The Essence of Government

by Doug Casey

The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitable he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is apt to spread discontent among those who are.

~ H.L. Mencken

I give a good number of speeches each year. For some time I’ve asked audiences a question: "What useful purpose does the US government serve?" I do that not to be challenging or provocative, but to actually find out if anyone else can think of a useful purpose the government serves. The question at fist shocks, then amuses and then perplexes almost everyone because it is both so obvious and outrageous that no one ever thinks of asking it. Most people accept the institution of government because it has always been there; they have always assumed it was essential. People do not question its existence, much less its right to exist.

Government sponsors untold waste, criminality and inequality in every sphere of life it touches, giving little or nothing in return. Its contributions to the commonweal are wars, pogroms, confiscations, persecutions, taxation, regulation and inflation. And it’s not just some governments of which that’s true, although some are clearly much worse than others. It’s an inherent characteristic of all government.

The essence of something is what makes the thing what it is. But surprisingly little study of government has been done by ontologists (who study the first principles of things) or epistemologists (who study the nature of human knowledge). The study of government almost never concerns itself with whether government should be, but only with how and what it should be. The existence of government is accepted without question.

What is the essence of government? After you cut through all the rhetoric, the doublethink and the smokescreen of altruism that surround the subject, you find that the essence of government is force. And the belief it has the right to initiate the use of force whenever expedient. Government is an organization with a monopoly, albeit with some fringe competition, on the use of force within a given territory. As Mao Zedong said, "The power of government comes out of the barrel of a gun." There is no voluntarism about obeying laws. The consent of a majority of the governed may help a government put a nice face on things, but it is not essential and is, in fact, given with any enthusiasm.

A person’s attitude about government offers an excellent insight into their character. Political beliefs reflect how a person thinks men should relate to one another; they offer a practical insight into how he views humanity at large and himself in particular.

There are only two ways people can relate in any given situation; voluntarily or coercively. Almost everyone, except overt sociopaths, pays at least lip service to the idea of voluntarism, but government is viewed as somehow exempt. It’s widely believed that a group has prerogatives and rights unavailable to individuals. But if that is true, then the Ku Klux Klan, the Irish Republican Army, the PLO – or, for that matter, any group from a lynch mob to a government – all have rights that individuals do not. In fact, all these groups believe they have a right to initiate the use of force when they find it expedient. To the extent that they can get away with it, they all act like governments.

Terrorists, Mobs and Governments

You might object that the important difference between the KKK, IRA, PLO or a simple mob and a government is that they aren’t "official" or "legal." Apart from common law concepts, legality is arbitrary. Once you leave the ken of common law, the only distinction between the "laws" of governments and the ad hoc proceedings of an informal assemblage such as a mob, or of a more formal group like the KKK, boils down to the force the group can muster to impose its will on others. The laws of Nazi Germany and the USSR are now widely recognized as criminal fantasies that gained reality on a grand scale. But at the time those regimes had power, they were treated with the respect granted to any legal system. Governments become legal or official by gaining power. The fact that every government was founded on gross illegalities – war or revolt – against its predecessor is rarely an issue.

Force is the essence of government. But the possession of a monopoly on force almost inevitably requires a territory, and maintaining control of territory is considered the test of a "successful" government. Would any "terrorist" organization be more "legitimate" if it had its own country? Absolutely. Would it be any less vicious or predatory by that fact? No, just as most governments today (the ex-Communist countries and the kleptocracies of the Third World being the best examples), demonstrate. Governments can be much more dangerous than the mobs that give them birth. The Jacobin regime of the French Revolution is a prime example.

Is the State Necessary?

The violent and corrupt nature of government is widely acknowledged by almost everyone. That’s been true since time immemorial, as have political satire and grousing about politicians. Yet almost everyone turns a blind eye; most not only put up with it, but actively support the charade. That’s because although many may believe government to be an evil, they believe it is a necessary evil. (The larger question of whether anything that is evil is necessary, or whether anything that is necessary can be evil, is worth discussing – perhaps in another forum.)

What, arguably, makes government necessary is the need for protection from other, even more dangerous, governments. I believe a case can be made that modern technology obviates this function.

