Topic: Regulation
Less Than Human How property rights violations deny our humanity.by Palmetto Patriot
(libertarian)
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
In the United States today no person fully owns their own property. Local zoning legislations often dictate how tall the grass in one's own lawn can be, what sort of vehicles (if any) may be left in one's own driveway and whether or not one may use his or her own land for business purposes or as a residence. In other words, a majority of the people who take the time to vote on the local level may interfere with your right to own property. In fact, if one is unable or refuses to pay whatever tax the local or State government may enact for owning property, the property may be taken from its owner and sold at auction to a more capable or obedient serf. It is not hyperbole to call us serfs when we cannot fully own property and are forced to live our lives at the whim of a fickle majority of voters which acts as our master.
It is also not an exaggeration to say that people in the United States today don't even fully own their own bodies. Selective Service requires young men to sign up in the event that the Federal Government may call another draft, pressing people into military service against their will. Legislation also requires parents to send their children to a State-approved school. A person may not consume whatever they wish either. Certain substances are labeled "drugs" and then are restricted by the nanny state as "bad". Personal choice and responsibility when it comes to such questions is almost non-existent. And, of course, the Federal Government has recently been plotting to require the purchase of a government-approved health insurance policy. These are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ways that we today are not allowed full ownership of our own corporeal selves.
It is easy to blame do-gooders and busy-bodies for our lack of freedom today. It is true that there are millions of people in our society who prey on others through the system. Many eagerly propose and support legislation which strips away what Bastiat claimed was one of the three fundamental aspects of human life - property. Others eagerly enforce this legislation against their neighbors and the people of their community. There is certainly plenty of guilt to be passed around here. And yet, when people live under a system such as we unfortunately endure today, this is what can be expected. People normally adapt to the environment in which they are born or liver under. And the environment today is one which is hostile to liberty and property rights.
The real struggle we face as people who love liberty is not against the busy-bodies and do-gooders, but against the system which empowers them. Without a democratic (with a little "d") system such as the one we suffer under today they would be powerless to engage in organized thefts such as property taxes and zoning laws. Without their tyranny of the mob, private property and natural rights would prevail as opposed to the whim of the masses. It is the system itself which compels people to take time out of their productive affairs, gang together with others who want to preserve their own property and vote for that privilege against those who want to take their property away. This organized insanity is only necessary because of the democratic madness that has left all of us something less than human. Sure, the busy-bodies are awful, but it is the government that is the real problem.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 14 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Palmetto Patriot only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Palmetto Patriot is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
great article Palmetto. people in America have forgotten what "American" means. all they see is the "good" on the surface. for example, forbidding smoking in restaurants makes for a healthier eating environment, but they dont see that now the business "owner" no longer "owns" the business.
That's true about the anti-smoking campaign. I should have mentioned that in the article. You're right that it often deprives the owner of actual ownership of his or her property.
I am not clear on the concept that establishing conditions for how a business may be run within a community, or how real property must be maintained in a community is a deprivation of ownership. It seems you are seeking anarchy within which there is no ownership other than that which you can defend from the forcible acquisition by others.
You said, 'I am not clear on the concept that establishing conditions for how a business may be run within a community, or how real property must be maintained in a community is a deprivation of ownership. It seems you are seeking anarchy within which there is no ownership other than that which you can defend from the forcible acquisition by others.'
If I own a piece of property then I alone establish the conditions of my business. So long as I don't violate the natural rights of others, what I want to do on my property is no one else's concern. Likewise, if it is my property, then no 'community' may tell me how I must maintain it. It is only up to me to decide how it will be maintained (again, providing I am not aggressing against another person). And finally, I am not arguing that what is yours is only yours so long as you may forcibly defend it. Quite the contrary. I am saying that what is yours is yours alone by right and is not the property of some imagined 'community' - which in the end is simply individuals. Groups of individuals don't have any more rights than does the individual himself. If an individual may not deprive me of my rights or tell me what to do on my own land, then no 'community' may do so either. This is the concept of natural rights. Private property ultimately is derived from the concept of self-ownership, which is the funadmental point I am making.
No doubt I am no fanof smoking. However, I used to live in Nevada and owners of both bars and restaurants chose the smoking policy. The places that banned smoking had their business go through the roof...because the consumer chose to go there over the other smoked filled places. On top of that a bar or restaurant could choose to stay open 24/7 and sell..yes ALCOHOL....guess what many chose to close at midnite or on Sundays or whenver the hell they pleased....do you see what happens when people can choose? It creates happy consumers and a healthy business environment...oh by the way all most all places had slot machines...at least one if not many!
If not for the little "d" democratic process, how are people supposed to govern themselves at the lowest possible level?
You don't really offer a solution. I inferred that you seem to think that some items ought to be off the table completely. At what level and who decides and enforces that decision?
If more responsible citizens who were educated about natural law and our origins were politically active, this would be, I take it , a moot point. More people supporting what is right can keep that sort of intrusiveness out.
However, even those who are virtually identical in ideology and goals may disagree at what level the decisions are made regarding taxation and zoning laws, etc.
I'm with you in the goal of no property taxes and keeping the govt. out of my yard. However, to whom do I turn to in order to make sure I can do that?
