Thomas Woods Speaking to NullfyNow NC

Tom Woods gave a great speech to NullifyNow NC recently that is great for those who already have a grasp on the concept of state nullification:

Tom Woods NullifyNow NC

In this speech, Woods focuses on combating the popular notion that the US is simply "one giant blob" (his words) by giving historical examples which show that the opposite is true- that the US was simply a "collection of societies" which agreed to a compact.  This culminated in the founding of a limited federal government by the states, and provides credence to the philosophy that when the federal government steps outside of the powers granted to it, the states have the duty and the right to interpose on behalf of their constituents.

This concept, although conceived and popularized long ago, has obvious contemporary relevancy, and is currently being used in many states to combat federal laws that constituents find reproachable.  Examples can be found in state-level opposition to national health care, gun laws, and marijuana laws- all issues which are either expressly or implicitly outside the purview of the federal government.  Nullifying federal laws is a bold step to take, and states who do so should be applauded for having the courage to stand between the federal government and the constituents they represent. 

Detroit's (Wonderful) Lack of Governance

Lew Rockwell's interview of  Karen De Coster, who has been chronicling the downfall of the city government of Detroit (and subsequent anarchy in the city) via her blog Detroit: From Rust to Riches, was both entertaining and informative.  Traveling the city by bicycle, she has a unique perspective of the nuances of how people live in a situation when the government crumbles and becomes insolvent and, thus, irrelevant.  The blog is always a fascinating read, and Karen is a great photographer, to boot!  My ears perked up when Lew asked about the city's approach to solving its fiscal disaster.  Karen's answer:


Not a whole lot is known yet about the specifics of the bankruptcy...As you can imagine, the biggest battle has been with the entitlements in the city.  The unions and, of course, the pensioners that are promised lifetime pensions, lifetime insurance, lifetime on the doll everything...the biggest battles that you see publicly right now are the unions here battling for the largesse.   @ 7:25

In reality, the city is insolvent.  We have been riding an unsustainable insolvency for a number of years (like a lot of other cities, by the way), and it was about time that the bubble break.  @8:14


She also makes an interesting comparison between Detroit and Chicago's relative crises when Lew points out that Chicago is in even deeper trouble:


I'm not sure a financial comparison can accurately be conveyed...You know, Chicago has a much, much more...an organized government.  They have a very deeply rooted bureaucracy.  Detroit is not quite so deeply rooted...our ineptness here in terms of the government and their ability to get everything done has really enabled this anarchistic environment.

(In) Chicago, things are going to be a lot more difficult.  You don't see people flocking to Chicago to do these sort of things because it's a very rigid bureaucracy.  A lot of politically powerful people have run the city for years.  @ 9:15 (emphasis mine)


A fundamental observation that can be drawn from Detroit's crisis in governance is that the market is an all encompassing phenomenon, which always lingers, waiting for its moment to spring up.  That is to say- human nature compels us to trade with each other to achieve a harmony of desires.  Even if a public institution has monopolized a service, the moment that the monopoly cannot be enforced is the window of opportunity for entrepreneurs to step in and satisfy market demand (if it exists).  In this sense, entrepreneurs are the personification not only of human desire but of human nature itself.

An interesting difference between public and private organizations is the fluidity of the environment in which each of them operates.  Private businesses must respond adequately to the needs of the customer, or risk failure.  If insolvency is inevitable, the business has a financial incentive to fold sooner rather than later.  This is the seed of mergers, acquisitions and partnerships, as people try to find the right formula to better satisfy market demand.  Thus, the marketplace is always changing to meet the desires of the most people possible.

While private enterprises may come and go, public organizations are much more stationary social institutions with no competition.  As in Detroit, governments are unlikely to take corrective action when pursuing an unsustainable course, as input from various factions and interest groups dictate decisions rather than the more accurate guidance of profit and loss.  Because of the inevitable broken promises that result from insolvency, reorganization of public institutions cause much greater social chaos than private businesses.


While public institutions and their traditions may seem unalterably entrenched, history has instead been a constant weathering away of authoritarianism in its various forms.  Contrarily, private entrepreneurship and trade have been only truly inevitable consequence of human nature.  The foundational need to satisfy one's desires ultimately trumps any attempt to intervene by outside forces.

WWIII is a Virtual War

Although many have contemplated the possible triggers to WWIII, it seems that it has been happening both before our very eyes, and out of sight for a long time now.  The various conflicts, actions, and world shaping affairs- the stories from the front lines- have not been in the headlines for the most part as in previous (open) wars.  Rather, they are buried, under reported, or go unmentioned by the typical media outlets who shape the opinions of the masses and, thus, escape the tangible thoughts for the average person.  However, these events continue to play themselves out all over the world- with real consequences.  As technology has improved, so has the ability for the U.S. government to assert its control over the affairs of other nation- increasingly with less reliance on troops being present.  The current crisis, Syria, is but one battlefront in this war...

It should go without saying that I am in opposition to the U.S. government meddling in Syria in any way, much less an outright slaughter via missile strike as is being contemplated right now.  Although the government is insisting that the correct course of action is "punishment" of the Assad regime, it is impossible to gain the moral high ground required to justify such a nanny mentality.  For, even those who believe the claims 1 that the Syrian government is responsible for using chemical weapons to gas more than 1000 people to death cannot deny that the U.S. drone program has murdered at least three times as many people.  Murder is murder- conventional, chemical, nuclear, from your immediate vicinity or from afar and out of sight- and the U.S. government has far too much blood on his hands to be taken seriously as humanitarians here (or for that matter, anywhere).

