MOTHERFUCKING SANTA IS A MOTHERFUCKING LIBERTARIAN!!!! YEAH! YEAH!!!

ROUNDHOUSE KICK!

I love it when a liberal comes to his or her senses  Check this out:

Michael Dean talks about his conversion from a typical Califunny liberal to a gun-toting libertarian.  I particularly liked this:

We feel like we left California and moved to AMERICA.

Of course people did not take it well:

Even strangers chimed in. Typical of the many slams I received was a fan of my older books and music who said “I can’t believe how quickly you went from being a hip, artistic guy to being a fat WalMart redneck Red Lobster-eating NRA asshole.”

I never heard of Red Lobster having and NRA connection and I am pretty sure that Walmart stopped being pro-NRA after Sam Walton retired to the “big box” in the sky.  Still, remember that when a left-wingnut opines about how narrow-minded conservatives are.

All I can say is, Michael, you don’t have to worry what we will think of you based on how you used to vote.  We only care how you vote now and it seems like you are a good man.

I’m bothered today. Everything I say & do these days, in the political arena, seems to be an issue for someone. That part really doesn’t bother me. What does bother me is the fact that ‘political correctness’ seems to be at the heart of a good deal of it.

Everyone worries all day long, these days. We worrry about saying the right thing, doing the right thing, having the right things. When did America become a country that allowed itself to be dictated to? When did we allow someone else to decide what’s the right things to say, think & do? When did we allow others to choose for us the latest fashions for our homes? What makes a home right for you & your family? And that if you don’t have them, you are somehow missing out or not providing?

I came to a point in my life, not too long ago, where I had to decide whether or not to listen to any of that. Whether or not I was going to go with the flow or begin to question where I was, how I got there, whether or not I liked it there and whether or not I wanted to stay there. Answering those questions & making those choices was not easy. And the path of those choices isn’t easy either. But that’s the inherent beauty of it all: it’s MY choice.

Too often, on a daily basis even, we are told what to think, what to believe, how to feel, what to buy, how to dress. I’m tired of it all. I have been doing a great deal of reading. The thing I open & read most often is my book at that contains the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. I find my patriotic inspiration there. I find my rights there. I find my independence and my freedoms there. Thus, I choose to reject the whims of society and live on my terms. Live on my principles and make my own choices.

Some of those choices include where I to choose to purchase goods for myself and my family. There are some companies/stores I will NOT buy from. Not because their product is inferior in any way, but because I choose to stand on my principles and thus NOT support theirs. I choose the influence in my home. I choose what to think, based on the enormous amount of information that is available to all. In this day & age, ignorance is no longer an excuse. Ignorance leads to being adrift in the wind, in whichever direction it may blow, and being powerless to stop it. For me, that is unacceptable.

It find it interesting that you can be a person of independent thought, but at the same time be ridiculed for it. Well, that’s your choice, right? To think for yourself, on your own, in your time? But both sides of the aisle want to dictate to you what your reality is. How do they know what’s reality for you? Do they live your life? Do they know you? Or your family? Do they truly understand what is, or isn’t, in your best interests? I say no. I say no one knows my life unless they live it. And they do not. Neither do I live theirs, nor do I want to. The problem is, those who think they know, want to dictate to you how to live it. And those laws are being passed. Americans are bombarded every day by commericals & the media. They want to you to watch them so that you will be swayed to them. They want you to change your mind their way, reject and apologize for your heathen godlessness of independent thought, and become part of them, thus rejecting your value and individuality.

I cannot. And while I remain on the side of the unpopular, I have begun to not care. I am apathetic to the insults and screaming rhetoric. I no longer listen to those who claim to want one thing and then do another. I reject anyone’s reality being forced upon and me and choose to do as I will. Why? Because I am guaranteed the right on the Constitution.

Mark Thoma: Libertarians and populists are against Bernanke

Courtesy of Edward Harrison at Credit Writedowns

Mark is right that time is not on Chairman Bernanke’s side. If you saw the Ron Paul video earlier today, you can see what’s happening. I don’t have a strong view, although I believe most of the other bloggers are against.

Reminder: This is what Mark wrote about the Chairman’s being re-appointed in June.

Bernanke, Summers, or Yellen? None of the Above?

I’d reappoint him. If forced to choose between Yellen and Summers, I’d choose Yellen.

Question: are these still the alternatives if Bernanke is not confirmed?

(video embedded above)

See also Bernanke’s nomination approved by Senate banking panel from the BBC

“The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon. “

~George Washington

Franklin Roosevelt -Second Bill of Rights

Judge Andrew Napolitano – Health Care Bill Passed by Congress UNCONSTITUTIONAL – Part 1 of 2

Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural rights Patriot Act – Part 3 of 3

Glenn Beck-12-17-09-A

Glenn Beck-12-17-09-B

Glenn Beck-12-17-09-C

Glenn Beck-12-17-09-D

Glenn Beck-12-17-09-E

Glenn Beck-12-17-09-F

The Progressive Radical Socialist are trying to force the American people to purchase a Health Insurance plan from either an insurance company or government entity–the public option.

Furthermore, they want you to pay for this plan for four years before you obtain any benefits of the plan!

If you do not pay, the IRS will fine you and take the money out of your checking account.

Yes, the Progressive Radical Socialist health care reform bill is both unconstitutional and unamerican.

The American people do not want Obamacare or socialized medicine.

The American people want smaller government with lower taxes, fewer regulations, and fewer government services.

The American people are pushing back and will not be nudged or ignored by the political elites in Washington, D. C.

Time for a new conservative and libertarian political party–American Citizens Alliance Party–ACAP–a cap on government spending, deficits, debt, bailouts, regulations, subsidies and taxes.

Conservatives and libertarian represents over 60% of the American electorate.

Run a principled conservative and libertarian for office and they should win every time.

Run as a progressive radical socialist and you will lose.

Throw the bums out of Congress, Senate, and White House.

Tea Party Patriots stand up, organize, call, march, fight, run and vote.

The Patriot

“The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.”

~George Washington

Background Articles and Videos

The Battleground Poll and the Battle for America

By Bruce Walker

“…The Battleground Poll reveals the internals of its poll. It also asks respondents the same demographic questions in each poll:  What is your education level?  What is your age?  What is your religious affiliation?  What is your marital status?  Question D3 asks respondents to describe their ideology.  The choices are “very conservative,” “somewhat conservative,” “moderate,” “somewhat liberal,” “very liberal,” and “unsure/refused.”  Those asked by the Battleground Poll — if they dislike the liberal label — can call themselves moderates,  they can refuse to answer, and  they can express an uncertainty about their ideology.   Only those certain of their ideology and willing to label themselves are considered conservative in the poll.