The way things are set up now, frequently, the federal govt. is brought in on a white horse to step between a state and its citizens and micromanage a communty's affairs. The only problem is, once they (usually the supreme court) do that, they've assigned themselves the task of determining right or wrong in that matter in perpetuity despite the Constitution's clear prohibition against interference by them in the state's affairs--the states being the basic units that formed the contract (Constitution).
Except for the very limited original intent of the 14th Amendment, there is virtually nowhere that the Constitution allows the Fed to interfere--though they've done it anyway.
Take the Kelo decision. Everyone was upset with the decision but the Supreme Court was exactly right in the decision (though most for the wrong motivations). It is up to the state to decide how abusive or not their own laws are. Most folks can't seem to open their minds to that concept.
As long as a representative form of goverment exists within, the states are on their on except for the enumerated powers given to the Federal level. And that is a VERY good thing since the attempts to come up with a "one size fits all" solution ALWAYS leaves large groups hurting when the best solution of self-determination at the most local level possible allows more communities and, yes, individuals who make up those communities, happy.
We should welcome this and other decisions that leave matters to the states. South Carolina has shown that we can change things at the state level and reform fever is catching on--burning red hot right now. Yes, it requires you to take more responsibility in your state and community but then maybe it's time to start treating adults as adults again.
If your city, county, or state has abusive laws, get up off your rear end and GET INVOLVED. That is a much more practical solution than praying to the Federal (or, in some cases, the state) government to step in with its omnipotent hand and smite thine enemies and enslave you at the same time.
The system set up is supposed to be adversarial and requires some give and take when it comes to wins and defeats but that is the best way to keep power in the hands of the people and not big mother or big daddy government. We should all fashion ourselves as warriors and protectors of our self-evident, unalienable rights.
Constitutional amendments or laws at the state level could perhaps, in some areas, help to keep smaller levels of government from abusing you and give you a truly legal recourse at the state level should the lower levels violate your natural rights (assuming the law is written to that effect). Even then, vigilance will be required to stop OTHER abuses since tyranny is infinitely creative.
The alternative is somewhat more akin to anarchy where heavy citizen participation and discussion determines what one community thinks is okay and tolerates a neighboring community thinking differently rather than going to the state level to make it all more uniform.
There is a very unfortunate tendency for more intelligent people to arrogantly presume that whatever THEY think is right is the way EVERYONE ELSE should be made to behave. They also tend to be more organized and appreciate order to the point that their tolerance for others deciding for themselves how to live goes out the window. However, such efforts result in compromises at the state level that frequently lead to ever more micromanagement and compromises at the federal level seem to ALWAYS result in more micromanagement.
Govt. is best that governs least as the saying goes. However, since govt. is a necessary evil, it will exist at some levels whether closer or farther removed.
At what level do YOU want your battlefield to exist? Close in where more people and more variety of thought may furnish a better fit for people in different areas or further out at the state or (almost always unconstitutionally) the federal level?
The essential abuse of power as Bastiat pointed out is that a small group of elites thinks they know best for EVERYONE. Our modern centralized, dictatorial govt.--in the universal tradition of governments since the dawn of civilization--has no absolutes and treat us all as lab rats in their social experiments. Libertarians should not fall into the same trap by demanding levels of individual choice and behavior that folks in other communities may find offensive. (Abortion and open diplays of homosexuality being two extreme but illuminating examples thereof.)
It is an eternal amusement to me that the Cato Institute, presumably libertarian, is one of the worst offenders of consent of the governed when it decries the Kelo decision where, for better or worse, the state was allowed to make its own (in my opinion, very bad and morally wrong) decision.
Cato Institute also, if I recall correctly, supports the Supreme Court's supreme violation of states' rights in dictating universal access to abortion which many folks consider murder. I don't want to debate abortion, I just want to point out that abortion, like murder and a myriad of other criminal areas, is supposed to be and, Constitutionally, HAS to be handled by the states at levels they decide on. That is, under the Constitution and natural law, the default position.
HOWEVER, based upon the federal level of government taking upon itself the power to demand abortion, it requires no great hurdle now for them to demand the complete abolition of abortion if, upon a whim, they went that way.
True libertarianism is support for the people of a community:
Fighting at the local level to make it what they want it to be.
Fighting at the state level to make it what they want to be and to allow the smaller subdivisions to fight to make their own communities what they want them to be.
Fighting the federal level to make it allow the states decide for themselves what they want to be except for those specific duties turned over to the federal level (and among which there may be advocacy by citizens for restraint there as well).
If not constantly fought, nationalism of any sort will ultimately destroy the true separation of powers that is supposed to exist at, and works most effectively with, the division between the central govt. and the states. Tolerance among the people of diversity in governments that are perceived to be either less or more restrictive than their own desires is a requirement to make this country work as it is supposed to.
