class-escape.html" target="_blank" title="To the Middle Class: Get Out Now!"><strong><span style="color: #7c6ecc;">Capital</span></strong></a> is different. If you have enough of it, you don't have to work for anyone. You can go fishing, pick your teeth and maintain unpatriotic opinions.<br />
<br />
Capital frees you from politics too. According to the most recent numbers, nearly half of U.S. households now rely on other people's money for some or all of their income. They are beneficiaries of one or more of the feds' transfer programs. Money is taken from others; it is transferred to them, as if to a getaway car.<br />
<br />
The feds even have the chutzpah to give the recipients of this stolen loot an electronic card called the "Independence Card." Independent is exactly what these people aren't. Instead, says Charles Hugh Smith over at <a href="http://www.oftwominds.com/blog.html" target="_blank" title="OfTwoMinds"><span style="color: #7c6ecc;">OfTwoMinds.com</span></a>, they are like feudal serfs.<br />
<br />
"The core of American liberty is widespread private ownership of property," he writes. If you want to be free you have to have your hands on the "means of production." Otherwise, you've got to learn to bend.<br />
<br />
Imagine that you have zero equity in the house you own, Hugh Smith suggests. How free are you then?<br />
<br />
Or imagine that you need to buy a house and need a <a href="http://www.billbonnersdiary.com/articles/bonner-retirement-medical-benefits.html" target="_blank" title="How to Make a Safe 16.5% on Your Money Without Touching Stocks"><strong><span style="color: #7c6ecc;">mortgage</span></strong></a>. The mortgage market is almost 100% controlled by the feds. How free are you?<br />
<br />
<h3 align="center">
The Rise of "Neo-Feudalism"</h3>
<br />
Hugh Smith does not mention it. But imagine that you rely on the feds for <a href="http://www.billbonnersdiary.com/articles/bonner-zombie-education.html" target="_blank" title="The War on the Young"><strong><span style="color: #7c6ecc;">unemployment</span></strong></a> benefits, food stamps, healthcare or Social Security. Are you a free man? Or a serf?<br />
<br />
Smith says we live in a condition of creeping "neo-feudalism." A few people own a lot of property. Most own very little. His attention is focused on housing, where he believes the feds are quietly taking more and more property out of private hands and putting it in the hands of rich, concentrated elites.<br />
<br />
He's probably right about that. But it seems to us that even more neo-feudalism is taking place right out in the open – where large groups now depend on the feds... and on Fed's EZ money... to maintain their current standards of living.<br />
<br />
Balance the federal budget? Stop the Fed's printing presses? Let interest rates rise to a normal level?<br />
<br />
Forget it. The serfs can't afford it.<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
<br />
<img alt="Bill Bonner" src="https://www.insidersstrategygroup.com/images/web/bbonner-sig.gif" title="Bill Bonner" /><br />
<br />
Bill<br />
<div class="SoftShadows">
<div class="ss_r">
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div style="display: none;">
<!--For IE8 the first line can't be a script tag & script tags must contain the defer attribute-->
<!--IE6 does not display properly if there is whitespace between elements inside the
<li>. Do not add whitespace between them.-->
<!--IE6 does not display properly if there is whitespace between elements inside the
<li>. Do not add whitespace between them.-->
</div>
<div style="display: none;">
<!--For IE8 the first line can't be a script tag & script tags must contain the defer attribute-->
</div>
<div style="display: none;">
<!--For IE8 the first line can't be a script tag & script tags must contain the defer attribute-->
</div>
<iframe height="0" id="preload_frame" src="/handlers/resourcespreload.mvc?bicild=&view=Hotmail.InboxNoCompose" style="display: none;" width="0"></iframe><br />Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-71195520765226881342013-02-27T10:46:00.003-07:002013-03-18T07:57:46.891-06:00THE LAW - SUMMARY<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This page is Craig Green's selection of excerpts from </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">each of his </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">15 blog posts covering Frederic Bastiat's <strong><em>THE LAW</em></strong>, </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">based on the</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1998 version from the <strong><em>Foundation for Economic </em></strong></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong><em>Education</em></strong> (<strong><em>FEE</em></strong>).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Keep in mind that Bastiat wrote this two years after Karl Marx'</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong><em>Communist Manifesto</em></strong> (1848), which was in the process of taking</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Europe by storm.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The title of each of the following excerpts is a link to the blog post</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">from which it was taken, but I recommend reading this entire summary</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">before reading the 15 more detailed posts comprising <strong><em>THE LAW</em></strong>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Excerpts from Frederic Bastiat's 1850
masterpiece<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> THE LAW:<o:p></o:p></i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-1.html">THE LAW-1</a></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia;">If
every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and
his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize
and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the
principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based
on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right
cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for
which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use
force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the
common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person,
liberty, or property of individuals or groups.</span><o:p></o:p><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-2.html">THE LAW-2</a></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Men naturally rebel against the
injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for
the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to
enter—by peaceful or revolutionary means—into the making of laws. According to
their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two
entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either
they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-3.html">THE LAW-3</a></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">When, then, does plunder stop?