America’s Best Days
66% Favor Smaller Government With Fewer Services, Lower Taxes

“…Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a more active government with more services and higher taxes.

That’s the second highest finding of the year: In August at the height of the congressional town hall controversies over the health care plan, 70% felt that way.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% prefer a government with more services and higher taxes. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure which is best.

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major party like a smaller government better. Democrats are more narrowly divided: 51% favor a smaller government, but 37% opt for a larger, more activist government.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of liberals chose a government with more services and higher taxes. Eighty-six percent (86%) of conservatives think a smaller government is better.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of all voters say tax cuts are a better way than more government spending to create jobs and fight unemployment. Only 21% say additional stimulus spending is a more effective tool.

Voters overwhelmingly believe that the bigger problem in the United States is the unwillingness of politicians to control government spending rather than voters’ unwillingness to pay enough in taxes. …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/america_s_best_days

Tea Party Tops GOP on Three-Way Generic Ballot

“…Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican.

In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.

Among Republican voters, 39% say they’d vote for the GOP candidate, but 33% favor the Tea Party option. …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/tea_party_tops_gop_on_three_way_generic_ballot

The Founders and Us

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Cass Sunstein

Cass Sunstein–Regulatory Czar–Animal Rights Activist, Body Part Taker, Gun Grabber, Internet Regulator, Nudger–Nuts!

Cloward Piven

Cloward Piven Strategy–The Crisis Strategy Of Barack Obama

President Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy of Controlled Crisis Creation Crippling Capitalism–Coup D-Etat On America 

Health Care

Senator Coburn Educates The Educated Fools aka Progressive Radical Socialists Who Cannot Write, Read, Or Understand The Health Care Bill or Competitive Markets!

Senator Coburn Educates The Educated Fools aka Progressive Radical Socialists Who Cannot Write, Read, Or Understand The Health Care Bill or Competitive Markets!

Senator Tom Coburn Makes The Progressive Radical Socialists Read Their Socialized Medicine Amendment to Health Care Bill!–Three Cheers–Kill The Bill!

Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted ACORN Felon Richard Creamer!

Obama’s Trick On The American People: Health Insurance Reform=Huge Hikes in Taxes and Premiums for Health Insurance and Massive Medicare Funding and Payment Reimbursement Cuts–Congressional Coercion–It’s Alive!

Second Opinion: Doctors Speak Up On Proposed Health Care Reform–And A Third Texas Opinion!–Videos

American Citizens Want Jobs and Criminal Alien Removal, Not Criminal Alien Census and Health Care!

Illegal Aliens Can Buy Health Insurance Plans–No ID Needed:–Demand Criminal Alien Removal and Deportation!

Congressman Paul Ryan–Townhall Meeting–Health Care Reform and The Patients Choice Act–Videos

The Arrogance of President Obama: Hectoring Habitual Liar

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Public Option = Government Option = Pathway to Single Payer = Single Payer = Socialized Medicine = Blue Pill = Poison Pill

Obama: First We Kill The Babies, Then We Kill The Elderly, Then We Kill The Veterans–Your Life, Your Choices–Your Time Is Up!

This Joker Is A Lost Cause: Keeping President Obama Honest on Health Care–Let’s But A Smile On That Face–Staying Alive

Fact 1. Federal Government Health Insurance Is Compulsory–Kill The Bill–H.R. 3200

Patient Empowerment: Health Savings Accounts–High Deductible Catastrophic Health Insurance–Affordable, Portable, Fair, Individual Health Care Plan–Consumer Driven Health Care Reform!

The Dangers Of A Single Payer Health Care System: Ronald Reagan On Socialized Medicine and Friedrich A. Hayek On State Monopoly

The American People Believe The Government Public Option Plan Is The Path To The Single Payer Government Plan–Socialized Medicine–Obama Caught Lying To The American People!

The American People Confront Obama’s Red Shirts (ACORN) and Purple Shirts (SEIU)–Bullhorns and Beatings Over Obama Care!

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Obama’s Marching Orders For His Red Shirts (ACORN), Purple Shirts (SEIU) and Black Shirts (New Panther Party)–Progressive Radical Socialists

Health Care Resources

Republican Health Care Reform: The Patients’ Choice Act

Medical Doctor and Senator Tom Coburn On Health Care–Videos

The Senate Doctors Show–Videos

Obama’s Waterloo– Government Compulsory Single Payer Socialized Medicine!–Videos

President Obama’s Plan of Massive Deficit Spending Is Destroying The US Economy–The American People Say Stop Socialism BS Now!

The Bum’s Rush of The American People: The Totally Irresponsible Democratic Party Health Care Bill and Obama’s Big Lie Exposed

Chairman Obama’s Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Bill Kills Individual Private Health Care Insurance–Join The Second American Revolution!

The Obama Big Lie and Inconvenient Truth About Health Care–The Public Option Trojan Horse–Leads To A Single Payor Goverment Monopoly of Health Care and The Bankruptcy of USA!

The Obama Public Option Poison Pill For A Government Health Care Monopoly–Single Payer System–Betting Your Life and Paying Though The Nose

Government Bureaucracy: Organizational Chart of The House Democrats’ Health Plan

Dr. Robert W. Christensen–Videos

John Stossel–Sick In America–Videos

Rand Paul’s primary campaign to fill Jim Bunning’s Senate seat seems to have hit a bit of a snag this week… campaign spokesman, Chris Hightower, had to resign after being exposed as an um… “Satanic Metal God in KKK gear.”

Yeah.
I feel like I should be at least surprised, if not shocked, that this is the quality of person drawn to a Paul campaign. Naa… just amused.

It’s a shame that both the groups who prize maximum freedom (libertarians) and those who prize maximum social supports (actual socialists) have reason to like French-style single-payer health care better than the American system, yet people who pretend to prize these things (tea-bagger Republicans and Democrats, respectively) would never allow such a change:

In France, you are covered, period. It doesn’t depend on your job, it doesn’t depend on a health maintenance organization, and it doesn’t depend on whether you filled out the paperwork right. Those who (like me) oppose ObamaCare, need to understand (also like me, unfortunately) what it’s like to be serially rejected by insurance companies even though you’re perfectly healthy. It’s an enraging, anxiety-inducing, indelible experience, one that both softens the intellectual ground for increased government intervention and produces active resentment toward anyone who argues that the U.S. has “the best health care in the world.”

(via The Daily Dish)

Cindy Sherman, Untitled, 1990

Some mistaken identities.