The "do-gooders" are a threat, but the backlash must not eliminate the rights of the "do-gooders" themselves to have a community of their own liking--if they can get enough folks to agree with them and they do not violate state law. Democracy at the local level is a useful tool for responsible citizenry but we have to be tolerant in allowing ALL people to determine the rules for their communities and not have to implement those that WE in our almighty wisdom, determine is best for them. Unfortunately, in the end, we who love liberty may lose the fight and wind up having to vote with our feet in adverse circumstances. At least, if there is more local control for people to determine their own lives, among the variety thus engendered we may find a much more agreeable community close by.
You asked, 'If not for the little "d" democratic process, how are people supposed to govern themselves at the lowest possible level? You don't really offer a solution. I inferred that you seem to think that some items ought to be off the table completely. At what level and who decides and enforces that decision?'
Ideally, people would govern their own affairs and interact with each other freely based on their natural rights and voluntary decisions. Any action that infringes on another person's property rights or natural liberty should be off the table. Communities of like-minded people with a similar culture would likely group together, however, ultimately each property owner and individuality would be sovereign on his own land. I support the right of secession of each smaller unit of government from each larger unit. Thus, a State should be able to secede from a union, a county from a State, a town from a county, a neighbourhood from a town and a property-owner from a neighbourhood.
Palmetto Patriot wrote: Any action that infringes on another person's property rights or natural liberty should be off the table.
Okay, back to my question: How is that supposed to work?
Whence come the enforcement mechanisms?
As for secession, a state has a right to keep it's current borders under the Constitution. A county, for instance, would have to have the ability to get state and federal laws passed to secede with the permission of the state and Congress required by Article IV, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
The evil of government is measured in degrees. Measures should be there to keep it in check but you're taking, IMHO, the intra-state secession idea to an absurd an unnecessary extreme though the theory sounds nice.
Again, how does this work without little "d" democracy? Do you impose your ideal state with the force from the state government when people at the county level decide that they want to outlaw people building houses from dried human fecal matter (just for an example)?
What if 95% of the people of a state think that outlawing it at the state level is a great idea and successfully demand that their representatives pass such a law?
Does the dried fecal homeowner then appeal to the federal government to ride in on his white steed and put a javelin into state law allowing dried fecal matter houses everywhere?
I'm just challenging you to think this through vs. a little "d" democratic approach at the community level setting standards for themselves and their neighbors.
I'm not sure I can better answer than I have already. I'm proposing liberty and natural law. As long as a person doesn't infringe upon another person's natural rights there are no problems.
You also ask, 'Whence come the enforcement mechanisms?'
Enforcement mechanisms come from the right of a person to his own life and property. I imagine that there will be local peace officers who could be contacted. I would prefer that these peace officers were paid privately and voluntarily so that they could be fired if they were doing a poor job (as opposed to the situation we suffer under today where we can't really fire our local police force). Obviously it would take a while to get to the sort of world I am proposing. We'll have to take steps to reach that point. I think that eliminating certain types of taxes (especially property takes), requiring a balanced budget, eliminating central banking and returning to real money, abolishing the standing military and returning to voluntary State militias, etc would all be good steps towards getting to a society based on liberty and property rights. Until we get there though, State courts and peace officers would still exist and could be used to enforce property rights as much as possible. After these were eliminated, local peace officers would be in charge of stopping rights violations (in addition to the public being well armed, of course, and therefore able to better protect their own rights as well). I think that local communities would likely establish courts . I imagine these would rise to begin with through insurance groups. Insurance companies have an interest in settling claims and getting back stolen property, etc. They also have a lot of money and likely would be the people who led the effort to create local courts. These courts would have an interest in working together in order to appeal to customers. There are many people with PhDs (especially from the Mises Institute) and years of experience writing on the subject who could better spell out how the transition to a liberty-oriented society would likely happen. Until then, we can use the resources at our disposal (State sovereignty, nullification and secession, for instance) to move in that general direction towards less government and more liberty.
You imagined a strange situation that I want to respond to. You said, 'Do you impose your ideal state with the force from the state government when people at the county level decide that they want to outlaw people building houses from dried human fecal matter (just for an example)? What if 95% of the people of a state think that outlawing it at the state level is a great idea and successfully demand that their representatives pass such a law? Does the dried fecal homeowner then appeal to the federal government to ride in on his white steed and put a javelin into state law allowing dried fecal matter houses everywhere?'
Firstly, I am not talking about a modern state such as exists now. I imagine that to get to such a society we'll probably have to go through a process of the individual States (like SC) seceding from the United States. That would just be the first step though, not the end goal, because even SC on the State and local level is fairly tyrannical and that tyranny and rights violations must be ended.
To answer your question about the dried fecal matter house, if I wish to build such a thing on my property that is my right. No one has the right to stop me from doing what I wish on my property providing I am infringing on no one else's rights. Building such a strange house surely does not do that. Therefore, any prohibition on any level of existing government is illegitimate and a property rights violation. It doesn't matter if 99.9% of the people are against such a house, it is my right to build it. You also ask about the Feds. Ideally they would not exist. Even if we don't ever get to the liberty-oriented society I wish for, I still think we can successfully eliminate the Federal Government. I personally would never appeal to them for anything since I am 100% opposed to their existence. Anything positive and useful they presently do (such as deliver the mail) can be done either by State governments or better yet through the private sector.