It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is
evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its
collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All
the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-4.html">THE LAW-4</a></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It must be admitted
that the true solution—so long searched for in the area of social
relationships—is contained in these simple words: <i><span style="color: red;">Law is organized justice</span></i>.<i>
</i><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now this must be said:
When justice is organized by law—that is, by force—this excludes the idea of
using law (force) to<i> </i>organize any human activity whatever, whether it be
labor, charity,<i> </i>agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or
religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy
the essential organization—justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used
against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and
thus acting against its proper purpose?<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-5.html">THE LAW-5</a></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Here
I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered
sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it
sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and
inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral
self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend
welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">This
is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the
law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A
citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">...When
law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing
but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They
violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard
all of these. They are <i><span style="color: red;">defensive</span></i>; they defend equally the rights of all.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-6.html">THE LAW-6</a></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #222222;">When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the inequality he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth. </span>Perhaps
the politician should ask himself whether this state of affairs has not been
caused by old conquests and lootings, and by more recent legal plunder. Perhaps
he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and
perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the
greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is
compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the
concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind
may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and
reward?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">But
the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations,
combinations, and arrangements—legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy
the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in
the first place: legal plunder. We have seen that justice is a negative
concept. Is there even one of these positive legal actions that does not
contain the principle of plunder?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-7.html">THE LAW-7</a></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Socialism,
like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between
government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing
being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being
done at all.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">We
disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to
any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we
want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say
that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists
were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the
state to raise grain.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><em>The
Socialists Want to Play God<o:p></o:p></em></span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Socialists
look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is
so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of
these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set
aside <i><span style="color: red;">to experiment upon</span></i>. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">... All
that the people have to do is to bow to leadership.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-8.html">THE LAW-8</a></span></i></b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"></span></i></b> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Now
listen to the great Montesquieu on this same subject:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">To
maintain the spirit of commerce, it is necessary that all the laws must favor
it. These laws, by proportionately dividing up the fortunes as they are made in
commerce, should provide every poor citizen with sufficiently easy
circumstances to enable him to work like the others. These same laws should put
every rich citizen in such lowered circumstances as to force him to work in
order to keep or to gain.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Thus
the laws are to dispose of all fortunes!<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Here
again we find the idea of equalizing fortunes by law, by force.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-9_23.html">THE LAW-9</a></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">If
it is true that a great prince is rare, then is it not true that a great
legislator is even more rare? The prince has only to follow the pattern that
the legislator creates. <span style="color: red;"><i>The legislator is the mechanic who invents the</i> <i>machine</i></span>;
the prince is merely the workman who sets it in motion.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">...
But suppose that the legislator mistakes his proper objective, and acts on a
principle different from that indicated by the nature of things? Suppose that
the selected principle sometimes creates slavery, and sometimes liberty; sometimes
wealth, and sometimes population; sometimes peace, and sometimes conquest? This
confusion of objective will slowly enfeeble the law and impair the
constitution. The state will be subjected to ceaseless agitations until it is
destroyed or changed, and invincible nature regains her empire.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-10-frederic-bastiat-1850.html">THE LAW-10</a></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">All
people have had laws. But few people have been happy. Why is this so? Because
the legislators themselves have almost always been ignorant of the purpose of
society, which is the uniting of families by a common interest.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Impartiality
in law consists of two things: the establishing of equality in wealth and
equality in dignity among the citizens. . . . As the laws establish greater
equality, they become proportionately more precarious to every citizen. . . .
When all men are equal in wealth and dignity—and when the laws leave no hope of
disturbing this equality—how can men then be agitated by greed, ambition,
dissipation, idleness, sloth, envy, hatred, or jealously?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-11.html">THE LAW-11</a></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">While
society is struggling toward liberty, these famous men who put themselves at
its head are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of
their own social inventions. Like Rousseau, they desire to force mankind
docilely to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in
their own imaginations.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">This was especially true in 1789. No sooner
was the old regime destroyed than society was subjected to still other
artificial arrangements, always starting from the same point: the omnipotence
of the law.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-12.html">THE LAW-12</a></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Once
and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right; it is also the power
granted to a person to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of
justice and under the protection of the law.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">And
this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and its consequences are
difficult to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free,
must have the power to use and develop his faculties, then it follows that
every person has a claim on society for such education as will <i><span style="color: red;">permit him</span> </i>to
develop himself.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">...Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what
does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of
production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production?