I don’t think that some “Right-wing” partisans understand Leftists, often conflating revolutionary socialists, anarchists, and [anticommunist] social democrats. And yet media pundits constantly refer to “the Left” as if it still existed in its historic 19th and 20th century red-hot formulations and in the same numbers. What is lost is the memory of moderate conservatives or conservative reformers like FDR (descendants of New Dealers, now called “the Left”) and their practices of lopping off those who were to their left, that is, the structural reformers, unless there was a “Popular Front” against looming internal and external fascism, as did exist from 1935 until the Hitler-Stalin Pact in 1939.  At what point did these “moderate conservatives” as they called themselves  metamorphose into “the Left” as sole defenders of the little guy? I am guessing around 1919. More on that another time, or see chapter two of my book on the Melville revival. 

From long experience with leftists and the entire socialist-communist-social democratic traditions, however, despite their sharp differences in goals and tactics, I can generalize about them as follows:  All factions of “the Left” believe themselves to be the true bearers of morality and that conservatives are heartless fascist* murderers. By contrast, as progressives they see themselves as sacrificing their own personalities, economic interests, and happiness for “the public good” or “suffering humanity”; to be one of them, you must “stand with the oppressed,” even if that means helping Hamas. In other words, they seek to uplift those whom “the Right” (e.g. Israel) knowingly and viciously victimizes. And unless they follow Kant and Rosa Luxemberg, they may accomplish this grand goal “by any means necessary.” (e.g. see Trey Ellis in HuffPo, 12-16: “The Obama administration needs to course-correct immediately. He needs to make a series of bold, muscular, ruthlessly political moves immediately (reconciliation anyone?) to put the fear of god into all those puny adversaries out there that have been pushing him around with impunity.”)  So they are the true humanitarians in their own eyes and the antitheses of the “fascists” they valiantly oppose.

 Also, do not minimize both continuities and ruptures between the factions of what is loosely called “the Left.” Anyone who has studied or had contact with revolutionary socialists knows about their history of sectarianism. It makes Protestantism look demure and pure. They have killed or sacrificed  each other without hesitation: just look at what the Stalinists did to Trotskyists and Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War, or the notorious Stalin purges of his former comrades, not to speak of other communists with Jewish backgrounds, a process that ceased only with his death in 1953. But mixing them in with social democrats is absurd, for the motley Marxist-Leninists inhabit mostly such outposts as Pacifica Radio, a few journals, and increasingly-criticized departments of comparative literature and other humanities.

    But most crucially, “right-wing social democrats” (as some Leftists call them, distinguishing them from the Second International left-wing social democrats favoring incremental reforms) have an entirely different lineage from the Marxist-Leninists.  As I have shown in other blogs, European aristocrats, following Bismarck and before that, reformers in Great Britain, “christianized” the new ["jewified"] industrial society with social insurance that we now call the welfare state. (See my blog The Enigmatic Face of Philosemitism http://clarespark.com/2009/10/29/the-enigmatic-face-of-philosemitism/.) 

    As for those artists who once were reds in the 1930s, many of them shifted to populism/progressivism when they saw that the Communist Party wanted to control their work. Budd Schulberg and Elia Kazan are two examples. I was particularly disturbed by their film, A Face in the Crowd (1957), that pinned fascism on the media-worshipping mass audience that had elevated the loutish “Lonesome Rhodes,” whose meteoric career had been aided and abetted by a female sentimental liberal–a stand-in for the moral mother, perhaps the figure who had driven them into the arms of the 1930s authoritarian Left. In other words, though Schulberg and Kazan  professed themselves to be progressives, they replicated the aristocratic explanation for fascism as “the revolt of the masses,” bamboozled by the new mass media (radio and television), and shadowed by anti-progressive old money, particularly as embodied in immoral and hidebound Southern politicians.

     Here are some quotes from the screenplay: Lonesome Rhodes (the demagogue who has risen from the People):  “You made me, Marcia.  You made me, Marcia, I owe it all to you.” [Marcia, the arty, sentimental Liberal]:”I know it.”  Marcia, explicitly linked to “marshes” (i.e., quagmires) and ever the guilty mother, finally aware of the duplicity of her monstrous birth, opens the microphone to expose Lonesome’s secret contempt for the TV audience (the common folk) who adore him and who would turn the State over to his fascist backers. [Lonesome Rhodes is ruined:]  “It was the sound man.  I’ll get that dirty stinking little mechanical genius [who did this to me].”  [Marcia:] “It was me.”  The Muckraker’s last words rectify the sentiment of Lonesome’s banner (“There’s nothing so trustworthy as the ordinary mind of the ordinary man.”)  [Muckraking journalist to Marcia:] “You were taken in.  But we get wise to him [the Lonesome/Hitler type]; that’s our strength.”  Mama’s boy, a.k.a. Lonesome’s last words wailed from a balcony (and the night) as Marcia and the muckraker depart:  “Marcia, don’t leave me…come back.” That Marcia destroyed her monstrous birth is missing from Nicholas Beck’s “bio-bibliography” of Schulberg (2001), where Lonesome is supposed to be the agent of his own destruction (p.59, fn4, quoting Donald Chase).

 Stand-ins for the controlling parent? Conservatives must read their antagonists without caricatures and without mistaking their objectives.  Revolutionary socialists and social democrats are not simply “elitists” who think they know what is best for others (though many think that “the Right” is not only monolithic, but selfish, square, dumb, and fanatical, unlike, say, those who run National Public Radio, while many on the Right return the favor, frequently lumping all leftists and social democrats together as elitist conspirators/fascists)–Glenn Beck for instance. It is more complicated than that, though reds and “liberals” do favor various degrees of statism to rectify social inequities and achieve what all call “social justice.” In the end, we could make the public discourse on politics more rational by specifying competing theories of the good society:

 Libertarians find wealth creation through free markets a good thing and, in the case of the better educated, believe that the state should protect this process through sound monetary policy. The social democratic Left (a.k.a. the moderate men) sees the state as planning rationally to compensate for what they believe to be a weak and unstable system: capitalism. Nothing is so scary as great gaps between rich and poor, for that portends another bloody French Revolution. If that means that everyone is relatively poor in the quasi-socialist utopia, such asceticism is better than the suffering of the victims du jour while the ever libertine rich feast and thoughtlessly indulge their animal appetites for glitter and other luxuries, hence “bourgeoisifying,” i.e., corrupting, the tastes and desires of the working-class who are now beset by “false consciousness.” And some conservatives, angry combatants in the culture wars, even as they invoke the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, seek to impose their own morality on those who don’t share the same “values,” (e.g. pro-life, anti-gay marriage, opposition to stem-cell research using frozen embryos, creationism or intelligent design, the superiority of a rural way of life to decadent cities), thus nullifying the separation of Church and State that has served us so well. But I caution my readers who remain somewhere on “the Left” that conservatives are not evil or demented when they find such developments as the hyper-sexualization of women and children to be dangerous and destructive, or wonder, as I do, how it happened that sadomasochism became acceptable, even fashionable. And remember that Lord Maynard Keynes thought that his measures to relieve a depression were not to be permanently institutionalized.