Good article Palmetto, thanks for sharing. Also according to Bastiat: "All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder." What we are faced with is a mindset that sees our private property as somehow being at the disposal of the collective. Property taxes are especially egregious because they force people to pay for the privilege of retaining ownership of property that has already been bought and paid for. These tax laws are used for the purposes of plunder instead of assertion of property rights.
I brought up the human fecal matter house due to the public health risk inherent in such structures. In such a case, the existence of those types of houses would be a public nuisance and a health risk--therfore infringing on the rights of the neighbors to reasonably expect to step outside and not having to smell the big pile of a house next door nor have to worry about the kids next door infecting their own kids with hepititis.
There's no way around certain rules and regulations but I'm very glad to hear that you're not talking like the Cato Institute in supporting the omnipotent federal government in reaching your nirvana.
I like the idea of going in that direction and we need thinkers to get us there. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that there are certain undeniable realities involved with people living together in communities, towns, cities, counties, and states that require some thinking and the utopia you describe will never be obtainable. Read "The Bell Curve" if you want to discover the biggest roadbloack.
Posted By: Peter Wingate
Date: 2010-02-05 08:38:51
Palmetto Patriot:
And yet, you have made it clear before that you would have preferred a Confederacy over a United States. That means you would prefer a system that would have outlawed property rights (and, as you say, their humanity) for at least an entire third of the South's population. Your preferred constitution says nothing about protecting their property rights and their humanity.
You have advocated a Confederate Constitution that does the opposite of what you say here. That constitution would have protected the property rights of white males, and nothing for the non-whites living within the southern states. Therefore, you either would want it to be that way, or you would have been content to live with it. Correction: You would have been content for THEM to live with it (and die with it). I can't go along with that way of thinking.
I believe that it is this type of philosophy that is hurting the conservative cause in modern day America. You say nothing about fixing the evils of the past. For that matter, I haven't read anything from you yet that even calls our country's past mistakes "evil". Yes, they're in the past, but they greatly influenced what we have today.
This is why Independents and Moderates (squishy as they may be) can so easily be turned off by what conservatism appears to be to them.
I don't think you're an anarchist because you do believe in a structure of organized rules to an extent. But you are a Libertarian, and your writings give conservatives an excellent opportunity to compare and contrast our own ideologies.
I am an enormous fan of Ayn Rand and her books such as Atlas Shrugged. I think every conservative and Republican owes much to that philosophy. (I think every high school student should read her work.) But she was an atheist and an adulteress who justified her own lifestyle with her arguments of enlightened self interest. Self interest is absolutely the best generator of economic activity. But as a Christian capitalist (to paraphrase Pat Buchanan), I refuse to worship at the altar of Libertarian self interest.
I agree with WorkingTommyC, if I understand him correctly, that we have to BUILD UPON those Libertarian principles, and not stay stuck in them.
Hypothetically, you may own private property in the form of growing illegal drugs, or in a house for prostitution, or in equipment that provides abortions. Yes, that could be your private property, and you might say it's an inherent part of your own humanity as you might define it. And you might say that a federal government (which, by the way, you don't even pledge allegiance to) who deprives you of those things is depriving you of your humanity.
But as a conservative, I will vote against isolationist Libertarians who allow for legalized illicit drugs, who want the market place to determine whether we have prostitution and abortions; and I will vote against the isolationist who says we should not help our dying neighbors in our next door countries because we have enough problems here at home.
I have focused here on where we disagree. We conservatives share many of your beliefs. But there is a clear difference between your brand and ours.
You said, 'I brought up the human fecal matter house due to the public health risk inherent in such structures. In such a case, the existence of those types of houses would be a public nuisance and a health risk--therfore infringing on the rights of the neighbors to reasonably expect to step outside and not having to smell the big pile of a house next door nor have to worry about the kids next door infecting their own kids with hepititis.'
When you gave me that senario I didn't realise you were talking about a house which if built would infringe on the rights of others. I imagined it (as my own house) out in the country. I certainly agree with you that if the house polluted another person's property or caused harm to another person, then that would be infringing against that person and therefore the house would be illegitimate - its existence would be a violation of their property rights. Of course, there are ways around that. If a large enough wall was built around the house that prevented it from polluted the neighbour's property or if the house were far enough away from any neighbours, then there would be no problem.
You also said, 'There's no way around certain rules and regulations....'
I don't deny natural law and its implications. We would obviously need judges to rule on cases where violations of natural law and property rights were not clear and easy for all to see. However, today there is a great deal of legisation, zoning rules and civil code that is not consistent with natural law. Victimless crimes abound in our society, sadly. Seat belt laws, open container laws, smoking bans, etc all infringe on my natural rights. These are what I advocate eliminating first. Hopefully we can agree on this.
You made several comments and accusations I would like to respond to.
You said, '[Y]ou have made it clear before that you would have preferred a Confederacy over a United States. That means you would prefer a system that would have outlawed property rights (and, as you say, their humanity) for at least an entire third of the South's population. Your preferred constitution says nothing about protecting their property rights and their humanity. You have advocated a Confederate Constitution that does the opposite of what you say here. That constitution would have protected the property rights of white males, and nothing for the non-whites living within the southern states. Therefore, you either would wnt it to be that way, or you would have been content to live with it...'