(Society, <span style="color: red;"><i>which owes</i> <i>them to everyone</i></span>.) By what action is society
to give tools of production to those who do not own them? (<span style="color: red;">Why, <i>by the
action of the state</i></span>.) And from whom will the state take them?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-13.html">THE LAW-13</a></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
strange phenomenon of our times—one which will probably astound our
descendants—is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis: the total
inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the
legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim
themselves totally democratic.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">...What
is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How
does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is
claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the
finest perception; <i><span style="color: red;">their will is always right</span></i>; the general will <i><span style="color: red;">cannot
err</span></i>; voting cannot be too universal.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">...But
these organizers desire access to the tax funds and to the power of the law in
order to carry out their plans. In addition to being oppressive and unjust, this
desire also implies the fatal supposition that the organizer is infallible and
mankind is incompetent. But, again, if persons are incompetent to judge for
themselves, then why all this talk about universal suffrage?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/introduction-by-james-craig-green-this_25.html">THE LAW-14</a></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
law is justice—simple and clear, precise and bounded. Every eye can see it, and
every mind can grasp it; for justice is measurable, immutable, and
unchangeable. Justice is neither more than this nor less than this.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br />
If you exceed this proper limit—if you attempt to make the law religious,
fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic—you
will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a
forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize
the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and
philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where
will you stop? And where will the law stop itself?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-15.html">THE LAW-15</a></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">...Away,
then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and
pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of
governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization,
their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free
credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their
equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">And
now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many
systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May
they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of
faith in God and His works.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Prepared
by James Craig Green - <a href="mailto:craig@waterwind.com">craig@waterwind.com</a></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-1.html">Return to THE LAW-1</a> <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-4187055042739230492013-02-26T06:57:00.005-07:002013-02-26T14:02:48.977-07:00THE LAW - 15<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Introduction by <em><strong>James Craig Green</strong></em><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is part 15 of 15, presenting Frederic Bastiat's 1850 masterpiece <em><strong>The Law</strong></em>. Part 1 may be seen <span style="line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-1.html"><em><span style="color: #cc6611;">HERE</span></em></a> </span>and the entire book </span><a href="http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/20121116_TheLaw.pdf"><em><span style="color: #cc6611; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">HERE</span></em></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 24pt;">The Law - 15</span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16pt;">Frederic Bastiat -
1850</span></i></b><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><em>The
Basis for Stable Government<o:p></o:p></em></span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Law
is justice. In this proposition a simple and enduring government can be
conceived. And I defy anyone to say how even the thought of revolution, of
insurrection, of the slightest uprising could arise against a government whose
organized force was confined only to suppressing injustice.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Under
such a regime, there would be the most prosperity—and it would be the most
equally distributed. As for the sufferings that are inseparable from humanity,
none would even think of blaming the government for them. This is true because,
if the force of government were limited to suppressing injustice, then
government would be as innocent of these sufferings as it is now innocent of
changes in the temperature.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">As
proof of this statement, consider this question: Have the people ever been
known to rise against the Court of Appeals, or mob a Justice of the Peace, in order
to get higher wages, free credit, tools of production, favorable tariffs, or
government-created jobs? Everyone knows perfectly well that such matters are not
within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals or a Justice of the Peace. And
if government were limited to its proper functions, everyone would soon learn
that these matters are not within the jurisdiction of the law itself.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">But
make the laws upon the principle of fraternity—pro- claim that all good, and
all bad, stem from the law; that the law is responsible for all individual
misfortunes and all social inequalities—then the door is open to an endless
succession of complaints, irritations, troubles, and revolutions.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Justice Means Equal
Rights<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Law
is justice. And it would indeed be strange if law could properly be anything
else! Is not justice right? Are not rights equal? By what right does the law
force me to conform to the social plans of Mr. Mimerel, Mr. de Melun, Mr.
Thiers, or Mr. Louis Blanc? If the law has a moral right to do this, why does
it not, then, force these gentlemen to submit to <i><span style="color: red;">my
plans</span></i>? Is it logical to suppose that nature has not given me sufficient
imagination to dream up a utopia also? Should the law choose one fantasy among
many, and put the organized force of government at its service only?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Law
is justice. And let it not be said—as it continually is said—that under this
concept, the law would be atheistic, individualistic, and heartless; that it
would make mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, worthy only
of those worshippers of government who believe that the law <i><span style="color: red;">is</span> </i>mankind.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Nonsense!
Do those worshippers of government believe that free persons will cease to act?
Does it follow that if we receive no energy from the law, we shall receive no
energy at all? Does it follow that if the law is restricted to the function of protecting
the free use of our faculties, we will be unable to use our faculties? Suppose
that the law does not force us to follow certain forms of religion, or systems
of association, or methods of education, or regulations of labor, or
regulations of trade, or plans for charity; does it then follow that we shall
eagerly plunge into atheism, hermitary, ignorance, misery, and greed?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">If
we are free, does it follow that we shall no longer recognize the power and
goodness of God? Does it follow that we shall then cease to associate with each
other, to help each other, to love and succor our unfortunate brothers, to
study the secrets of nature, and to strive to improve ourselves to the best of
our abilities?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Path to Dignity
and Progress<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Law
is Justice. And it is under the law of justice—under the reign of right; under
the influence of liberty, safety, stability, and responsibility—that every
person will attain his real worth and the true dignity of his being. It is only
under this law of justice that mankind will achieve slowly, no doubt, but
certainly—God’s design for the orderly and peaceful progress of humanity.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">It
seems to me that this is theoretically right, for whatever the question under
discussion—whether religious, philosophical, political, or economic; whether it
concerns prosperity, morality, equality, right, justice, progress,
responsibility, cooperation, property, labor, trade, capital, wages, taxes,
population, </span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">finance,
or government—at whatever point on the scientific horizon I begin my
researches, I invariably reach this one conclusion: The solution to the problems
of human relationships is to be found in liberty.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Proof of an Idea<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">And
does not experience prove this? Look at the entire world. Which countries contain
the most peaceful, the most moral, and the happiest people? Those people are
found in the countries where the law least interferes with private affairs; where
government is least felt; where the individual has the greatest scope, and free
opinion the greatest influence; where administrative powers are fewest and
simplest; where taxes are lightest and most nearly equal, and popular
discontent the least excited and the least justifiable; where individuals and
groups most actively assume their responsibilities, and, consequently, where
the morals of admittedly imperfect human beings are constantly improving; where
trade, assemblies, and associations are the least restricted; where labor, capital,
and populations suffer the fewest forced displacements; where mankind most
nearly follows its own natural inclinations; where the inventions of men are most
nearly in harmony with the laws of God; in short, the happiest, most moral, and
most peaceful people are those who most nearly follow this principle: Although
mankind is not perfect, still, all hope rests upon the free and voluntary
actions of persons within the limits of right; law or force is to be used for
nothing except the administration of universal justice.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><em>The
Desire to Rule over Others<o:p></o:p></em></span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">This
must be said: There are too many “great” men in the world—legislators,
organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on,
and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career
of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Now
someone will say: “You yourself are doing this very thing.”<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">True.