John Kerry has said, "This is not the time for armchair isolationism. This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter."  Kerry's statement is absurd considering the U.S. government has engaged in covert training and supplying arms to the rebel opposition in Syria for months now- support that has likely resulted in far more deaths than would have otherwise occurred absent outside intervention.  The use of the word "spectators" implies that you aren't already playing, and surely you are not already on a team!

Further, the rebel groups who are on the receiving end of such assistance are not "angels of men" with the only purest of intentions.  The U.S. government can choose a side to be on, but it cannot fundamentally change the people engaging in the conflict.  The rebel groups have committed some incredibly heinous acts themselves, and may well have used chemical weapons.  Indeed, it seems U.S. policy is not to be "spectators to slaughter" but, rather, to encourage it.

The way the Syrian conflict has played out so far is perfectly in line with what John Perkins describes in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.  We cannot be sure, as of yet, what was the true cause for intervention and how the initial stages of action played out (coercion and bribery), but the U.S. government has been engaged for months in actively supporting the overthrow of the Syrian government.  We are now witnessing the final stage of the process- military action.  Notably, this only occurs (according to Perkins) when all other options have been exhausted.  It makes one wonder what Assad really did to upset the powers that be!

Therefore, what seems like a sudden escalation in Syria is, in actuality, a process that has been in play for a long time.  Indeed, what Perkins describes in his book has been confirmed by the CIA recently when the agency released documents that- for the first time- publicly admitted the agencies role in the 1953 overthrow of Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.  Most of the world is in one stage or another of the process, and it would behoove the average American to remember the rash of assassinations that occurred in the U.S. during the 1960s.  Perhaps even the United States is not out of the range of the United States government! 2

The actions of the U.S. government have been so destructive, and so obviously designed to enrich or protect the well-connected 3 that it is amazing that this example could play itself out, time after time, without any meaningful change of course.  However, in most cases, the contemporary "average American" has not been burdened with the effects of war costs to a great degree since WWII because the money is printed and costs are spread out over time.  If the financial burden of war cannot be felt, the only connection possible for the average person is via a submissive media- a truly virtual experience.

Even war itself has become disconnected with contemporary use of drone aircraft, and in the skirmish at hand there are -so far- no calls for U.S. troops to set foot on Syrian soil.  The "strike" is to be carried out by firing rockets from far away with the push of a button.  This approach to the inevitable final stage of the process of force is what Dr. Robert Pape has called "off shore balancing."  His strategy is designed to combat suicide terror by removing the foreign troops from the scene of the crime, preferring to obliterate from afar instead. 4 The anticipated approach to be taken by the U.S. government seems to follow Dr. Pape's advice, and removes the aggressor to a faraway location.

I submit that the threat or application of force to achieve a desired political outcome- regardless of proximity- is the very definition of terrorism, and to engage in such activity can only cause justifiable resentment and blow-back from those on the receiving end of such measures.  Pape has proven this to be true in his research by revealing that suicide terrorists do not attack because of fanatical religious or social philosophy (as propagated often after 9/11).  The fundamental cause, in fact, is resentment for outside attempts to control their society. 5 A great deal of peace would result if the most aggressive control freaks the world has ever known- the U.S. government- were to cease the policy of intervention immediately!

However, because these operations are occurring mostly without the knowledge of the general public (and even when revealed, are carefully massaged to represent an acts of justice and heroism), it is unlikely that a political sea change will occur to stop the interventionists from pursuing the domination they so desire.  Indeed, the 20th century was characterized by the U.S. meddling in foreign affairs practically unabated for 55 years!  If this empire will not be stopped politically, it will eventually come economically, as has been proven by all empires throughout history.  It is only a matter of time...








1.  Remember Iraq?  Dennis Kucinich has raised some very interesting questions regarding Syria in this article.

2.  The proper blame would reside in the various forces in control of the U.S. government...rest assured this does not mean you and I!  See Murry Rothbard:  Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy  (Free PDF from Mises.org)

3.  See #2

4.  I discuss Dr. Pape's approach here.

5.  See Dr. Robert Pape and his presentation, Dying to Win (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4)

Dr. Pape contends that this control is manifested in physical presence.  However, I maintain that even a virtual presence via threats and actions from the U.S to influence policy (terrorism) will not remove the fundamental antagonism to those who live where said control is attempted.  Thus, his strategy cannot lead ultimately to peace.

A Plea for Sanity From Liberty Study

Vladimir Putin recently wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times regarding the threats the U.S. government recently levied against the Syrian government:

A Plea for Caution From Russia

Lew Rockwell blogged a great response to this article.  Here, Rockwell exposes the true nature of "American exceptionalism" in practice- aggression against governments who don't conform to standards that the U.S. government puts into place until they do conform or until they have been removed, and can be replaced with a more compliant set of rulers:

"...his NYT op-ed is better than anything to come out of the White House in some time. And he is right, though he is a nationalist himself, about how the world views American exceptionalism. This is the doctrine that the rules that apply to others, and are brutally enforced by the US on others, do not apply to the US. According to this notion, the US has the right to rule the world, and to attack anyone anywhere in pursuit of that goal, using any weapon, including depleted uranium, white phosphorous, agent orange, napalm, mass starvation, etc. Not to speak of atomic bombs."