Just because I support the right of secession doesn\'t mean I support all the particulars of the seceding government. When the US seceded from the UK there was slavery in all the Colonies. I certainly would have supported the Revoluntion, but not slavery. Likewise, when the Southern States seceded from the US all the seceding States (and some of the non-seceding States) had slavery. I support the secession but not the slavery. Robert E Lee, for instance, commanded the Southern troops but was not a supporter of slavery. Radical Northern abolitionist Lysander Spooner was certainly against slavery but he also recognised the right of secession. So the two are non synomous. There were many problems with the CSA constitution - slavery was merely one of them. And there is also many problems with the US constitution. Regardless, I believe in the right of secession.
You said, '[A]s a Christian capitalist (to paraphrase Pat Buchanan), I refuse to worship at the altar of Libertarian self interest.'
I am not a member of the Libertarian Party (I don't support Bob Barr, for instance - my views here are libertarian with a little 'l') and certainly don't 'worship' anything. But I think what you are saying is that self-interest must take a backseat to something or other. I would say that self-interest is inherent in us all. We all wish to prosper and live well. There is nothing wrong with that. And of course people sometimes put their family or friends or whatever ahead of their own interests. That is their decision. As long as it is voluntary I have no problem with it. If though, you are speaking about forcing people to put something or other ahead of their self-interests, that is the recipe for tyranny and is illegitimate in a free society.
You said, '[A]s a conservative, I will vote against isolationist Libertarians who allow for legalized illicit drugs, who want the market place to determine whether we have prostitution and abortion....'
You use the word 'isolationist' as a slur word. I certainly don't consider myself as such. In fact, I think Buchanan is much more an isolationist than myself in that he wants to build barriers to trade while I want to eliminate them all. Free trade is a non-isolationist stance. But to address your points directly, 'ilicit' means disapproved of or illegal. Certain substances are currently disapproved of by a majority of voters but that doesn't make these bans legitimate. My natural right is to consume whatever I wish - paint thinner, carrots, cocaine or grass. It's no one else's concern but my own. Of course, if I then harm another person I am guilty of violating their rights, but not of consuming what I wish. You seem very anti-liberty when it comes to consumption. But it is wrong of you to try to tell me what I may consume and may not consume. You are denying my natural, God-given liberty. You also mention prostitution. As long as it is not forced upon someone, then that also is a personal choice. You may forbid it in your business, but it is wrong of you to try to forbid it outside of your property. You are taking away personal choice and responsibility (of an action that does not aggress against others) from other people. Finally you mention abortion. I am more sympathetic to your position here. When you consider this question there is also the natural rights of the unborn baby to consider. I think the current law ignores this and only considers the rights of the mother, so I am basically with you (though it would take many pages of paper to spell out my precise position on this issue if I were to detail all the considerations of natural law from all points of view).
You said, 'I will vote against the isolationist who says we should not help our dying neighbors in our next door countries because we have enough problems here at home.'
I am not against you helping other people. In fact, that is wonderful. You may help who you wish. However, if you are speaking of forcing me to help someone then you are violating my natural rights. If you are speaking of taxing me and then giving my hard-earned money away to the causes around the world you (or a majority of the voters) happen to support, that is theft and illegitimate. Millions of US citizens recently gave money to charities which are helping out in Haiti now. That\'s great. At the same time, Congress voted to tax people and give away millions of our dollars to Haiti. That's theft. They have no right to steal my money and give it to anyone. The only 'no' vote in that immoral act by Congress was Ron Paul. He is to be applauded for standing up to the Feds for our property rights.
I hope this addresses some of your concerns. And I hope you consider the inconsistency of the mainline conservative ideology. Sadly today this ideology often centers around servitude to the state, cheerleading for aggressive foreign wars and applauding the erection of barriers to trade. Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity typify this sort of GOP paritsanship which is bankrupt of any firm moral code and desire to be free. Liberty-loving people abhore government intervention in private affairs, foreign adventurism and restricted consumption and trade.
Your opening paragraph, highlighting ‘Property’ or ‘Real Estate’ tax, has been a particular curiosity of mine for quite a while now. It appears that the ‘Property’ levied against is the contrived ‘profits’ supposed to accrue from land ownership in the manner of an ‘investment’. At Common Law (the principal Process underlying Land Law), Title is in two manifestations, Legal and Equitable, and if no ‘Valuable Consideration’ (gold or silver coin) is tendered in an acquisition, then only the Legal title can be taken. Since 1913, only credit-‘money’ has been lent by banks to conduct land transfers, so no ‘Valuable Consideration’ ever changes hands. The Equitable Title therefore remains in the banks and since government usurped the authority to guarantee the ‘approved’ bankscrip of the Fed, that title is ultimately commanded by it.
Ask Politicos, Lawyers, Judges, Banksters what law authorizes a tax on Property in land and buildings owned in BOTH Law and Equity, situate and held in the original, ordinary jurisdiction of the State and you’ll get stone silence or cite of a Law that authorizes tax only on INVESTMENT LAND, producing a revenue.