But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely different sense; if I have
joined the ranks of the reformers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading
them to leave people alone. I do not look upon people as Vancauson looked upon
his automaton. Rather, just as the physiologist accepts the human body as it
is, so do I accept people as they are. I desire only to study and admire.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">My
attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a
celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages,
where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and
quacks—armed with rings, hooks, and cords—surrounded it. One said: “This child
will never smell the perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils.” Another
said: “He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his
shoulders.” A third said: “He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his
eyes.” Another said: “He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs.” A
fifth said: “He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull.”<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">“Stop,”
cried the traveler. “What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than
He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow
strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty.”<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Let Us Now Try
Liberty<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">God
has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies.
He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs
of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in
the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with
their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems!
Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects,
their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state
religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions,
their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">And
now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many
systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May
they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of
faith in God and His works.<o:p></o:p></span>Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-32449309353314257982013-02-25T15:46:00.005-07:002013-02-26T14:01:44.862-07:00THE LAW - 14<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Introduction by <em><strong>James Craig Green</strong></em></span></span><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is part 14 of 15, presenting Frederic Bastiat's 1850 masterpiece <em><strong>The Law</strong></em>. Part 1 may be seen <span style="line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-1.html"><em><span style="color: #cc6611; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">HERE</span></em></a> </span></span>and the entire book </span><a href="http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/20121116_TheLaw.pdf"><em><span style="color: #cc6611; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">HERE</span></em></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 24pt;">The Law - 14<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16pt;">Frederic Bastiat -
1850</span></i></b><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Socialists Reject
Free Choice<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Please
understand that I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to
advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own
expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by
law—by force—and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I
do not insist that the supporters of these various social schools of
thought—the Proudhonists, the Cabetists, the Fourierists, the Universitarists,
and the Protectionists—renounce their various ideas. I insist only that they
renounce this one idea that they have in common: They need only to give up the
idea of <i><span style="color: red;">forcing</span> </i>us to acquiesce to their
groups and series, their socialized projects, their free-credit banks, their
Graeco-Roman concept of morality, and their commercial regulations. I ask only that
we be permitted to decide upon these plans for ourselves; that we not be forced
to accept them, directly or indirectly, if we find them to be contrary to our
best interests or repugnant to our consciences.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">But
these organizers desire access to the tax funds and to the power of the law in
order to carry out their plans. In addition to being oppressive and unjust,
this desire also implies the fatal supposition that the organizer is infallible
and mankind is incompetent. But, again, if persons are incompetent to judge for
themselves, then why all this talk about universal suffrage?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Cause of French
Revolutions<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">This
contradiction in ideas is, unfortunately but logically, reflected in events in
France. For example, Frenchmen have led all other Europeans in obtaining their
rights—or, more accurately, their political demands. Yet this fact has in no
respect prevented us from becoming the most governed, the most regulated, the
most imposed upon, the most harnessed, and the most exploited people in Europe.
France also leads all other nations as the one where revolutions are constantly
to be anticipated. And under the circumstances, it is quite natural that this
should be the case.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">And
this will remain the case so long as our politicians continue to accept this
idea that has been so well expressed by Mr. Louis Blanc: “Society receives its
momentum from power.” This will remain the case so long as human beings with feelings
continue to remain passive; so long as they consider themselves incapable of
bettering their prosperity and happiness by their own intelligence and their
own energy; so long as they expect everything from the law; in short, so long
as they imagine that their relationship to the state is the same as that of the
sheep to the shepherd.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Enormous Power of
Government<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">As
long as these ideas prevail, it is clear that the responsibility of government
is enormous. Good fortune and bad fortune, wealth and destitution, equality and
inequality, virtue and vice—all then depend upon political administration. It
is burdened with everything, it undertakes everything, it does everything; therefore
it is responsible for everything.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">If
we are fortunate, then government has a claim to our gratitude; but if we are
unfortunate, then government must bear the blame. For are not our persons and
property now at the disposal of government? Is not the law omnipotent?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In
creating a monopoly of education, the government must answer to the hopes of
the fathers of families who have thus been deprived of their liberty; and if
these hopes are shattered, whose fault is it?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In
regulating industry, the government has contracted to make it prosper;
otherwise it is absurd to deprive industry of its liberty. And if industry now
suffers, whose fault is it?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In
meddling with the balance of trade by playing with tariffs, the government
thereby contracts to make trade prosper; and if this results in destruction
instead of prosperity, whose fault is it?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In
giving the maritime industries protection in exchange for their liberty, the
government undertakes to make them profitable; and if they become a burden to
the taxpayers, whose fault is it?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Thus
there is not a grievance in the nation for which the government does not
voluntarily make itself responsible. Is it surprising, then, that every failure
increases the threat of another revolution in France?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">And
what remedy is proposed for this? To extend indefinitely the domain of the law;
that is, the responsibility of government.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">But
if the government undertakes to control and to raise wages, and cannot do it;
if the government undertakes to care for all who may be in want, and cannot do
it; if the government undertakes to support all unemployed workers, and cannot
do it; if the government undertakes to lend interest-free money to all borrowers,
and cannot do it; if, in these words that we regret to say escaped from the pen
of Mr. de Lamartine, “The state considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to
develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul
of the people”— and if the government cannot do all of these things, what then?