 POPULISM. According to Rasmussen Reports, 55% of the American public is populist, i.e., they believe that government and big business are in cahoots, which makes sense if you understand that small business and big business are in conflict. Interestingly given our generally anticommunist polity, this is the analysis of the Marxist-Leninist Left: the state is an executive committee of the big bourgeoisie (as opposed to the state being an independent institution with its own interests, see sociologist Michael Mann’s books). Populism is a subject I have written about extensively on this website. It claims to speak for “the people” against “the special interests” or “Wall Street” or “the military-industrial complex” or some other dread agglomeration such as “the Jews” or “white males.”As such, it speaks to class resentments and is irrational. Whether of the Left or of the Right, populism is not good for analyzing concrete institutions and their policies. Moreover, as indicated above, it does not distinguish between fractions of those who make decisions for the rest of us, each of which has different and possibly clashing interests with others in the so-called “ruling class.” Populists are incapable of writing accurate histories, but seem content to follow their leaders. And their leaders, insofar as they resort to demagoguery, don’t really care about “the folks.” (Who are the folks? Rural residents and small producers or small businessmen, or these and the industrial working class, including those in the state sector or service occupations? It is this vagueness that marks the demagogue.)

 *Contending definitions of “fascism.” By “fascists” the social democratic ‘left’ generally means a society practicing “laissez-faire” economics, militarism, hypernationalism (“national chauvinism”), the manipulation of public opinion through heavy-handed propaganda, and imperialism/racism. This absolves social democracy of continuities or comparisons with statist fascism and Nazism, not to speak of their zealousness in attacking “rugged individualism,” the American unpardonable sin that is imagined to persist beyond the pioneer period. By contrast, revolutionary socialists generally refer to the rule of finance capital or monopoly capital or “late capitalism” when they write of fascism and Nazism. Social democrats, true to their Platonic Guardian-philosopher-king heritage, tend to see fascism as the revolt of the masses, as noted above. Much psychiatry/psychoanalysis seeks to manage these “id-forces” and may be more powerful than we think in influencing the medical culture of postwar America. For more on the practice of psychoanalysis at a distance, see http://clarespark.com/2009/12/13/klara-hitlers-son-and-jewish-blood/. The importance of the father as leader and as commander of a tight militarized family unit with high morale cannot be overemphasized, a point forcefully made in the last section of the blog just cited, where I analyze the politics of The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit. I am all for keeping the family together, but caution against families keeping their children in a regressed state of mind, that is, either in a state of hero-worship (idealization) or of demonizing “the enemy.” The sane alternative is to look at competing interests, policies, and programs with enough detachment to take on the responsibilities of citizenship in a would-be democratic republic, examining a warring world characterized by every kind of uneven development.

If bankers think it jolly unfair that they have to pay tax, due to them being ‘wealth creators’, can doctors and nurses argue that they should be exempt from tax as ‘health creators’? Or should women go tax-free, given that they’re ‘life creators’?

This special pleading “wealth creators” routine is the purest guff.

Because the yes, sir/no, sir mentality is perhaps starting to get slightly unhealthy? For all involved?

So, by now everybody must have heard about what happened to Peter Watts, a Canadian s-f author who was beaten up by USian border patrol when he was going back to Canada. Whatever you might think about the incident (and it would be sort of, perhaps, crazy to believe it was Peter Watts who provoked them, and even so, would that constitute a valid excuse for such a ridiculous abuse of power? Nuh-huh) the dumbest thing is this:

When an enforcement professional pulls you over, it is known as a “stop.” The proper behavior at a stop … is to stop and await further instructions. This is for your safety … AND theirs. Getting out and demanding a reason is construed as a “lack of compliance” (see above).

Somehow, all I got while reading this paragraph was a group of Daleks screeching “OBEY! YOU WILL OBEY!” at the hapless imprisoned Doctor.

Also, WOW, does someone have a hard-on for a creepy authoritarian state in which people in uniforms can do whatever they feel like BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A PERMANENT STATE OF WAR DON’T YOU SEE oh wait-

Folks, this is the real world. Cops, borders guards, security officers get attacked routinely. They have the right to defend themselves. And defending yourself as a security professional means taking pre-emptive action.

Yeaaaaah, sure. So, they get attacked routinely (which might as well be bullshit, I’ve no idea), which means they can bully and attack other, possibly innocent  people preemptively? Ohoho, somehow, this doesn’t make any sense?

I mean, on Earth, and as long as you apply Earth logic, and so on?

So, what should Peter Watts do?

My advice: go before the judge, be contrite and respectful, apologize in the most sincere and forceful language available to you and GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE. Fighting this battle on principle is a losing proposition. You’ll face defeat and prove nothing. Accept the way things are, admit you made a mistake and learn from it. And give the security guys a break next time. The Sixties ended on September 11th, pal. Get used to it.

Koff koff, suuuuuuure! He should apologise to the armed men who assaulted him for 1.  not being sufficiently obedient and 2. provoking them, because, let’s face it, he was just asking for it.

The whore.

In the comments, the maverick author of the charming piece of pathetic authoritarian drivel divulges also that:

In a previous draft of this post, I was going to mention Israel and the check-points (so of course I thought of you and Danny). Failure to comply at an IDF check-point no doubt leads to immediate use of overwhelming force (and for good reason)

Uh-huh. Israel/Palestine war. US/Canadian border. COMPLETELY THE SAME THING oh wait-

So, where are the libertarians nao? Somewhere else, bitching about taxes?

Typical.

(But then, what do I know. I’m just a typical Euro commie)

(And thanks Cthulhu for the Schengen Agreement)

Large groups of protesters continue to express dissatisfaction with the Obama Administration’s policies and actions. The protesters are composed of “just say no” Republicans, Libertarians, and a growing group of simply dissatisfied/no government is good government Americans. For them, there is no reason to ever justify a business bail out and when government does do it, it is because there is a pay off involved.