“When through the process of law the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished." - 1924 US Banker’s Association Magazine
Posted By: Peter Wingate
Date: 2010-02-08 21:30:45
I've been shoveling snow for a couple of days, and haven't had a chance to follow up.
Palmetto Patriot, there are two fundamentally different subjects that you mix up. There is the real Confederacy and its actual Constitution; and then there is your own idea of what an isolationist, libertarian society could be. When you defend the Confederacy here and elsewhere, you defend it in terms of what you personally believe. But what you personally believe is best for a society is irrelevant when it comes to history. And I believe that you interpret history in ways that are just more to your liking, regardless of historical accuracy.
You don't just theoretically support the right of secession. You specifically supported the secession of the southern states and to this day consider the federal government as an evil occupying force, one so evil that you changed SCV camps to one that doesn't recite the pledge of allegiance.
How convenient for you to now cherry pick those things that you do and do not like about the Confederacy and its Constitution. If your will had been done, the Confederacy would have moved forward on ITS course, not one that you now support. The actual Confederacy would not have protected the property rights and humanity of all of its citizens, just some. It would not have been justice and liberty for all; it would have been justice and liberty for some.
I am stunned that you actually believe that Lee did not support slavery.
1) He owned approximately 70 slaves, 63 of whom were from his father-in-law, who has been shown to have promised freedom for his slaves upon his death. Instead, Lee did not free his father-in-law's slaves, but used them for himself and his family, and leased them out for generating revenue. This is a fact. How could he do this while still being against slavery?
2) It has also been documented that he had his slaves beaten when they tried to escape to freedom. (Surely you would have supported these humans' right to freedom, to their own innate property rights of their own bodies and labor, and to their own sense of humanity?) Either you would have supported the intervention to defend these humans' rights, liberties and humanities, or you would have supported the then-status quo to continue. (This is not a high school debate. It is human life. You must choose one or the other.)
3) Given the choice to serve under the Union or for the Confederacy, he chose to fight for the political force that was in defense of slavery --- which conveniently for him was the one that defended his family's wealth of income-generating slaves.
I'm sure you are aware of the many documents and articles available on this subject. Below is a link to one such page on this subject, though the author of this one uses unfavorable terms to describe those who disagree with him:
The magazine, America's Civil War, had an interesting article on this subject last year.
You said, "If though, you are speaking about forcing people to put something or other ahead of their self-interests, that is the recipe for tyranny and is illegitimate in a free society." As I have already said, self interest is the core driving force in a rational capitalist society. But, in my opinion, your principle is extremely simplistic. The examples I could give are countless. For example: the near extinction of bison and other natural resources. When I was growing up in Texas in the 60s & 70s, the commercial fishermen were wiping out populations of fish and other marine life. It was eerily similar to the devastation of fish populations in the Sea of Japan.
They were pursuing their own self interest in open waters on vessels with equipment that they purchased. But they were destroying resources that wouldn't be available for us in the future. All they cared about was their own short-term self interest. It took government action, first by Texas, and then by other Gulf Coast states to take us back from the brink. Look at the results today in the Gulf Coast. Some stocks are coming back while the fight continues to protect others. And now look at what's happening along the coast of the mid-Atlantic states. Real life, dealing with real competition for resources and conflicts of interest are more complicated and require government actions that put a stop to the actions of a few that hurt the rest of us.
Regarding illicit drugs and prostitution: Bingo! For over 80% of the libertarians with whom I communicate, it doesn't take long to figure out where their interests lie. Your principle sounds fine to some in theory, but I would suggest that you conduct in-depth study on the history of at least North America, and the social ills caused by these types of cancers on our population. Again, this is a good example for comparing and contrasting the morals and values of libertarians and conservatives. I wouldn't want to raise my children in the type of society that you would prefer. And in a representative republic, whether you like it or not, the people have a voice in what type of society we want to have.
You are incorrect in saying that I used the word "isolationist" as a slur. I use it for what it is: isolationism. Washington was for it, and Lafayette was against it. Their portraits are on the left and on the right on the front wall of the US House of Representatives to demonstrate this exact point. (In the US Senate, all around the walls of the chamber are profile images of the great lawgivers of human history, and they're all facing in one direction: Toward the full face of Moses, in the middle of them all. Moses was the great lawgiver and those laws were about morality --- something libertarians say are subjective and should not be imposed upon them.)
You can of course be whatever you want, and it doesn't concern me. But as a voter in this republic, I will vote for my representative to not keep our country's head in the sand about the world going on around us. But, that's just me. And I was not promoting "Pat Buchananism" --- I was just giving proper attribution to his quote. Yes, he is an isolationist, as is Ron Paul. Buchanan is a conservative Republican, while Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He is not a conservative and he is not a Republican. I met him in the 80s when I was working on Capitol Hill for a Texas Congressman. But Paul could only get so far politically as a Libertarian, so he claimed to be a Republican and even ran for President as a Republican. He is a living metaphor for the failure of libertarian self-interest and isolationism in his daily life as a US Congressman. And he's dishonest for claiming to be something that he's not for political gain.