As this strategy plays itself out continually, the U.S. government becomes increasingly exposed, both morally and economically, perpetuating the inevitable decline that must follow extravagances such as being at war for an entire century!  As Chris Rossini points out:

The Fed has made it to 100 years, and the Military Empire can be traced back to the Spanish/American War in 1898. Or if we're really nitpicking, when Lincoln's North invaded the South. In any case, both ideas of Empire & Central Banking began roughly at the same time. This is no coincidence, since The Fed finances The Empire. The former is the beating heart of the latter.

But what have been the results of this seemingly endless source of control in the world?  Has the light cast off the "shining city on the hill" brought the nations world out from the darkness of despotism, and yielded a century of peace?  Putin correctly points out that this behavior has, in fact, had the counter-effect of creating instability in the world:

"It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan 'you’re either with us or against us.'

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes."

Furthermore, the logical result of this type of bullying stimulates an arms race, as countries seek to protect themselves against potential aggression.  Putin again:

"The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded." 

Putin's analysis of the aggressive nature of the U.S. government, and of the effects of U.S. foreign policy is clearly correct.  Unfortunately, his solution is to apply diplomacy in these situations and adhere to the United Nations framework, a process that is seemingly intended to be a sounding board for the world's people.  Can this type of organization ensure compliance from countries that may seek to violate its proclamations?  It has been proven time and time again to fail in this most basic function.  The only way to gain compliance from someone who is transgressing these laws is to force them to comply!  Now we are back to square one...

The fundamental issue at hand is- as that familiar old phrase reminds us- power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  If the "power" were to move to an international sphere, we can be assured that all of the ills that the U.S. empire spawned would only be carried out on a grander scale, and- even worse- policies pursued in this context would have the ultimate rubber stamp of "legitimacy" as a UN approved policy.  Indeed, the coherent super-state (i.e. the UN, at the moment) is the worst possible outcome for mankind.

Power, like grains of sand in a dust storm, should settle in to its natural state- with individuals making voluntary choices.  Removing these giant organizations called "states" from the picture leaves us with many people, all with different motivations, just as we have now.  However, the state is a major tool for dominance; when removed from the scenario, those who are intent upon controlling others are rendered largely impotent to achieve such goals by force.  Most people do not support violence outright, and (absent coercion) do not participate in such ventures.  Naturally, the only way one can attain influence on people without force is to provide utility to them.  A much more peaceful coexistence-as well as a much clearer path to happiness and human progress- would neccissarily occur in such a framework for coexistance.  It is to this end we should strive.

What is Anarchy?

Let's start with what it is not!  Before seriously considering what anarchy is, my idea of the definition of anarchy was a violent, destructive protest demanding revolution:

Far from the truth, the above image is the caricature that surfaces in one's mind when contemplating anarchy: the unkempt, disorderly, and violent rioter causing annoyance and disruption to peaceful people on a perpetual basis and gangs of thieves marauding innocent bystanders. 1

The typical anarchist, as I have found, is not someone interested in violence as an actionable tool in any situation.  In fact, the fundamental premise of anarchism- that no one should have rule over or molest any other person's property- would logically prohibit the aggressive use of violence! 2  Simply put, anarchism is life "without rule."  Although this concept is inherently peaceful and is clearly desirable, a world without authority can seem daunting and overwhelming to imagine.  However, a compelling and beautiful case that can be made for an anarchical society- a life based on voluntary interaction of your choosing in all facets of one's life.

As one travels philosophically outward from the concept that each person and everything they justly own is their own property, a consideration of anarchism logically follows.  In most areas of your life you have the power to choose what good or service to buy based on price and quality.  However, when dealing in areas the government controls, you always sacrifice both.  So, even a minarchist- someone who would prefer to "deal" with the government the least- must ultimately reconcile this fact and consider eliminating even the most traditional government functions.  The protections that flow from what the minarchist would call the "necessary functions of government" will, in fact, be found to benefit from privatization.  This reveals head-spinning implications to contemplate! 3

While practicality is certainly important (even crucial when it comes to the fundamentals in a civilized society)-  morality also demands adherence to these principles.  For if it is wrong for a thief to coerce someone into handing over their money by pointing a gun at them, it is also wrong when someone from the government makes the same threat.  And if it is right for you to be free to choose what restaurant, what coffee shop, what repair station to patronize, it is also right that you should be able to choose from different service providers when it comes to security and justice, disaster protection, and monetary unit.  Clearly, coercive acts are impractical and immoral- not just in certain situations, but in all situations!  A world without coercion can only be construed as a world without rule.

The question is not, then, upon the practicality or morality of an anarchical society- but of how to achieve such an environment so we can all prosper and flourish.  Unwinding the coercive monopoly of government in all of the areas it has asserted its authority is not an impossible task, and the services provided by the government would be provided by someone else.  As an example, Dr. Walter Block has worked out a solution when it comes to roads and highways.


This video from The Anarchast goes into the subject of what anarchy is, and what a world in anarchy would look like:

Part 1

Part 2

-Notes-


1.  Murry Rothbard famously called the government a gang of thieves writ large!

2.  However, not everyone is typical, and those who forget this lesson will surely be sensationalized by the State to further the crucial fallacy at hand- that without the government society will descend into chaos, and that anarchism=violence.

3.  Thus, the joke-  What does it take to get a libertarian to become an anarchist?   About six months

Happy Birthday, Angie!

Today is my wife, Angie's birthday!!! 

Thank you for your patience and understanding, and all of your contributions to my study of Liberty.  I hope you have learned from me as much as I have from you!

With or Without You

For those who believe that without the State, there would be people dying in the streets- I offer the following story...