When President Bush and then President Obama set in motion steps leading to massive bank bailouts, the financial world appeared on the brink of disaster. Enough government officials along with leading economists knew of the foolish and reckless governance that bank officials had been engaged in during the past 10 years. Tragically, they all knew but had not stepped forward before. They might not have know details, but they knew the banking and investment industry had gone way off the path and had chosen to lever their balance sheets beyond reasonableness.

The bank bail outs (along with AIG) and probably General Motors were necessary for national security reasons. A deep depression in the time of significant overseas deployment of military forces could lead to all sorts of unwanted outcomes. With General Motors, heads rolled (as they should have). With the banks, the process has been much less severe. It was almost a repeat of Abu Ghraib where systematic abuse and de-humanizing behavior towards Islamic prisoners emanated from the “tone at the top” and not “ a few bad apples”.   The banking crisis did not have its roots with a few bad traders but with the CEO’s “tone at the top”.

The bail outs seemed to have worked in the sense that the industry has stabilized. The job, however, is only partly finished. It is probably too late to insist upon sacking the CEOs but it is not too late to implement new rules that increase transparency, set prudent limits on leverage, and confine the most dangerous derivatives to Federally regulated markets. The free market has shown it can not police these weapons of mass destruction.

We should not be fooled by these protesters’ rhetoric. Nil-ism does not produce useful results. We should, however, pay attention to what they are protesting, and ask ourselves what’s right and what’s wrong with the institutions they are protesting. Where there is smoke, there is sometimes fire. Banks and investment firms are here to stay but have clearly grown to big to fail, and to big to operate without new and improved rules.

The question is, did the GOP lose it’s way?

Most of the liberals I know (and I live in Massachusetts) primarily demonize Republicans for the agenda of the socially conservative branch of the party. At the same time, most people that I know are disgusted with the spending and corruption of our large federal bureaucracy. If the GOP really wants to recover, it needs to drop all socially conservative agenda items that aren’t in line with the libertarian’s views, and focus on aspects of limited, clean, responsible, and (preferably) smart government.

Democrats= "The Party of Liars"

Either Obama and the Democrats are lying or it simply must be everyone else. Even Democrat Howard Dean has admitted that ObamaCare will cost several trillions of dollars and the Dems are not being honest. Want better news?

Well, the libertarian think-tank, Cato, went through the ObamaCare bill and said the Dems are using gimmicks to keep the cost below the magic threshold of $900 billion…

One gimmick makes the new entitlement spending appear smaller by not opening the spigot until late in the official 10-year budget window (2010–2019).  Correcting for that gimmick in the Senate version, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) estimates, “When all this new spending occurs” — i.e., from 2014 through 2023 — “this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over that ten-year period.”

Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance.  When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax.  When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending.  But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending.  That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan.  And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs.  When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4). …

When we correct for both gimmicks, counting both on- and off-budget costs over the first 10 years of implementation, the total cost of ObamaCare reaches — I’m so sorry about this — $6.25 trillion.  That’s not a precise estimate.  It’s just far closer to the truth than President Obama and congressional Democrats want the debate to be.

If this bill passes, the bill will be pushed down to the generations under us. The Democrats, lead by the proven liars like Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, know that this bill will cost more than the $849 billion price tag that was put on it. The purpose of this bill is to extend Medicaid, which just happens to be another multi-trillion dollar, unfunded, government-run program.

Libertarians, Republicans and Independents are all lying of course. The Democrats will say that everyone is racist, wants people to die in the streets and loves the insurance companies. They tend to say this often so they can continue telling their lies. We should call them the “Party of Liars,” because this is the only thing they have successfully accomplished since 2007.

Republican. Democrat. Libertarian. What do they stand for? Where do I fit? I can’t answer that for you. You have to answer it for yourself. I can direct you to a quiz that will help you determine it. The world’s smallest political quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html .

I can, however, give you my take on the parties and what they mean to me. My views can be boiled down short enough to fit in this post comfortably and still get the message across. For example, the Republican Party, they stand for big business. The Democrat Party, they stand for big government. The Libertarian Party, they stand for the individual. Is that short and sweet enough for you? Oh, you’d like a little more?

Well, let’s see. The Republican party has traditionally sided with GM, GE and Wal-Mart. They counted on the trickle down theory of economics. In other words the rich get richer and the people get more scraps from the table of big business. It works ok, but in recent years they’ve been trying to follow a more Constitutionally friendly agenda. Without much success, I might add.

Now the Democrat Party is totally different while being exactly the same. Confused? Basically, the Democrat party thinks that government can solve any problem from poverty to quantum physics. They claim to be for the working class while expanding the welfare state. Am I making this clear? No? That’s because they are very contradictory. At least with the Republicans you know how they’re going to screw you. The Democrats try to hide it. But the result is the same, you and I pay more.

The Libertarian party, contrary to popular belief, is the most conservative. They actually believe what the Constitution says. They are for the individual and his rights. They do desire to remove most of the barriers in the way of business as well. However, this can create a kind of “buyer beware” sort of climate. They believe in smaller government, just enough to get the job done.

I personally, am an Independent at this point. But if I had to side somewhere it would definitely be Libertarian.

Short Selling American Lives

Deutsche Bank Life Insurance Fund in Hot Water

By Anne Seith in Frankfurt

 

ddp

Some say Deutsche Bank misled investors in a fund which hoped to profit from deaths in the US.

Two Deutsche Bank funds were designed to profit from premature deaths in the US by buying up life insurance policies. But investors have seen precious little return on their investment. Angry customers are accusing the bank of fraud.

Gerhard Strate, a well-respected lawyer based in Hamburg, has seen a lot of things over the years. But he still has a hard time believing the story of the Deutsche Bank funds db Kompass Life 1 and 2, calling it “unbelievable” and “absurd.” The closed-end funds buy life insurance policies from Americans and assume responsibility for paying their future premiums. When the original policy-holder dies, the entire payout goes to the fund. It is like short-selling US life expectancy.

C-SPAN showed last evening a production based upon Sarah Palin’s book signing visit to Cincinnati. The production showed in great detail the range and interests of the many people who attended. All thought that Sarah Palin was the one bright light for the future, and just as assuredly, thought that Barack Obama was the best example of what is wrong with the Country. I was struck by whether I was watching “provincialism”, or “wayout-ism”, or both.

Those seeking book signings were normal looking, normal talking, and otherwise everyday people who spoke calmly and self assured. When you listened carefully to what they were saying, it was as if air passed unmolested from one of their ears to the other.

They spoke of values (undefined), they spoke of integrity (no examples), they spoke of Palin not being like the others (with no reference to how), and they spoke of America’s path being in the wrong direction (without saying how relying only on only yourself would work in our complex society with large cities and for people without work or education).