Which brings me to what I think was an odd thing for you to say that "Sean" Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are not moral. I say it's odd because one of the fundamental bedrock differences between conservatives and libertarians is that conservatives believe in affecting their morals and values politically. This is the exact opposite of the libertarian who may or may not have those morals and values, but says to the world, "keep you values off of my body."
And finally, I'm curious as to what you think is the best type of government. Is it a representative republic, a democracy, or what? I'm not talking about a confederation of independent states; I'm asking about the government of the individual state.
Unless it's a strong-fisted authoritarian government, I assume that some people will have the right to vote. But, as Aristotle said (I believe it was Aristotle), at some point the citizenry may figure out that they can vote themselves the treasury. Well, a democracy is a democracy, and a republic is a republic. The people get what the people want within the construct of a constitution. It's up to the citizens in a free society to choose wisely, and to live with the consequences of their votes. It's critical for the rest of us to be persuasive to our fellow citizens to follow the right course.
I have searched and searched, and so far have not been able to find a successful example of this utopian libertarian model of yours. I think the strength of the theory is at the micro level, but definitely not the macro. I tend to believe what others have said elsewhere, that your brand of libertarianism does in the end just lead to anarchy. Either that, or they just get run over by their neighbors and no one successfully comes to their aid.
I'm not going to debate you on the issue of what General Lee thought of slavery. Ultimately it doesn't matter much. I simply used him as an example of someone high in the Confederacy who opposed slavery. Most historians I have read recognised that he was not a friend of slavery and I think the accounts you are reading which make him out to be a brute and a slaver were written by very anti-South people who have an agenda to smear his reputation (which until very recently was very positively remembered in both the North and South). At any rate, as I say, I'm not going to have that argument because it's pointless. You could trot out your historians and I mine and it wouldn't solve anything. So let's move along to the more interesting parts of your post here.
You said, 'You don't just theoretically support the right of secession. You specifically supported the secession of the southern states and to this day consider the federal government as an evil occupying force, one so evil that you changed SCV camps to one that doesn't recite the pledge of allegiance. How convenient for you to now cherry pick those things that you do and do not like about the Confederacy and its Constitution.'
Peter, I support any and all secession from the United States - a government I consider to be disgusting and murderous. Furthermore, I support secession as a basic human right. It is my belief that involuntary government is immoral and wrong. I should not be forced to be under any government I oppose. As I have stated, I support the right of secession of all smaller units of government from all larger units (the state from the union, the county from the state, the town from the county, the neighbourhood from the town and the land-owner from the neighbourhood). What I am proposing as the only moral choice when it comes to government is voluntary association and government. If I had the power, I would immediately secede my seven acres from the United States this minute, however, the Feds would kill me if I did so (as they have shown the willingness to kill people who oppose them and don't want to be part of the US repeatedly through history). So, it is more than just the particular instance of the South's secession that I support. I support secession as a principle.
You are right that I also support the historical example of the South's secession. There were many positive things about the South's political stance that I applaud: free trade, decentralisation, sound money and limited government. These could be contrasted to the Union stance of restricted trade with high tariffs, centralised rule, inflation, and unlimited government. While slavery was an obvious stain on the South's position, there were many stain's on the North's position as well, including slavery in some States which were loyal to the Union, genoicide versus Indian nations, aggressive warmongering, etc. You seem to be weighing the two sides and then concluding in your mind that the North had the better position and therefore opposing the South's secession. That is not what I am doing. What I am doing is advancing the right of secession everywhere and saying that this right extended to the South. It is also true that I am a Southern person (Dixie is my culture and identify her people as my nation of peole, not the US - a multi-national empire of dozens of nations of people). The US government in that War burned nearly all the towns around mine to the ground. It killed some of my ancestors and destroyed the major cities in my State. In all, about 20,000 men in my State were killed by the US government's invasion of my state. So it is easy for me to see the evil in the US Federal Government's refusal to let us be independent and its aggressive warmongering against us. When I defend the South's right to secede it is not a defense of slavery. No Western country today has slavery. But 200 years ago many of them did. Slavery was an economic system I am confident would have died out in the South as it did in all Western nations. You can say that we have no evidence this would have been the case, and that is so. However, all other Western countries got rid of it (even ones such as Portugal and France which prospered greatly from it). And ultimately the US government invaded and conquered us so we can't possibly know what would have happened. What we do know though is that 600,000 people were needlessly killed.
You also said, 'Regarding illicit drugs and prostitution: Bingo! For over 80% of the libertarians with whom I communicate, it doesn't take long to figure out where their interests lie. Your principle sounds fine to some in theory, but I would suggest that you conduct in-depth study on the history of at least North America, and the social ills caused by these types of cancers on our population. Again, this is a good example for comparing and contrasting the morals and values of libertarians and conservatives. I wouldn't want to raise my children in the type of society that you would prefer.'