A co-worker at the local business was riding his bicycle to work the other day, when a car pulled out in front of him.  He had very little time to hit the brakes and slammed right into the side of the car, landing on top of his bike.  Of course, someone called an ambulance, but my co-worker refused the ride (although I cannot be sure of this, I wonder if he was trying to avoid the outrageous price).  Interestingly, anyone can call an ambulance for you, even without your permission- and they don't get the bill!  Suddenly, you find yourself being persuaded that it is a good idea to get in and take a ride "for your safety."  Thankfully, he had the presence of mind to think for himself.  He ended up walking his bike to work...

When he arrived at work, he was in obvious pain.  As word spread about what had happened, the owners eventually found out- and insisted on taking him to go to the hospital.  He found out that he had a deep bruise on his shoulder, but that he was going to be okay.

Now, can you imagine if my co-worker had instead ridden in the ambulance?  Perhaps it seemed like a reasonable thing to do after such a crash, but it would have been very costly for something that is truly not life threatening.  About a week later, he is doing fine, and I am sure he is glad to have avoided the bill he would have received for such nonsense treatment.

The Global Panopticon

The recent public revelation that the U.S. government is officially tracking everyone via cell phone calls, email, internet activity (certainly blog posts), etc. was not a surprise to me, because I heard about it probably at least a year ago or longer from several different sources.  If I am not mistaken, Alex Jones had on a guest a long time ago who discussed how he was setting up the infrastructure at AT&T for these NSA spying programs.  Gerald Celente mentioned this likelihood over a year ago in his newsletter, Trends Journal. 

However, at that time if one were to discuss this idea that the government is tracking everything you do, people would look at you like you were literally wearing a tin-foil hat!  No more!  Now it is right out there in the open...but why? 

The mainstream news outlets (in true Pravda fashion) regularly bury or fail to report stories that are embarrassing to the government- but, for reasons we will get into, this story has become ubiquitous.  In other words, you hear about it over, and over, and over.  Of course, the story is framed in such a way to distract from the crucial issue of government surveillance.  The spying is but a subliminal part of the story, while we are to focus on the other, more benign aspects which make for "compelling" entertainment reporting.  The manipulators of public opinion are clearly up to something devious- a subtle propaganda campaign designed to make it a part of public consciousness that everyone, everywhere in the world is being watched.

The effect is similar to what we see from the TSA at airports.  This agency herds people into lines, and gives them a choice to either let a stranger view their naked body or submit to a full pat-down.  What could be more dehumanizing, and humiliating than this degrading act?  The common person says, "Well, I have nothing to hide, so who cares?"  However, the psychological damage has already been done.

 

Presidio Modelo, Isla De la Juventud, Cuba

The open admission that the U.S. government is gathering all data it can possibly acquire domestically and internationally on ordinary people has created a global panopticon.  It is like a constant body scan or pat-down every time someone communicates- we are all now naked before our masters, and we know it.  This moment, the death of privacy, is an important milestone in the march toward tyranny- now everyone in society is aware of the intentions of the regime- total control.

One positive aspect of this shift in consciousness, is that there can be no more denial of the totalitarian intentions of the U.S. government.  No longer should we have to endure the eye-rolling and dismissive attitudes of those who are interested in talking politics only if one stays safely within the John Boehner/Harry Reid paradigm.*  This is the opportunity to open the lid on that box, and guide many people to a new perspective.



*Thanks Tom Woods

Life is Nasty, Brutish, and Short (When You Serve the State)

Just a thought I had today...

Anyone who has been to the DMV, a courthouse, a TSA checkpoint, or had any contact with any of the various appendages of the government apparatus in it's various forms has probably noticed something about those who are employed there:  Their attitude stinks!  Consider your experience when you patronize a grocery store, a restaurant, etc., and compare the service you receive.  While there are varying degrees of disposition exhibited by workers regardless of their employment in the public or private sector, generally private sector workers are happier.

It is all a matter of who is in control.  The waitstaff at your favorite restaurant greets you with a smile, brings your order promptly, and keeps your glass full because they know your experience will yield benefits both in the short-term (your tip) and in the long-run (your repeat business).  They have a vested interest in your happiness. 

The government employee sees you as a captive* audience, who has no choice in the matter!  There is no incentive-from their standpoint- to serving you.  In fact, you are serving them!  Indeed, should you choose to ignore your "duty" to patronize their institution, you may find yourself at the point of a gun, and in the back of a patrol car.  Is it any wonder why those dull, dreary, and sometimes outright rude employees seem so unhappy?

I say, let's free them from their doldrums by eliminating public sector employment, and allowing individuals to provide law, education, policing, and all of the various important services society desires on a voluntary basis.  The fireman could still be a fireman, a teacher still a teacher, etc., but they would work in a private setting where they would have an incentive to provide excellent service to those who desire their contribution.  Without a doubt, this would benefit both the worker and the customer, and result in a happier and more productive society.


*I mean captive in the literal sense.

Neo-Con Slamma Jamma

This article by Tom DiLorenzo is a hearty rebuff of the idea that if you critizize the state for the blowback that predictably comes with meddling in the buisiness of other nations, you are blaming "America" for the results.

--Source LRC

Human Action/Top Daily Articles

I am starting a book by Ludwig von Mises entitled, Human Action.  So far, I am feeling very fond of my search engine (i.e. dictionary), as this book is full of many words I have not ever heard!  I will post updates as I go along.

I am also trying to figure out how I am organizing the blog.  I think I will make a top 5 list every day, or perhaps once a week...we'll see how much time I have!  For now, here's a top 3 for today:


FBI and Tsarneav: What Did They Know and When Did They Know it?