One of the most perversely misleading myths about government is that it promotes order within its own bailiwick, keeps groups from constantly warring with each other and somehow creates togetherness and harmony. In fact, that’s the exact opposite of the truth. There’s no cosmic imperative for different people to rise up against one another – unless they’re organized into political groups. The Middle East, now the world’s most fertile breeding ground for hatred, provides an excellent example.

continue reading

Chuck Norris is Getting it!

Back in March of this year the pro-wrestler Glenn Jacobs (A.K.A. "Kane") wrote An Open Letter To Chuck Norris where he asked Chuck to abandon his support for the Fair Tax and instead support the End The Fed movement. Yesterday, Chuck posted an article on WorldNetDaily called "A Force of One: the Federal Reserve".

After reading Chuck's article, it is clear that he no longer will be pushing for a "Fair Tax". The Banksters should know Chuck Norris is not one to be taken lightly. They say under that beard is another fist, waiting to strike!!!

I don't know if it was Glenn Jacob's letter that pushed Norris to learn more about the Federal Reserve, but it is nice that we have another patriot on our side.

-J. Avitabile

Sleep easy

So I wake up this morning to read that Obama and Medveded have agreed to a path to an arms deal. Man...talk about relief. I am so angry I cant even make jokes. The Russians? We are wasting time talking to the Russians about decreasing the amount of arms we both have. What the fuck is wrong with this world. We have the worst economic collapse in the history of the world going on right now, there are 2 active wars we are fighting, plus the global war on terror. Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, North Korea is shooting of missles like its the home run celebration at the new Yankee Stadium and our fearless leader is in Moscow talking to the Russians about Nuclear Arms Proliferation? Did I miss something? I thought that problem went away about 20 years ago. Next you will hear Obama call for the Berlin Wall to come down. I mean come on. Quit wasting our time and get something done.

Now that I think about it, this is a great policy, maybe his best. After all it is the only thing he has done that hasnt cost the taxpayers 100s of billions of dollars. So maybe I was too quick to judge. Good job Barak. Thanks for doing something that wont either bankrupt us or devalue the American dollar.

-Hamertek

Life, Liberty, and Property Are Inseparable

Written by Tom Mullen

The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.

- John Locke[1]

Life, liberty, and property were the central, inalienable rights that formed the foundation of the great experiment in self government called the United States of America. The founders of our country never broke apart this sacred triumvirate, because each one of these rights is inextricably bound to the other. No one of these three can exist without the other. Moreover, when all three are secured, it is almost impossible for injustice to exist. Wherever one does find injustice, one invariably finds a violation of one of these three basic rights at its root.

While it is certainly true that today the rights to life and liberty are grossly violated in innumerable ways, they are nevertheless at least spoken of by our politicians. However hypocritically, they at least say that they value life and liberty, even as they pervert those sacred rights as justification for their wars and plunder.

Yet, they never even hypocritically evoke the right to property. No journalist ever challenges them based upon it, and honestly, most average Americans don’t talk about it either. As a principle, property has vanished from our consciousness. However, as all of the great philosophers throughout history have understood, there is no right to life or liberty without property. In fact, property is part and parcel of life itself.

What is property? It is that which an individual rightfully owns. Included among every human being’s property are his mind, his body, his conscience, and his actions. Every act of mind and body undeniably belongs to the actor, including that act which he engages in more than any other: his labor. To deny someone’s right to ownership of his mind, body, or labor is to make him a slave.

It is labor that allows each individual to sustain his existence and pursue his happiness. All consumption must be preceded by production. Production can only be achieved through human labor. In fact, there is no way for an individual to pursue any goal, whether material, intellectual, or spiritual, without exertion. Even the search for God requires an intellectual and spiritual effort – it cannot commence without labor.

For most of us, the bulk of our labor is devoted to providing the basic necessities of life for ourselves and our children. Some portion of it also provides the extras – the toys, the vacations, or the dining out that enriches our lives and adds to our happiness. A further portion is devoted to study, prayer, or just simple reflection – the quest for meaning and purpose in our lives. None of these things are possible without labor; our labor provides them all. Every item in every store is the product of someone’s labor. Every phone call you make is made possible by someone’s labor. Healthcare is someone’s labor, as is education.

However, the actual effort of mind and body is not the most precious aspect of labor. If human beings were immortal, we could afford to spend our labor and its fruits indiscriminately, consuming as much as we wished and providing anything to anyone who asked it of us. If a shoemaker were able to make shoes for the rest of eternity, then certainly there would not be a bare foot on the face of the earth. If the land developer were immortal, we would all live in a mansion.