Is it not certain that after every government failure—which, alas! is more than
probable—there will be an equally inevitable revolution?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><em>Politics
and Economics<o:p></o:p></em></span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">[Now
let us return to a subject that was briefly discussed in the opening pages of
this thesis: the relationship of economics and of politics—political economy.*]<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">*Translator’s
note: Mr. Bastiat has devoted three other books and several articles to the
development of the ideas contained in the three sentences of the following
paragraph.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">A
science of economics must be developed before a science of politics can be
logically formulated. Essentially, economics is the science of determining
whether the interests of human beings are harmonious or antagonistic. This must
be known before a science of politics can be formulated to determine the proper
functions of government.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Immediately
following the development of a science of economics, and at the very beginning of
the formulation of a science of politics, this all-important question must be
answered: What is law? What ought it to be? What is its scope; its limits? Logically,
at what point do the just powers of the legislator stop?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I
do not hesitate to answer: <i><span style="color: red;">Law is the common force
organized to act as an obstacle to injustice</span></i>. In short, <i><span style="color: red;">law is justice</span></i>.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Proper Legislative
Functions<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">It
is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and
property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the
legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">It
is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas,
our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or
our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these
rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of
these same rights by any other person.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Since
law necessarily requires the support of force, its lawful domain is only in the
areas where the use of force is necessary. This is justice.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Every
individual has the right to use force for lawful self defense. It is for this
reason that the collective force—which is only the organized combination of the
individual forces—may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be
used legitimately for any other purpose.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Law
is solely the organization of the individual right of self defense which existed
before law was formalized. Law is justice.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Law and Charity Are
Not the Same<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
mission of the law is <i><span style="color: red;">not</span> </i>to oppress
persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting
in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect persons and property.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Furthermore,
it must not be said that the law may be philanthropic if, in the process, it refrains
from oppressing persons and plundering them of their property; this would be a
contradiction. The law cannot avoid having an effect upon persons and property;
and if the law acts in any manner except to protect them, its actions then
necessarily violate the liberty of persons and their right to own property.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
law is justice—simple and clear, precise and bounded. Every eye can see it, and
every mind can grasp it; for justice is measurable, immutable, and unchangeable.
Justice is neither more than this nor less than this.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">If
you exceed this proper limit—if you attempt to make the law religious,
fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic—you
will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a
forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize
the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and
philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where
will you stop? And where will the law stop itself?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The High Road to
Communism<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Mr.
de Saint-Cricq would extend his philanthropy only to some of the industrial
groups; he would demand that the law<span style="color: red;"> <i>control the
consumers to benefit the producers</i></span>.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Mr.
Considerant would sponsor the cause of the labor groups; he would use the law
to secure for them <i><span style="color: red;">a guaranteed</span></i><span style="color: red;"> <i>minimum of clothing, housing, food, and all other
necessities of</i> <i>life</i></span>.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Mr.
Louis Blanc would say—and with reason—that these minimum guarantees are merely
the beginning of complete fraternity; he would say that the law should give
tools of production and free education to all working people.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Another
person would observe that this arrangement would still leave room for inequality;
he would claim that the law should give to everyone—even in the most
inaccessible hamlet—luxury, literature, and art.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">All
of these proposals are the high road to communism; legislation will then be—in
fact, it already is the battlefield for the fantasies and greed of everyone.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">NEXT: <a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-15.html">THE LAW - 15</a></span></em></strong>Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-78593338116986496682013-02-25T15:14:00.000-07:002013-02-26T14:00:31.999-07:00THE LAW - 13<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Introduction by <em><strong>James Craig Green</strong></em></span></span><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is part 13 of 15, presenting Frederic Bastiat's 1850 masterpiece <em><strong>The Law</strong></em>. Part 1 may be seen <span style="line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-1.html"><em><span style="color: #cc6611; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">HERE</span></em></a> </span></span>and the entire book </span><a href="http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/20121116_TheLaw.pdf"><em><span style="color: #cc6611; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">HERE</span></em></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 24pt;">The Law - 13</span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16pt;">Frederic Bastiat -
1850</span></i></b><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Doctrine of the
Democrats<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
strange phenomenon of our times—one which will probably astound our
descendants—is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis: the total
inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the
legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim themselves
totally democratic.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
advocates of this doctrine also profess to be <i><span style="color: red;">social</span></i>. So far as they are
democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are
social, they regard mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this
contrast in greater detail.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">What
is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How
does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is
claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the
finest perception; <i><span style="color: red;">their will is always right</span></i>;
the general will <i><span style="color: red;">cannot err</span></i>; voting
cannot be too universal.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">When
it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee
of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted.
Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What!
are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by
great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their
intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging
for themselves? Do they not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class
or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and
act for them? No, no, the people are and should be <i><span style="color: red;">free</span></i>.
They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">But
when the legislator is finally elected—ah! then indeed does the tone of his
speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness,
inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it
is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only
to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea:
The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect,
now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that
lead downward into degradation<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Socialist Concept
of Liberty<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">But
ought not the people be given a little liberty?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">But
Mr. Considerant has assured us that <i><span style="color: red;">liberty leads inevitably
to monopoly!</span><o:p></o:p></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">We
understand that liberty means competition. But according to Mr. Louis Blanc,
competition is a system that ruins the businessmen and exterminates the people.
It is for this reason that free people are ruined and exterminated in
proportion to their degree of freedom. (Possibly Mr. Louis Blanc should observe
the results of competition in, for example, Switzerland, Holland, England, and
the United States.)<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Mr.
Louis Blanc also tells us that <i><span style="color: red;">competition leads to monopoly</span></i>.
And by the same reasoning, he thus informs us that<i> <span style="color: red;">low
prices lead to high prices</span></i>; that <i><span style="color: red;">competition
drives production to destructive activity</span></i>; that <i><span style="color: red;">competition drains away the sources of purchasing power</span></i>;
that <i><span style="color: red;">competition forces an increase in production
while, at the same time, it forces a decrease in consumption</span></i>.<i> </i>From
this, it follows that free people produce for the<i> </i>sake of not consuming;
that liberty means <i><span style="color: red;">oppression and madness</span> </i>among
the people; and that Mr. Louis Blanc absolutely<i> </i>must attend to it.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Socialists Fear All
Liberties<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Well,
what liberty should the legislators permit people to have? Liberty of
conscience? (But if this were permitted, we would see the people taking this
opportunity to become atheists.)<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Then
liberty of education? (But parents would pay professors to teach their children
immorality and falsehoods; besides, according to Mr. Thiers, if education were
left to national liberty, it would cease to be national, and we would be
teaching our children the ideas of the Turks or Hindus; whereas, thanks to this
legal despotism over education, our children now have the good fortune to be
taught the noble ideas of the Romans.)<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Then
liberty of labor? (But that would mean competition which, in turn, leaves
production unconsumed, ruins businessmen, and exterminates the people.)<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Perhaps
liberty of trade? (But everyone knows—and the advocates of protective tariffs
have proved over and over again—that freedom of trade ruins every person who
engages in it, and that it is necessary to suppress freedom of trade in order
to prosper.)<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Possibly
then, liberty of association? (But, according to socialist doctrine, true
liberty and voluntary association are in contradiction to each other, and the
purpose of the socialists is to suppress liberty of association precisely in
order to force people to associate together in true liberty.)<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Clearly
then, the conscience of the social democrats cannot permit persons to have any
liberty because they believe that the nature of mankind tends always toward
every kind of degradation and disaster. Thus, of course, the legislators must
make plans for the people in order to save them from themselves.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">This
line of reasoning brings us to a challenging question: If people are as
incapable, as immoral, and as ignorant as the politicians indicate, then why is
the right of these same people to vote defended with such passionate
insistence?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Superman Idea<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have
often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the
natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people
to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do
not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?
Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest
of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes
headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so
perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a
saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have
received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above
mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">They
would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement
presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly
we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof
of this natural superiority.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<strong><em><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">NEXT: <a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/introduction-by-james-craig-green-this_25.html">THE LAW - 14</a></span></em></strong>Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-43647171145650229422013-02-24T06:28:00.002-07:002013-02-26T08:54:45.958-07:00THE LAW - 12<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Introduction by <em><strong>James Craig Green</strong></em></span></span><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is part 12 of 15, presenting Frederic Bastiat's 1850 masterpiece <em><strong>The Law</strong></em>. Part 1 may be seen <span style="line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-1.html"><em><span style="color: #cc6611; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">HERE</span></em></a> </span></span>and the entire book </span><a href="http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/20121116_TheLaw.pdf"><em><span style="color: #cc6611; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">HERE</span></em></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 24pt;">The Law - 12<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16pt;">Frederic Bastiat -
1850</span></i></b><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Dictatorial Arrogance<o:p></o:p></span></i></b>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">At
what a tremendous height above the rest of mankind does Robespierre here place
himself! And note the arrogance with which he speaks. He is not content to pray
for a great reawakening of the human spirit. Nor does he expect such a result
from a well-ordered government. No, he himself will remake mankind, and by
means of terror.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">This
mass of rotten and contradictory statements is extracted from a discourse by
Robespierre in which he aims to explain the<span style="color: red;"> <i>principles
of morality which ought to guide a revolutionary government</i></span>. Note
that Robespierre’s request for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose
of repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing groups. Rather he
wants a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the country
his own principles of morality. He says that this act is only to be a temporary
measure preceding a new constitution. But in reality, he desires nothing short
of using terror to extinguish from France <i><span style="color: red;">selfishness,
honor, customs, manners, fashion, vanity, love of money, good companionship,
intrigue, wit, sensuousness, and poverty</span></i>. Not until he, Robespierre,
shall have<i> </i>accomplished these <i><span style="color: red;">miracles</span>, </i>as he so rightly calls them,
will he<i> </i>permit the law to reign again.*</span>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">*At
this point in the original French text, Mr. Bastiat pauses and speaks thusly to
all do- gooders and would-be rulers of mankind: “Ah, you miserable creatures!