When most people speak these types of thoughts, I consider them “provincial”, that is they are seeking what they think is most like themselves. It is possible in this respect they are correct. What is a mystery is how they can believe their ideas are good for everyone else. For example, being pro-choice does not mandate that a young woman in Ohio must have an abortion, while being pro-life does mandate that all other women lose their rights to reproductive health.

Demographics tell us that Central Ohio is not representative of all of America despite how good its people may be, or may think they are. More dangerous is that their view of what is right, may in fact be a better state given the assumption that they see as normal everyday life. The problem is that their view of life is not representative of America and does not comprehend the global nature of the world today.

Most dangerous is that the righteous sound of Palin’s rhetoric simply is no proof that it will work in today’s world. No one can be sure unless she has a chance to test her policies in the chief executive’s chair. That is the “wayout-ism” of politics.

David Davis

As readers will recall, this was the title briefed for the Chris R Tame Memorial Prize submissions, requested for the 2009 LA/Libertarian International Conference which took place in London in October. The prize was won by Antoine Clarke, but there were other submissions, one of which I reprint her below by one of our occasional visitors and guest commentators, Peter Watson:-

“Can a Libertarian also be a Conservative?”

For the purposes of answering this question, it is necessary first to define the terms used.  As the question is posed using capital letters for both Libertarian and Conservative, it can be assumed that the words in this context are intended to mean specifically party political allegiances, and therefore the short answer would be “No”, since political allegiance distributed over two parties is meaningless.

Membership of a political party presupposes that the party manifesto and general ethos is such that by and large, the member can realistically lend his support to it.  Traditionally, the Conservative Party has also been “conservative”, in the sense that it has advocated limited authority for central government, and expected the individual citizen to use his own judgement in making such decisions about the direction and conduct of his personal life as are not specifically forbidden by the law of the land.

In the sense that this approach meant a limiting of government authority, the Libertarian would have approved.  But this limitation only worked when there was a general acceptance by the public at large of known and familiar customs and mores, and a commonly agreed view on principles and morality.  If there is self-discipline, there is less need for government to prescribe or to legislate behaviour in specific situations.

But for a considerable time now, the Conservative Party, in common with the two other main parties, has so relaxed the legal framework that has for generations governed personal behaviour that it can scarcely be said today to qualify for the term “conservative”, which implies the maintenance of and support for traditional, time honoured, tried and tested mores and morality.  In this respect, the Conservatives have gradually come much closer to those aspects of Libertarian principles and beliefs relating to personal behaviour.

Because of this, it is today possible for a member of the Conservative Party also to hold Libertarian views.  Owing to the wholesale ditching of traditional values, the prevailing belief by most of our political leaders seems to be that people should be allowed to indulge themselves even in areas where that indulgence is dangerous not only for their personal character, morality and principles, but also often for others and consequently for society in general.   Such matters as the preferential treatment of ethnic minority members in employment law, certain aspects of the treatment of homosexuality, where it is now considered positively beneficial to treat this subject in reading materials for school children, the ludicrous “all have won and all shall have prizes” approach to education, which has in short order reduced the British education system, once the best in the world, to a level where more children than ever emerge from school unable to read or write competently, all contribute to both increasing the divisions in society and the gradual disintegration of society itself.

The determination that regardless of competence, women, simply because they are female, should also receive preferential treatment in employment and other areas of life is a further illustration, if it were needed, of the folly of abandoning principles, laws and practices that have for decades given us in this country an reasonably peaceful, fair, and unified society.  It was until comparatively recently a social order that allowed for individual differences, without those differences causing the fragmentation and sectionalism of today’s special interest groups.  Today, there is in addition to the aforementioned, a growing feeling that there should be a more relaxed approach to drugs and drug-taking, the results of both of which contribute to and hasten the fragmentation and ultimate collapse of a once cohesive and orderly society.

In these matters, the Conservative Party, along with the other two main parties, is coming very much closer to Libertarian views.  So perhaps we might say that yes, in all probability it is now quite possible for a member of the Conservative Party to hold Libertarian views, without greatly contradicting either present-day Conservative principles, or those he holds as a Libertarian.

“The Baron Report — a report that is in no sense libertarian – oriented —points out: libertarianism — (is) “the philosophy that argues against government intervention and for personal rights.” The report adds that libertarianism has an appeal to both ends of the political spectrum: “Conservatives welcome that trend when it indicates public skepticism over federal programs; liberals welcome it when it shows growing acceptance of individual rights in such areas as drugs, sexual behavior, etc., and increasingly reticence of the public to support foreign intervention.” (1)

But by appealing to both ends of the political spectrum, Libertarianism cannot fully satisfy either, and the Libertarian will most certainly sit uncomfortably with real conservatives.  Equally, aspiring Conservative politicians will find that their desire for progressive social change, which inevitably requires a continual expansion of state authority and power, will run directly counter to the Libertarian desire to restrict the size and consequently the power of government.

It is evident that Libertarian and conservative systems are dynamic, not static.  Compared to today’s Conservative Party, the Conservative Party of the 1950’s far better reflected true conservative beliefs.  The Conservative Party is now so far to the left of conservatives and so liberal in its social mores, that no true conservative could be a member of the party.  Talk about devolving power from the centre is pointless because impossible, due to the structure of the European Union, by which we are now governed, which was imposed upon us by the Conservative Party itself.  Basic tenets of liberalism, personal freedom and minimal State interference are now ignored by a Conservative Party which can no longer legitimately claim to be conservative.  In conservative philosophy, social order draws strength from the Christian principles which are its foundation.  The liberty-approaching-license approach of Libertarianism would be rejected by most conservatives because of the inevitably disastrous consequences of a wholly Libertarian society based on that principle.

An honest Libertarian cannot be a conservative because it is impossible to bridge the chasm between the liberal idea that man is basically good and evolving ever higher (all progress is good, on this basis) and the conservative recognition that man is an imperfect and fallible creature, by nature answerable to a Higher Authority.  The first of these views of man automatically removes most Conservatives from the belief system underpinning conservatism.  Because today most Conservatives view man as do the Libertarians they can no longer be considered to be conservative.