What’s Bad About a House-to-House Search?

Why Libertarianism is so Dangerous

Enjoy!

Relaunch!

Hello all!

I am finally pulling the trigger on something I have wanted to do for months!  Relaunching Liberty Study!  Woo hoo!  Sorry for the delay, it is not for lack of subject matter- but for lack of time, mostly!  However, I am dedicating myself to getting back in the business of logging my progress through this philosophical journey...

I have tried to cover a wide variety of subjects- such as, war, internet censorship, sound currency, unsound currency, food, scandal, and others- but this is merely a reflection of what others bring to me everyday!  I want to thank LewRockwell.com, TomWoods.com, and Mises.org for all they have done to illuminate various issues in ways that others fall short.

So, look forward for more to come!

Palling around

The recent news that J.P. Morgan lost around 2 billion "dollars" in a risky trade deal is abuzz in the media, and within moments of the news breaking anti-capitalists were already sounding the horn for more regulation.  This is likely a Trojan Horse which will only serve the well connected and crush those who don't do things like blow $2 billion on a trade.

As Bob Wenzel points out:

"In the wake of the JPMorgan loss, government officials will babble on about new regulations that will be needed to be put in place to stop banks from doing such trading. But these new regulations will benefit the politically connected at the expense of conservative banks, who do traditional banking. The connected, like Jamie Dimon, will gain even further advantages and opportunities to blow up even more money."  

Indeed, J.P. Morgan will "get by with a little help from their friends."  Chairman Jamie Dimon describes his view of the relationship here:

"In the meantime, the rest of us should hold hands, get together, collaborate, business and government together, to fix the problem.  It's going to be very hard for government to do this on its own.  And business can't do it without collaborating with the government."

With all this palling around, there will be an incentive to take unnatural risks with the availability of cheap loans and implicit guarantees in the case of a failure, and regulations will likely favor (and be written by) the big players.  Bob Wenzel again:


On an even more important note, one has to ask why there aren't any lines outside JPMorgan Chase, since clearly the bank allows blithering econometric modelers to run naked through the bank, with the ability to put billions of depositor/bank money at risk.


The answer is moral hazard. JPMorgan depositors know that the FDIC will back them up, even if there are even greater toxic trading bombs that could go off at the bank .


The FDIC, by backing these firms, serves to prop-up institutions that have made mistakes, and permit them to escape failure unscathed.  The effect of this action on the economy is multiplicative.  The firm itself now knows it will not be punished, stimulating it toward risky behavior in the future (moral hazard).  Also, the firm continues to draw investment- and at a much higher level than if it were allowed to fail.  This diluted and skewed pool of resources mean fewer investors are available for competing firms.  These effects are worse for society in the grand scheme than the ludicrous bill the taxpayers are stuck with in the case of a failure, for the insolvent firms are allowed to continue- promising more, but greater pain (due to an inflated currency) as the financial "bridges to nowhere" carry on.  Thus, too big to fail is a systemic problem that lies at the feet of the FDIC.

Because regulations merely tweak the current system and ignore the moral hazard, the fundamental problems of our economy can never be resolved.  Unless we address the special relationship these firms have with regulators and the government itself, we will only see more regulation designed to crush competition.  Would you lose $2 billion to make $10 billion over a period of time, as your competitors are forced under water by special regulations that were put in place for your "mistake?"  Perhaps this is why depositors are not running away...

The lesson here is that the last century of government intervention and central economic planning has been a dismal failure and is doomed to more of the same.  But, disconnecting government (and, of course, quasi-government institutions) from the financial market is not part of the paradigm our desperate overlords have in mind.  Quoting Edwin Vierra:

"They (the Fed) cannot face the consequences of a depression- can you imagine what a 1930's style depression in this country would be like?  That's what they don't want to have happen, and the one tool that they have that they think can prevent that in the short term is what?  Quantitative easing- inflation, generating money, generating paper currency, bills of credit- well, bills of discredit because they are not going to be paid.  We keep generating this stuff and we hope something will happen.  We are playing for time- financially.  But I think it was Machiavelli that said that's a fallacy because time brings all things- bad as well as good."

Since the current power structure chooses to perpetuate the status quo at all costs, we should consider Vierra's idea of using alternative currencies on the State level.  This way at least the States could provide a bulwark against a corrupt and dangerous system.  Crucially, this action would eliminate the relevance of moral hazard, and, at least, provides a working alternative to a crumbling "dollar":

"...The only solution here, I think, is to come up with an alternative currency- and a lot of people have proposed exactly how to do this.  This isn't something that's difficult, on the shelf technology, we could set this thing up in 30-60 days after the statute is passed- an alternative sound currency based on silver and gold.  Start using that in the marketplace, start transitioning the governments into using it for purposes of taxation and spending, and let the banks figure out how to solve their own problems."  -- Edwin Vierra

Willard Worried

In this post on the LewRockwell.com blog, your author is included with some analysis...

The Narrative

Listening to NPR a few weeks ago, I made an important realization about the media, and it's (dis)function in providing "the narrative" we revolve our lives around.  The story was that Rick Santorum had dropped out of the presidential race, leaving the republican nomination to Mitt Romney.*  Some examples: here, here, here, and here.  Of course, since there were still two other candidates competing for that prize, one wonders how the news media can make such a statement.

Any significant event is corralled by the news media into an acceptable story for consumption of the American mind.  Or, if needed, an event (or significant portions of the event) can be ignored or under-reported.  In this way, the media is attempting to frame a certain worldview that is sympathetic or even perpetuous of the power of the State.  The official narrative for this presidential race is now that the candidates will be Romney and Obama.