You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You
who wish to reform everything! Why don’t you reform yourselves? That task would
be sufficient enough.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Indirect Approach
to Despotism</span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Usually,
however, these gentlemen—the reformers, the legislators, and the writers on
public affairs do not desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no,
they are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct action. Instead, they turn
to the law for this despotism, this absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire
only to make the laws.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">To
show the prevalence of this queer idea in France, I would need to copy not only
the entire works of Mably, Raynal, Rousseau, and Fenelon—plus long extracts
from Bossuet and Montesquieu—but also the entire proceedings of the Convention.
I shall do no such thing; I merely refer the reader to them.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Napoleon Wanted
Passive Mankind<o:p></o:p></span></i></b>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">It
is, of course, not at all surprising that this same idea should have greatly
appealed to Napoleon. He embraced it ardently and used it with vigor. Like a
chemist, Napoleon considered all Europe to be material for his experiments.
But, in due course, this material reacted against him.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">At
St. Helena, Napoleon—greatly disillusioned—seemed to recognize some initiative
in mankind. Recognizing this, he became less hostile to liberty. Nevertheless,
this did not prevent him from leaving this lesson to his son in his will: “To
govern is to increase and spread morality, education, and happiness.”</span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">After
all this, it is hardly necessary to quote the same opinions from Morelly,
Babeuf, Owen, Saint-Simon, and Fourier. Here are, however, a few extracts from
Louis Blanc’s book on the organization of labor: “In our plan, society receives
its momentum from power.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Now
consider this: The impulse behind this momentum is to be supplied by the <i><span style="color: red;">plan</span> </i>of Louis Blanc; his plan is to be forced upon
society; the Society referred to is the human race. Thus the human race is to
receive its momentum from Louis Blanc.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Now
it will be said that the people are free to accept or to reject this plan. Admittedly,
people are free to accept or to reject <i><span style="color: red;">advice</span>
</i>from whomever they wish. But this is not the way in which Mr. Louis Blanc
understands the matter. He expects that his plan will be legalized, and thus
forcibly imposed upon the people by the power of the law:<o:p></o:p></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In
our plan, the state has only to pass labor laws (nothing else?) by means of
which industrial progress can and must proceed <i><span style="color: red;">in
complete liberty</span></i>. The state merely places society on an incline
(that is all?). Then society will slide down this incline by the mere force of things,
and by the natural workings of the <i><span style="color: red;">established</span></i><span style="color: red;"> <i>mechanism</i></span>.<o:p></o:p></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">But
what is this incline that is indicated by Mr. Louis Blanc? Does it not lead to
an abyss? (No, it leads to happiness.) If this is true, then why does not society
go there of its own choice? (Because society does not know what it wants; it
must be propelled.) What is to propel it? (Power.) And who is to supply the impulse
for this power? (Why, the inventor of the machine— in this instance, Mr. Louis
Blanc.)<o:p></o:p></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Vicious Circle of
Socialism<o:p></o:p></span></i></b>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">We
shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive mankind, and the power
of the law being used by a great man to propel the people.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Once
on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Certainly.) And what is liberty,
Mr. Louis Blanc?<o:p></o:p></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Once
and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right; it is also the power
granted to a person to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of
justice and under the protection of the law.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">And
this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and its consequences are
difficult to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free, must
have the power to use and develop his faculties, then it follows that every
person has a claim on society for such education as will <i><span style="color: red;">permit him</span> </i>to develop himself. It also follows
that every person has a claim on society for tools of production, without which
human activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what action can society give
to every person the necessary education and the necessary tools of production,
if not by the action of the state?<o:p></o:p></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Thus,
again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated
and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and
the tools of production? (Society, <i><span style="color: red;">which owes</span></i><span style="color: red;"> <i>them to everyone</i></span>.) By what action is society
to give tools of production to those who do not own them? (Why, <i><span style="color: red;">by the action of the state</span></i>.) And from whom will the
state take them?<o:p></o:p></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Let
the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which
this is taking us.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><strong><em>NEXT: <a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-13.html">THE LAW - 13</a></em></strong></span>Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2459084158135175319.post-61202727619473304272013-02-24T05:28:00.005-07:002013-02-24T08:14:05.278-07:00THE LAW - 11<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Introduction by <em><strong>James Craig Green</strong></em></span></span><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: "NewCaledonia-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is part 11 of 15, presenting Frederic Bastiat's 1850 masterpiece <em><strong>The Law</strong></em>. Part 1 may be seen <span style="line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: NewCaledonia-Bold; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-1.html"><em><span style="color: #cc6611; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">HERE</span></em></a> </span></span>and the entire book </span><a href="http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/20121116_TheLaw.pdf"><em><span style="color: #cc6611; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">HERE</span></em></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 24pt;">The Law - 11</span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16pt;">Frederic Bastiat -
1850</span></i></b><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Error of the
Socialist Writers<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Actually,