Peter, I do not do cocaine. Nor do I engage in prostitution. I don't do a lot of things that I believe people have a right to do with their own bodies. I live a fairly clean life. With the exception of enjoying a little wine from time to time, I doubt I do many things you would objct to. In fact, I am very conservative in my lifestyle. The sort of society I advocate is one which allows me to use my body as I see fit so far as I am not aggressing against another person. It's the sort of society where I am allowed to live the fairly conservative lifestyle I am comfortable with and which also allows the pot-head down the road who is not hurting anyone to smoke all the weed he wants. It's wrong of me to aggress against my pot-head neighbour who is not hurting anyone. It's his body. I can't tell him what he can and can not put in his body. To me, this is a moral stand. God gave him his body and the ability to choose. I have no right to impose upon that. What the weed may do to his body is not my business. What it may do to his economic situation is not my business. It's his alone as long as he remains a peaceful person. If he wants to drink bleech straight from the jug, that is his choice. Ultimately, if he wants to blow his own head off with a shotgun, that is his choice. I don't see how you can oppose this position I am taking of non-intervention on moral grounds. The busy-body who wishes to impose his own standards on consumption on another person is an aggressor. No one should be able to do such a thing.
You said, 'I think was an odd thing for you to say that "Sean" Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are not moral. I say it's odd because one of the fundamental bedrock differences between conservatives and libertarians is that conservatives believe in affecting their morals and values politically. This is the exact opposite of the libertarian who may or may not have those morals and values, but says to the world, "keep you values off of my body."'
I think that Hannity and Rush are immoral because they advocate stealing my money and killing people who have never done me harm with it. They both support aggressive wars against the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq - countries which have never aggressed against me. And they both support taxing me. Taxation is theft. The smaller the tax is, the less the offense (which is why I say that if we are going to have a tax it should be tiny and should probably be a flat tariff - such as a 5% tariff on all imports - that way the people would be minimally robbed and they could opt to not pay it by avoiding imports if they opposed the government's actions). Hannity and Rush also support torturing people who have never been convicted of any offense. They pretend that 'Club Gitmo' is a tropical retreat when in reality it is a torture prison where people who were never convicted of any crime have been tortured to death. And finally, they both strongly support various prohibitions and victimless crimes. Aggressing against someone who has not aggressed against another is morally wrong. Anyone who advocates victimless crimes is taking a morally wrong stance, including Hannity and Rush.
You said, 'I'm curious as to what you think is the best type of government. Is it a representative republic, a democracy, or what? I'm not talking about a confederation of independent states; I'm asking about the government of the individual state.'
Ultimately I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said 'That government is best which governs least.' I take that to its ultimate conclusion which is that government that governs least governs not at all. If we have to have a monopy state (involuntary government) I favour one that is as limited as possible with no standing military, a constitutionally-limited tax rate of no more than 5%, constitutional bans on imminate doman and victimless crimes, etc. If we have to have an evil, I want it as small an evil as possible. Ideally I want all involuntary government done away with. This would mean that every land-owner would have the ability to secede from the government. As I have said, if this were the case today I would immediately secede from the US. Such a system would mean that any association of people would be on a voluntary basis. Voluntary governments would of course arise. By this, I mean that judges and peace officers would be necessary to settle disputes and to keep the peace. However, taxes would be paid on a voluntary basis for services provided rather than as they are now robbed from people who don't support the system. I would be willing to pay a small tax for judges and peace officers in my area as long as the judges were fair and the peace officers didn't harass people for victimless crimes. I think in the end that most people would support such a system. Some self-defense would be necessary, even with a heavily armed populace. I believe we would see protection services arise that would probably be linked to insurance companies. These too would function on a voluntary basis. Such groups already exist in many places and they would be more common in a free society. Local militias of armed people would also exist in many areas. The ability of such militias to defeat even huge, well-equipped armies is well demonstrated in history. Right now, for instance, an Afghan militia (the Talaban) is defeating the US military. The Afghan militias also defeated the USSR back in the 80's. So, I don't think security would be a problem at all. And the benefit of eliminating the standing military as I am speaking of is that then that particular threat to liberty is gone. Currently the US gov't steals quite a lot of my money to support its massive, imperial military - which in turns makes large companies like Lockheed-Martin which are well connected to Congressmen very, very rich. I don't support this system and what I'm speaking of would eliminate that problem entirely.
The system I envision is not perfect. It's not a utopia. I don't claim that. Humans will be humans and so problems will arise. However, it does eliminate the systematic violation of property rights and human liberty that exists in the present system and in the modern state system in general. Ultimately I think that liberals, conservatives and libertarians would all be happier in such a world since they would be able to choose their own system and would not be forced to support things they don't support. Presently, for example, conservatives have to live with the fact that their tax money goes to support the public school system which pushes all kinds of values on their children they don't support. It also goes to support abortions in some cases, which they definitely oppose. Liberals, on the other hand, have to live with the fact that some of their tax money goes to support imperialist wars around the world. Some of their money goes to making huge 'defense' contractors such as Lockheed-Martin filthy rich. Under a system of voluntary government such as I am proposing one's money would only go where one wanted it to. No one would be forced to support a system he or she regarded as evil.
I hope this answers your questions. I think we close in some areas but your willingness to impose your values through force upon others is the ultimate hang-up we seem to have. I am not willing to do so, as I consider that immoral. At any rate, we could certainly work together towards limited the current government even if you don't share my goal of ultimately abolishing or seceding from it.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