Enjoy your "choice," America!

Neither Romney or Obama will fundamentally challenge the status quo, and are interchangeable.  Indeed, this is a choice between Worse and Worser.  For those of us who would rather avoid this Titanical game of musical chairs, and instead would like a candidate who offers significant change of course, it would be preposterous to consider either of them.  The role of the news media is to create a narrative that achieves a facade of legitimacy whilst ushering in the chosen winner of the contest, and to exclude any stories that may suggest another outcome.


Moving Beyond...


Despite many scholars who have written books, lectured, and even made (limited) media appearances on moving beyond the State, this possibility is never included as part of the narrative.  However-- just as major media networks have become almost fully intermarried into a propaganda mouthpiece of the ruling class-- documentary films, websites, podcasts, and various other conduits have emerged (mostly on the internet) to fill the void for those who crave more, and have provided a nice alternative source of information.  It seems that every action, indeed, causes and equal and opposite reaction.




Benefits



One benefit of the primitive status of the internet is that this venue makes it much more difficult (though not impossible) for you to be intellectually swindled, as it is lacks highly trained teleprompter readers who are beautiful, exquisitely dressed, and professional- telling you how it is.  Contrarily, internet outlets are traditionally seen as unprofessional- with low sound and video quality.  Sometimes, you have to really want the information to sit through an exceedingly inadequate presentation.

However, this is changing as technology advances and becomes more affordable, and as the market for information continues to slide from TV to the internet.  Now, as people are tuning out cable and supporting emerging outlets for information, winners are being chosen- and with their success, they are able to invest in more capital (video and audio equipment) as well as labor (higher quality and/or quantity of staff).  This synergy of interest in the product and professionalism in packaging has led to the internet being the choice of the upcoming generation.


Another advantage the internet has over the traditional media is the ability to link to original sources.  This is an important check on those who would like to take a story out of context.  It is possible, in the comments section, to correct a fact or opinion and reach at least some folks (like myself) who like to see differing viewpoints on a particular subject.  Also, you are able to link to your blog there- perhaps a whole post can be devoted to providing a factual account of the issue at hand.

Clearly, the ability to bring up a document without having the entire room filled with books and magazines, let alone having to remember exactly which issue of which publication it was found in, etc. is an unappreciated example of progress.  The ability to instantly upload and download information spells disaster for those who would want to snuff out particular stories- we are now much less information "impaired."  Although "those who would want to" are not above it!

It is also nice to be able to read a story about something that piques your interest, and be able to find out more details by simply clicking a link.  The internet is an easy place for a person to find many different angles on a particular subject, perhaps even stumbling on opinions that are outside of Tom Wood's Joe Biden/Mitt Romney Box of Allowed Political Dogma.  As the dinosaur media loses it's traditional audience to old age, and the current crop to irrelevancy,  the narrative- which is the fancy wrapping paper on the box of permitted opinion- will be crushed and burned with it.  This process of intellectual liberation, already in progress, is a great benefit to humanity.


*Update 5/7:

I found a map of the delegates so far, and it would appear the media has, indeed, created a narrative that is not based in reality:

Link to map

The CIA as The State

In this interview, Peter Janney talks to Lew Rockwell about his book: Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision of World Peace.  Peter's book details how Mary Pinochet Meyer, a pacifist, had a great influence on Kennedy as he gained the Presidency.  The book also details the cover-up of her assassination, as well as the characters involved in that plot.

Janney contends that Kennedy's philosophy of pacifism was antithetical to the CIA's vision of world dominance, and because of JFK's threat to "shatter the agency into a thousand pieces," the president had to be assassinated to protect the country from a threat they felt he didn't understand or take seriously enough.  This coup de tat represented a fundamental shift in governance.  Most interestingly, Janney paints a picture of a CIA with ever expanding influence, to the point where they have unilateral control on society:

@21:07

"Of course, no one knew how about bad it was until Watergate.  It was really at the time of the Watergate era that people began to wake up and realize, 'My god, the CIA has been acting unilaterally, as if it was it's own country.  There aren't any checks and balances here.  They lie all the time to us in terms of any raining in on the part of congress.'  And so, all the sudden, after Watergate, it became very fashionable to, in a sense, disassociate oneself from the CIA."

Later, Rockwell asked, "Is the CIA much worse today?  Is the American government in a sense the U.S. of the CIA?..."

@23:49

"This is a huge conflict, because every nation state has the right to collect intelligence as a way to protect itself.  And so, you have to step back and look clearly at what the limits of that can be.  If you are going to get into the arena where state sponsored murder is okay, then I think you've crossed the line where there is no more democracy.*  There's basically a plutocracy or an oligarchy that wants to stay in control by any means necessary."

As "National Security" gained increasing prominence in the role of foreign and domestic policy, we began to see the results in the form of CIA assassinations and coups worldwide,  This control quickly turned inward, begetting illegal wiretapping and spying on citizens at home, and assassinations of politicians and activist leaders domestically.  All of these despicable actions were performed on a unilateral basis, with no authority or oversight.  Any part of government is subject to corruption- and the National Security apparatus acted in the interests of a power oligarchy hell-bent on domination of the world at any cost.

Confronting this reality is both difficult and prescient- as we have watched the liberties we have cherished dissolve in the post-9/11 atmosphere.  The National Security State, where you are guilty until proven innocent and dissent is viewed as dangerous, is the ultimate end for those who would like total control over society.  Clearly, dismantling this apparatus is crucial to restoring liberty and rule of law in society.