However, we are not immortal, and it is this fact that places such a premium on our labor. Our labor is not just composed of the exertion of mind and body that is necessary to produce some good or service. That exertion happens over time, the hours or days of the laborer’s life. Every hour of our labor is an hour of our life from a limited supply which cannot be replenished. Whatever we have produced with our labor now contains that portion of our life which we have sacrificed to produce it.

So, when human beings trade their goods or services with one another, they are really trading pieces of their lives. If they have exchanged their labor for money with an employer or customer, that money now contains some part of their lives – a part that can never be reclaimed. That is why the same verb is used for both money and time – both are “spent” in exchange for some benefit. Both also represent each individual’s means of self determination.

Therefore, it is impossible to call a person free if he does not own his labor and all the product of his labor. It is only through his labor that he can provide better food, clothing and shelter for himself and his family, send his children to better schools, or realize the leisure time necessary to grow intellectually and spiritually. His labor is his means to determine the course of his life. Without self determination, there is no liberty.

Furthermore, to deny a human being ownership of his labor is also to deny his right to life itself. Since his labor is his means of sustaining his existence, once his right to ownership of his labor is denied he lives only at the arbitrary whim of whoever has claimed ownership of it. For such a person, life is now a privilege granted by someone else, rather than a right.

To the founders of the United States of America, all of this was self evident. When one reads the writings of Samuel and John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, or Locke, one finds one word that is used many times more often even than liberty: property. Recognizing property as nothing more than the individual’s labor and/or the product of his labor, the founders placed the protection of property as the very highest priority of government. In fact, they often stated that it was the only priority of government. While no high school history book or Hollywood biopic even hints at this fact, merely reading the words of the founders for oneself puts any debate on this point to rest.

Let us apply this concept to a contemporary issue. The unambiguous statements in the Declaration of Independence that all human beings have unalienable rights and that government’s sole purpose is to secure them should absolutely beg at least one timely question from most Americans today. Why did the founders not provide for the right to health care? Why did they not establish Medicare or Medicaid? Given a whole system of government whose purpose was to secure individual rights, why was this right so glaringly overlooked?

Of course, the answer to that question is that the founders recognized that health care was not a right. Health care, like every other good or service, is someone’s labor. No one but the laborer can have a right to it. To say that people have a right to health care is really to deny the health care provider a right to his own life, for it is impossible for both he and his patient to have a right to ownership of his labor. It is no less a crime to forcefully rob the health care provider’s fee from a third party (the taxpayer), for that simply denies the taxpayer’s right to his own life. In either case – whether the health care provider is forced to treat the patient for free or a third party is forced to pay the bill – someone’s labor, some part of someone’s life, is being stolen from him. This is the specific crime that government exists to defend its citizens against. By instead committing this crime, government becomes the most grotesque absurdity imaginable.

This is not to imply that we are at some sort of crossroads because President Obama and his pet Congress are closing in on expanding government healthcare. We came to that crossroads decades ago and quite undeniably took the wrong road. Until our philosophy changes and we recognize that retirement benefits, health care, research grants, corporate subsidies, investment in alternative energy – all money, goods, and services – are really pieces of someone’s life that cannot be seized from them without their consent (not even by majority vote), we will never restore the liberty that we have lost. Instead, we will continue to be the most pitiable form of slave, not bound to one master, but to everyone.

When a fellow human being offers to buy your product or hire you for your services, he has paid you the highest compliment imaginable. That person has offered a piece of his life to you in exchange for something that you have to offer, which is itself a piece of your own life. He is saying that you have value and that what you offer is worth hours or days of his life that he can never reclaim. This consensual interaction between free people is the most beautiful aspect of civil society and has been responsible for every improvement in the quality of human life that has ever occurred throughout history.

Conversely, when a fellow human being points a gun at you and demands that you provide him with some good or service, he commits the most egregious crime imaginable, short of pulling the trigger and ending your life at that moment. For in reality, he is really stealing a piece of your life that you can likewise never reclaim. He may be committing this crime because he wishes to increase his wealth without earning it, or he may desperately needwhatever he takes from you, but it is the same crime nonetheless. This interaction is the most evil aspect of civil society and has been responsible for every war and human misery that has ever occurred throughout history.