Consider the following observation from Malcolm Muggeridge:

“Had discussion with Bill Deedes on Liberalism, which was, I said, an attractive doctrine, but which I increasingly abhorred because false.  Its great fallacy, I pointed out, was the perfectibility of Man – i.e. the assumption that left to himself he would be humane, orderly and industrious.  My experience has been the exact opposite – namely that, left to himself, Man was brutish, lustful, idle and murderous, and that the only hope of keeping his vile nature within any sort of bound was to instil in him fear of God or of his fellow men.  Of these two alternatives, I preferred fear of God – an authoritarian Christian society to an authoritarian materialist society, fear of Hell as a deterrent to fear of human brutality.  And, as a matter of fact, more potent and wonderful is fear of being cut off from the light of God’s countenance and living in darkness – this fear the only deterrent which is at once effective and ennobling.” (2)

Philosophical conservatives regard it as necessary to regulate pornography and sexual activities and would utterly reject permitting incest, pederasty or bestiality.  But the number of “progressives” who would countenance such behaviour is rising.  This is not an extravagant claim - it is noteworthy that “progressive” political lobbyists in Europe already have not only sanctioned child sex and one Party leader has committed it, (3&4) but some also called for incest and bestiality, masquerading as a legitimate relationship, to be legalized all in the name of tolerance and progress. (5)

There are many amongst both Conservative Party members and Libertarians who presently back the call for voluntary euthanasia.  Past experience clearly shows that once the principle is established, it is only a matter of time before it is extended to cover more situations than originally either envisaged or intended.  Sooner or later in the name of progress the State will assiduously begin to apply euthanasia to those it deems suitable candidates.  This may be contrary to the intentions of both Libertarians and Conservatives, but it will be the inevitable result.

There is no logical reason for the Libertarian belief in the absolute autonomy of the individual to supplement the desire for this freedom with a caution  “avoid harming others”.  A conservative belief in an authority beyond the self, a spiritual authority, has for centuries been instrumental in forming the laws by which our society functions.  In this context, man is not considered “the measure of all things”, nor is he thought of as the final arbiter.  Without this underpinning, there is no possible reason why everyone should not do exactly what pleases him regardless of the convenience of others, or, as Alistair Crowley puts it, quoting Rabelais: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”.  What is presented as a call for liberty is actually an excuse for license, blurring the distinction of what is and what is not morally acceptable.  Anyone acknowledging a morality, external to himself, will find that the requirements of that morality are not always in accord with his natural inclinations.

Robert Bork identifies the impossibility of a Libertarian being a conservative in this extract from his book being a short essay on both pornography and drugs where he wrote:

“Modern liberals employ the rhetoric of ‘rights’ incessantly, not only to delegitimate the idea of restraints on individuals by communities but to prevent discussion of the topic. Once something is announced, usually flatly or stridently, to be a right –whether pornography or abortion or what have you– discussion becomes difficult to impossible. Rights inhere in the person, are claimed to be absolute, and cannot be diminished or taken away by reason; in fact, reason that suggests the non-existence of an asserted right is viewed as a moral evil by the claimant. If there is to be anything that can be called a community, rather than an agglomeration of hedonists, the case for previously unrecognized individual freedoms (as well as some that have been previously recognized) must be thought through and argued, and “rights” cannot win every time. Why there is a right for adults to enjoy pornography remains unexplained and unexplainable.” (6)

It is not possible for a Libertarian to be “conservative”, using the word as it used once to be understood by the Conservative Party, but is no longer.  The conflict between the old conservative beliefs that there were certain aspects of human behaviour that could and should not be indulged, encouraged or legally permitted, allowed, and the present-day practice of ”letting it all hang out” does not allow a Libertarian to claim to be “conservative”.  Neither does it allow a conservative to claim, still less to want to claim, to be a Libertarian.  The two approaches are simply diametrically opposed to one another on matters of behaviour; the conservative wanting to retain as far as possible an orderly and civilised society where self-discipline is encouraged and expected and the Libertarian, however well-intentioned in theory, adopting principles which both discourage and radically undermine self-discipline, and eventually lead to a disintegration of society.

What Libertarians may fail to realise is that if a range of behaviours previously unacceptable within a society are now to be permitted, as they appear to wish, it becomes increasingly necessary for government to legislate on all manner of matters as a direct result of the growing disorder developing because of the now-permitted behaviours.  If the population is self-disciplined, this problem does not arise.  But when there are fewer and fewer people who observe the rules that used to govern civilised behaviour, more and more laws are required to make good the deficit.  And this is something Libertarians do NOT like!

Libertarians can not have it both ways. Either society is self-disciplined and intelligent enough to accept and observe an unwritten code of conduct, within which everything that is not expressly forbidden by law is allowed, or society under the pressures of each individual pursuing his own selfish interests, gradually disintegrates.   No amount of legislation will compensate or rectify the resulting chaos.

In summary - A Conservative (party member) may certainly be a Libertarian, and a Libertarian should feel reasonably comfortable (if not entirely at home) in today’s Conservative Party but a “conservative” does not hold Libertarian beliefs, and a Libertarian certainly doesn’t hold “conservative” beliefs.

FOOTNOTES:

(1)     http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp – return15.7 The Baron Report (February 3, 1978), p. 2. [p. 322] http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#note15.7

(2)     LIKE IT WAS – A selection from the Diaries of Malcolm Muggeridge

excerpt dated July 20th 1950.

(3)     Irish Daily Mail: Pedophilia and the dark heart of the EU’s parliament Irish Daily Mail
Monday, May 25th, 2009 – by-line Mary Ellen Synon

(4)     Wise Up Journal http://wiseupjournal.com/?p=933
26.05.2009

(5)     http://www.petitiononline.com/Beast999/petition.html

(6)     Robert Bork “Slouching Towards Gomorrah” pp 151-152

Peter Watson

peter@pwwatson.co.uk

With the GOP searching frantically for a map and compass, and the Dems having sailed the ship of state into the horse latitudes, you might think it was the perfect time for America’s third party to step up and storm the wheel house.

Not so.  Even a desperate crew doesn’t want those guys at the helm.  The truth is, libertarians scare people.

A 2006 Cato Institute policy analysis showed that 15 percent of American voters identified themselves as libertarian.

Advocates for Self-Government, a non-profit, libertarian educational organization, publishes the World’s Smallest Political Quiz.  Over 11 million have taken the quiz online and Advocates reports that 34.9 percent are libertarian, 18.9 percent liberal and 7.44 percent conservative.

With numbers like that, you’d think libertarians would control the House, Senate and Oval Office.  But in the 2008 presidential election, only 0.4 percent voted for Bob Barr, the libertarian candidate.  In fact, no libertarians currently hold national office.

I’ve been a libertarian for years and I’ve voted for many, but I’ve come to lament the libertarian dilemma.  The most obvious problem faced by libertarians is their apparent duality.  As they simultaneously champion civil and economic liberty, they exude all the charm of a pious paranoid with multiple personality disorder.