*  I am not sure why he uses the word "democracy" here.  We were founded as a republic, but many progressives desire democracy- and use the word to describe our political order.  That said, I would agree that in the last century we have regressed to more of a democracy.  This is unfortunate, as the following video shows, and the results are the predicable outcome of oligarchy that Janney describes above:

Primal Prepping

In a recent interview with Lisa Bedford (Survival Mom), Lew Rockwell posed a question about prepping for those who choose a primal lifestyle.  There is, indeed, a perception that building a reserve of storable food and primalism must be mutually exclusive.  Fortunately, there are many options available for those who want to thrive in any scenario, sans cream of wheat.

When considering dry food to store, one can come up with quite a few choices:

Dried Mushrooms

Kale Chips (dehydrated kale)

Basically any dehydrated veggies

Jerky

Canned Fish/Seafood (choose wisely- low mercury, high omega-3)

Seeds (including chia and/or hemp)

Nuts

Oils (especially coconut and olive)

Ghee (clarified butter)

Pre-cooked Bacon (nitrate-free)

When shopping for these items, pay attention especially to packaging- choose products with solid color containers, as light tends to diminish the shelf life of a product.  Look for the newest product by examining all of the "sell by" dates on the back of the package.  Most importantly, make these items a part of your everyday regimen.  This will allow you to keep rotating in fresh product, with the added benefit of avoiding the experience of shock as you start realizing you are going to be eating an MRE for dinner tonight- and many nights to come...You will, instead, be snacking!

As for fresh food, a garden is a fun, low-cost insurance policy against the ultimate deal-breaker: hunger.  Another option is container gardening.  Especially in an urban scenario, one may find it handy for valuable food to be somewhat portable.


Also, what could be more primal than hunting and fishing?  Wild game is one of the most rewarding and healthy choices for the human body- a body that will desperately need the "fuel" it receives from such pursuits.  Getting up to speed on the techniques involved, as well as acquiring the equipment needed to achieve such ends is an obvious choice for the primal prepper.  

On this note, one has to consider the philosophical and practical merits of primal hunting and fishing tactics vs. modern methods and technologies.  While a gun is more efficient than a bow, primal tactics are more stealthy- meaning a much lower chance that other hunters will notice your kill.  Fishing is an incognito, and potentially abundant, source of wild meat.  

Foraging for wild food is another essential skill for the prepping primalist.  Setting yourself up with someone from your area who can expertly identify native wild edibles is a must, as is practice.  Uninformed choices could lead to severe illness or death, therefore hands-on knowledge is the superior choice when it comes to orienting yourself to the edible plants in your area.  Although some species are poisonous to varying degrees, a potential bounty of edible wild food exists- if you know how to identify, prepare, and store it.   Ironically, most people, driven mad with hunger, will be scurrying around within a natural buffet attempting to find something, anything, they recognize as food.  Primal foraging skills will put you ahead of the pack- potentially keeping you safe from starvation, and droves of starving lunatics!

When considering how to store all of these items, keep in mind you will need them to be within easy access, yet hidden from jealous eyes.  Mother Earth News has a nice article about building a basement root cellar, which satisfies both needs.  Dehydrating or canning fresh meat and wild foraged food can extend your harvest during plentiful times to prepare for occasions when it is impossible to hunt.

If you are forced from your home, a shallow hole in the ground covered by a rock or heavy log may have to suffice.  However, in this scenario, you are likely better served spending your calories foraging or hunting.  Primal hunting and foraging skills are best learned beforehand.  If you have to make a hasty retreat, you will be very happy you have these tools immediately at your disposal.

Thinking about the primal diet, one tends to daydream about what life must have been like for our ancient ancestors.  "Prepping"- as we call it- was the lifestyle of those who came before us.  They had to constantly provide for, at a minimum, their fundamental needs without modern "conveniences" such as supermarkets, electronic gadgets, and refrigeration.  Imagine what they would have given for something as simple as a knife!


When one considers the ultimate end to many of the scenarios we prep for, it is easy to imagine how "primal" it will actually get when simple things like power failure occur, and life for us all rapidly and dramatically changes.  For instance, what will people do when they cannot bake bread?  As a primalist, do you remember what you thought and how you felt when you imagined- gasp!- not eating grains?  


When the power goes out, people will be forced into a more primal diet by necessity- and most will not be prepared with the literal and mental primal "tools" to survive without resorting to immoral and malicious activities.  Indeed, one cannot imagine a worse place to be in a societal collapse, than in an urban area with ubiquitous panic and despair- and craving for baked goods, an underestimated threat.  By already having your body and mind tuned in to this mode of thinking- you can separate yourself above the rest, and dramatically improve your chance of survival.  The primal lifestyle is, in fact, intertwined with the prepper lifestyle.

Thomas Woods on War

Jeffery Tucker interviews Tom Woods

In the above interview, Tom Woods discusses his book: We Who Dared to Say No to War: American Antiwar Writing from 1812 to Now.  The book, co-edited with Murray Pulner, is a review of anti-war writings from many different political perspectives.

From the interview:

@10:03
"What I want this book to show is just that the propaganda surrounding war has been there in every one of these wars- and it's the same propaganda...at this point, how many times can your intelligence be insulted?- and that these things are atrocities.  Yes, the minimum wage is bad.  Tariffs are bad.  But, this is an unbelievable atrocity that goes on- on behalf of intentions that are usually very murky, and not made clear to the people.  The people are given propagandistic reasons for the war, but the fact is- this makes us callous.  This "public policy" makes us callous toward our fellow man- this makes us think of them as not even being fellow human beings.