it is <i>not </i>strange that during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
the human race was regarded as inert matter, ready to receive everything—form,
face, energy, movement, life—from a great prince or great legislator or a great
genius. These centuries were nourished on the study of antiquity. And antiquity
presents everywhere—in Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome—the spectacle of a few men
molding mankind according to their whims, thanks to the prestige of force and
fraud. But this does not prove that this situation is desirable. It proves only
that since men and society are capable of improvement, it is naturally to be
expected that error, ignorance, despotism, slavery, and superstition should be
greatest towards the origins of history. The writers quoted above were not in
error when they found ancient institutions to be such, but they were in error
when they offered them for the admiration and imitation of future generations. Uncritical
and childish conformists, they took for granted the grandeur, dignity,
morality, and happiness of the artificial societies of the ancient world. They
did not understand that knowledge appears and grows with the passage of time;
and that in proportion to this growth of knowledge, <i><span style="color: red;">might</span>
</i>takes the side of <i><span style="color: red;">right</span></i>, and society
regains possession of itself<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">What Is Liberty?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Actually, what is the political struggle that we witness? It is the instinctive
struggle of all people toward liberty. And what is this liberty, whose very
name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of
all liberties—liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the
press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of
every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other
persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism—including,
of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law
only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful
self-defense; of punishing injustice?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">It
must be admitted that the tendency of the human race toward liberty is largely
thwarted, especially in France. This is greatly due to a fatal desire—learned
from the teachings of antiquity—that our writers on public affairs have in
common: They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange,
organize, and regulate it according to their fancy.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Philanthropic Tyranny<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">While
society is struggling toward liberty, these famous men who put themselves at
its head are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny
of their own social inventions. Like Rousseau, they desire to force mankind docilely
to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in their own
imaginations.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">This
was especially true in 1789. No sooner was the old regime destroyed than
society was subjected to still other artificial arrangements, always starting
from the same point: the omnipotence of the law.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Listen
to the ideas of a few of the writers and politicians during that period:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">SAINT-JUST:
The legislator commands the future. It is for him to <i>will </i>the good of
mankind. It is for him to make men what <i><span style="color: red;">he wills</span>
</i>them to be.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">ROBESPIERRE:
The function of government is to direct the physical and moral powers of the
nation toward the end for which the commonwealth has come into being.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">BILLAUD-VARENNES:
A people who are to be returned to liberty must be formed anew. A strong force
and vigorous action are necessary to destroy old prejudices, to change old
customs, to correct depraved affections, to restrict superfluous wants, and to
destroy ingrained vices. . . . Citizens, the inflexible austerity of Lycurgus
created the firm foundation of the Spartan republic. The weak and trusting
character of Solon plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces the
whole science of government.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">LE
PELLETIER: Considering the extent of human degradation, I am convinced that it
is necessary to effect a total regeneration and, if I may so express myself, of
creating a new people.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Socialists Want
Dictatorship<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Again,
it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw material. It is not for them to <i><span style="color: red;">will their own improvement</span></i>; they are incapable of
it. According to Saint-Just, only the legislator is capable of doing this.
Persons are merely to be what the legislator <i>wills </i>them to be. According
to Robespierre, who copies Rousseau literally, the legislator begins by
decreeing the <i><span style="color: red;">end for which the commonwealth has
come into being</span></i>. Once this is<i> </i>determined, the government has
only to direct <i><span style="color: red;">the physical and moral forces of the
nation</span> </i>toward that end. Meanwhile, the<i> </i>inhabitants of the
nation are to remain completely passive. And according to the teachings of
Billaud-Varennes, the people should have no prejudices, no affections, and no
desires except those authorized by the legislator. He even goes so far as to
say that the inflexible austerity of one man is the foundation of a republic.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In
cases where the alleged evil is so great that ordinary governmental procedures
cannot cure it, Mably recommends a dictatorship to promote virtue: “Resort,” he
says, “to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time.
The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow.” This doctrine
has not been forgotten. Listen to Robespierre:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
principle of the republican government is virtue, and the means required to
establish virtue is terror. In our country we desire to substitute morality for
selfishness, honesty for honor, principles for customs, duties for manners, the
empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for contempt of
poverty, pride for insolence, greatness of soul for vanity, love of glory for
love of money, good people for good companions, merit for intrigue, genius for wit,
truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the boredom of pleasure, the greatness
of man for the littleness of the great, a generous, strong, happy people for a
good-natured, frivolous, degraded people; in short, we desire to substitute all
the virtues and miracles of a republic for all the vices and absurdities of a monarchy.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><em><strong>NEXT -<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></strong></em></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><a href="http://libertyalumnidiscussions.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-law-12.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><em><strong>THE LAW - 12</strong></em></span></a>
</span><br />
<br />
<br />Craig Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16870998488765776509noreply@blogger.com0