Because libertarians are pro-capitalism, want to deregulate everything and abolish 90 percent of the national government, they send liberals to their garage for the poster board and Molotov cocktails.  Conservatives would rather share their toothbrush with a homeless crack addict than support a party that is pro-abortion and favors the re-legalization of all drugs.

But the biggest problem with libertarians is also their singular strength: principle.

A nation in social and economic turmoil needs incremental, pragmatic change to bring it back on track, but libertarians are always focused on idealism instead of reality.  Call it socialism, The New Deal or the Great Society, but the fact is millions of Americans embarked on a journey through life with the belief that help would be available along the way.  And when you’re lost or up to your neck in quicksand, you need a park ranger, not a lecture on preparedness.

Jumping from today’s problems into a pure libertarian system would be like going cross country with the Donner party.  You might survive, or you might get eaten.

Liberrian goals are lofty and perhaps the only long-term solution for our nation, but implementation should be gradual, and compassionate toward those who never saw it coming.  It might take several generations, or even 100 years.

We can wait, and we need not be scared.

###

We Told You So

The scariest thing about libertarians is that they can vote.   As a general rule they cannot tell the difference between The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and The Federalist Papers.  They are so gullible they actually believe the income tax is illegal and so ignorant that there is no way to explain it to them.  As Glen Cook puts it, they fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.   Unfortunately for us and the rest of the world, there are no IQ provisions for citizenship. Libertarians can vote. Small wonder the economy is tanking around us.

In Libertarian Land, I think the American Revolution went down something like this.   Little Tommy Jefferson went into their clubhouse (with the no icky girls allowed sign on the door.) and said, “That George III is a real poophead.  I don’t want to play with him anymore.”

And little Al Hamilton replied, “Me too.   Let’s get rid of him.”

Georgie Washington added “I’m tired of playing with this hatchet.   Let’s have a revolution instead. You got book learnin’, Tommy.   Why don’t you write him a letter and tell him to go soak his head?”

In the real world, the founders of America were a very diverse group. Many shared a common tie with the Masons, which only reaffirms the Mason’s mission of bringing different people together.   Jefferson and Washington spoke for the southern agrarian plantation owners.  Alexander Hamilton was the most progressive of the founders, but even he spoke primarily for the northern industrialists.  Then there were other founders such as John Adams and John Jay who were determined to see to it that the wealthy had the same special privileges as they had under England.   All these people were brought together out of a common need to escape British rule.   Jefferson wanted an agrarian utopia while Adams wanted a hereditary Senate in imitation of the British House of Lords, but all put aside their differences to achieve a common goal.

The Declaration of Independence was a legal document telling the British Monarch that the colonies were demanding independence.   It has no standing in American Law.   It was an inspiring piece penned by the inimitable Jefferson.   It had the effect of winning the loyalty of those who were going to die in the upcoming war.  Still, the Declaration of Independence was written in the proper legal language of the time.  When they said “All Men are created equal”, it was not the generic term as it is generally used.   Men was defined as people of substance with money or property.  It did not include women who were still chattel. It did not mean slaves or children.  They were legally chattel as well.   Men meant upper class white males.

By the end of the revolution, African slavery was still an accepted institution.   Children were still sold into apprenticeship and adults could still sell themselves into indentured servitude.   You could still be jailed for your debts and most of the thirteen states limited the vote to people above a certain income level.  In the State of Maryland you had to be both wealthy and Catholic to vote.  In Massachusetts you were only allowed to vote if you were a Congregationalist.   Each state was autonomous and sent representatives to Philadelphia mostly to negotiate trade.   Britain was killing the colonial industries by supplying finished goods at prices local craftsmen would not beat.  The south still sold its cotton to England but at much lower prices. New York and New Jersey went to war over access to New York Harbor.  The Free Market reigned supreme and the only one happy about it was England.

Thirteen independent nations were being eaten to death by England and internal rivalry.   Free Market capitalism was tearing the fledgling US into shreds and leaving the door open to England walking in and taking America back without a shot being fired.  This is why there is a Constitution.   This is why we are not the Confederated States of America.   The wealthiest and most influential men in the new nation joined together to create a more perfect union.  That is why they needed the Federalist Papers.

Keep in mind there was a lot of resistance to a Constitution. On the whole the southern states wanted it. They needed protection from England purchasing their cotton for too little money. On the other hand, the northern states had influential citizens who were making a fortune by buying cheap finished goods from Europe and a tariff would cut into their trade. So Madison, Hamilton, and Jay got together and wrote newspaper articles in favor of the Constitution. Put together, the Federalist Papers are a fascinating document. It outlines the philosophy behind the Constitution. It explains the economic and political conditions of the day. It has little to do with the Constitution itself.

You will find nothing inspiring in the Constitution. This is why the libertarian propagandists rarely quote it and libertarians never read it.   It is as bland as oatmeal and as exciting as watching hot grannies knit sweaters. Alexander Hamilton did not conceive it after a night of peyote buttons and cheap tequila.  The Constitution of the United States was written by a committee.  Many people worked on the Constitution, and the finished document had little in common with the hopes of the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton fought against the Bill of Rights.  Jay must have cursed when the rabble were awarded the vote, but managed to slip in the electoral college anyway.  The south was happy to get a central government which could both ratify and enforce treaties with Europe.  The north was pissed because the new Federal Government could impose and enforce tariffs, ending England’s domination of American trade.   More to the point, the new Federal Government had the right to impose and collect taxes.  How and when the Federal Government can regulate business is written into the Constitution, even though Hamilton and Madison both argued against it.

The most frustrating thing about the Constitution is its vagueness.  It was a document that was designed to change with the times.   You can peruse the constitution all your life but you will not find one word that enshrines capitalism as our only possible economic system.   There is no clause that makes the income tax illegal.  There is nothing that says we have to vote for either Democrats or Republicans.  The people who joined together to create the Constitution understood that conditions change.  They expected their tomorrow to be different than their today, and they left it to us as to how we wanted to interpret the Constitution.  The Constitution shall not fall because we voted for the single payer system.   There is nothing unconstitutional about unions.

The libertarians have forgotten that the American Revolution was more than the hand full of dead statesmen they canonized into their lords and saviors. They forgot that Jefferson had very little influence on the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton created the first American Tax, and that Washington lead troops to put down the Whiskey Tax rebellion. They are like Christianoids and the Bible. They have no idea of what the Constitution says or represents but parrot any damned babble that their leaders tell them. Laws that protect American industries, impose taxes, and impose limits to unacceptable behavior are written in the Constitution. Libertarians can hold their breath and kick their heels all they want, and it will still not change the fact that they are the greatest threat to the Constitution since George III.

And We Are Not Taking You Back