When you argue with some of the proponents of these wars, you say, 'Look, you know, a million people died!  A million people were burned to death, with a chemical agent...what do you say to that?'  And they say, 'Hey, you know, it's war...that's war.'  And that's their argument!  They think that's an argument: 'That's war...'  So it gets back to, they utter a word.  And they think that by uttering this word, we can suspend all moral considerations- that you are a left-wing pansy if you even have moral concerns, moral qualms.  This has just gotta stop!  People gotta just stop thinking like this!"

@12:12
"There is something about the human mind that just latches on to this way of thinking.  I myself was caught-up in it for a long time, until-finally-with that first Persian Gulf war...and I saw tens or hundreds of thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers.  And, yes, they are soldiers, but they are human beings.  They have kids.  And alot of these people themselves, they're kids too.  They don't even want to be there, half of them, and they're maimed or killed- and they are retreating- or being burned alive.  And, meanwhile, we've got our yellow ribbins and our Bob Hope specials...and I just finally said, 'I don't know if I can do this anymore.  I don't know how I can celebrate and have a parade, when these people are mourning the deaths of countless people who never did anything to us, and who had nothing to do with us, who would not hurt us in any way because of the imperial ambition of some U.S. president.  You've gotta be kidding me if you are going to support that!"


I highly anticipate adding this book to my collection...

Thomas Woods on State Nullification

Thomas Woods speaks to Sheriff's 

Officers about state nullification

Thomas Woods (bio) recently gave a speech to the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association about state nullification.  Dr. Woods is author of a recent book Nullification, which deals with this tricky subject.  I plan on posting a review when when I have finished reading it.

The video above is a short and basic introduction to the concepts involved, with the typical Woods style that I love.  He provides a window to the paradigm of many of our nation's great thinkers.  This was a very entertaining video, and interesting subject of paramount importance throughout our history.

Sopa/Pipa and Music

Khan Acadamy explains SOPA/PIPA

The recent squabble about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and it's sister bill in the senate- Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) have me thinking of an old discussion my musician friends and I would have.  In discussing the issue of pirating music, a few of us came to the conclusion that the technological revolution that we have experienced has complicated the situation in several respects.

Consider a fruit vendor:  If the vendor sells you an apple, he can no longer possess that apple to sell to another customer.  If the vendor instead wants to sell (or simply share) a music file, however, he has access to an unlimited basket of product.  Furthermore, the consumer can then copy the file, and give it away ad infinitum without degrading in any way the original or any of the copies.  Acknowledgement of this dilemma between tangible goods (apple) and intangible goods (data) requires a different approach in seeking justice.

Prior to recorded music, the only was to experience music was to be present as it occurred.  Therefore, supply was dictated primarily by your culture- what it had to offer musically, and how significant music is in cultural daily life- and not by the listener.  As recorded music (not to mention photos and video*) became prevalent, people were able to experience music on demand, and with trade and travel- music from other cultures.  This was a substantial change in the culture of music itself, begetting a fount of creativity, and a population of listeners who could capture that creativity to enjoy at their leisure.

As we have transitioned from analog to digitally recorded music, we have made another important cultural shift.   Recorded music has been transformed into data which has modified the listening experience in several ways.  With MP3 players- users can upload massive amounts of data, listening to one song from this band and two or three of that band at the touch of a button!  This is pretty far removed from simple recorded music, and especially differs from experiencing a live performance.

Another difference is the way the music is delivered itself.  In making digital music, much of the musical information is lost- an example being a cymbal crash being cut in half to reduce file size at the expense of losing some resonance at the end of the crash that most people won't miss.  In a live performance, these nuances are quite present for the experienced listener- but even the most unaware will experience the larger spectrum in a rich environment of tonal colors.

So, a recording is to a live performance as a "home movie" is to a live experience.  The result is always a copy, most times- a copy of a copy, and with the digital revolution- a modified copy of a copy!  Considering MP3s have turned the recordings into data, yet another barrier has been placed between the listener and the music itself.  Regardless of the final quality (in terms of the musical experience) of the data file, the issue at hand is who "owns" this information, which is- in reality- a computer file.

The industry proponents of SOPA/PIPA would like to cap this wellspring of information, and ration it out to only those who pay them for access to it.  It is analogous to the idea of the energy industry suppressing free energy devices- knowing that if everyone had access to unlimited amounts of free energy, a massive amount of potential profit would be lost.  Of course, the benefit to the average person would be enormous considering the money saved each month and the inestimable potential for progress as human beings (not to mention the avoidance of war, which always seems to revolve around control of resources).  At least the suppression of free energy allows producers to supply a tangible good (oil, coal, etc.).  Because the controllers are working with immaterial goods (data)- a ban on free information has no basis in reality.  Efforts to suppress information create no new goods for the world, they are merely trying to control who is allowed to make the copies!

The overarching theme of these moves to quash the desires and potentialities of humans is the use of the State apparatus- for this is the institution with a monopoly on the use of force in contemporary society.  Without the State, the covetous rulers of society would have be powerless to control (and thus, profit) from aspects of human existence that could (and therefore, should) be as free as the air we breathe.  This is another reason to reject the empowerment of the State, and return individuals as the masters of their domain.



*Note: Consider also photographs:  How many people were inspired to create based on a photograph- which encapsulated the experience of seeing something or being somewhere- who would have never created painting X or song X otherwise?

P.S.  Check out this article with Neil Young talking about the same issue...