Government can only be organized to fulfill one of two purposes: to protect your property or to take it from you - for whatever purpose government or its constituents deem fit. There is no third choice. To organize society around competing groups stealing from one another is to create a society whose citizens exist in a perpetual state of war with one another – for the use of force to obtain another’s property without his consent is the definition of the state of war.

Such a society cannot endure indefinitely. Ours has come to the beginning of its inevitable end. Countless empires throughout history – some much more preeminent in their worlds than we are in ours – have disintegrated for exactly the same reason. We can still choose justice over injustice but our philosophy must change. We must again institute a government that secures our rights, rather than annihilates them in the attempt to provide us with the property of others.

This will not happen by any act of government itself. Whether we elect a liberal or a conservative, we will never achieve different results by continually electing different people or parties but asking them to do the same thing – provide us with the property of others. It must be the people who change their philosophy and then demand that government assume its appropriate role according to that philosophy. Our government ultimately gives us what we ask for. For the past century, we have increasingly asked it to make us slaves, seduced by the siren’s song of comfort and security without responsibility. This can only be provided to each of us at another’s expense and can only be provided to others at ours. Once we reject the idea that we can claim a right to another human being’s life, the chains that bind us will be broken. Then, it will matter not who makes our laws.

Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!

[1] Locke, John Second Treatise of Government Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis, IN (1980) Pg. 111

Thank you Tom for permission to re-post your work here.

yes WE can.....

It's becoming painfully obvious to anyone willing to turn off the Main Stream Media and do a little reading that the current administration is working against the best interest of the American people. This is not a rant against Obama in particular or Democrats in general. In fact, like most, I thought there was no way one could do more damage to the American Experiment then our previous President. We are trapped by a Federal Government that sees no limits to their power and a two party system that work together to expand that power. Leaving "We the People" and more importantly you the Individual in a difficult situation.

When the government increases in size and power, it is at the expense of individual liberty. When will we wake up to this fact and curb the growth of government while we still can? My concern is that it has already grown too big, and the nation is now too dependent to reverse this trend. Writing letters to our congress requesting that they limit their power so as to expand ours is not a likely solution. Some of my fellow citizens seem all too happy that the Federal Government has taken more control of their lives. Some want even more power handed to the "Nanny State". Calls for universal health care are growing louder and is down right scary. Those who wish the government provide them with free health care are some of the most well meaning , and naive folks out there. The US Government has provided free health care to Veterans and American Indians for years...how's that working out? That may be a simple argument but that's all that's needed to see the flaws in the proposal. If you saw a construction company build a house next door to you, and it was awful looking and shabby and the roof leaked and the siding blew off, would you hire them to fix up your house? Another thing to consider is not what we are gaining, but what we are loosing. When the Government is put in charge of determining what doctor you should see, or what procedure they will pay for, what you want does not matter. Anyone who has had to deal with today's HMO's, Doctors and insurance can attest to this problem right now, everyone is a decision maker except the patient!!! Do you honestly believe that the government is able to step in and make it run smoother? The more I learn about the current health care system, the more I see government as the problem as it is. If you are an employer who is dishing out huge amounts a month to provide your employees with health care, what are you going to do when the Government offers free health care?

This is not just about health care. If it was just that issue, i would not be as concerned as I am. It is about the proper role of Government. This country was founded on the principle that the Government is evil. At worse it's a Tyrannical Despotism, at best it's a Necessary Evil. Notice that even in it's best form it's still evil! Our founders knew this. They structured the Federal Government with this in constant view. There was a major debate over the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. The debate was not about if they should or should not include the Bill of Rights for their value, but rather was it necessary to even state what the founders and the people knew to be understood. The Constitution only grants specific powers to the Federal Government. It was written for the purpose of creating and chaining down a Federal Government. Before the ink was dry on our new Constitution some went right to work "interpreting" the document. I always found that to be an interesting concept..."interpreting" the Constitution, is it written in German or something? Now through the magic of "interpretation" we have a Federal Government that can do anything imaginable. Is this what the founders intended?

It's time for Americans to rediscover our lost history. The history we were taught in school is insufficient in providing the understanding needed to maintain a free society and a properly functioning Republic. In fact I'll go as far to say that the history lessons we receive from Government funded schools is purposely misleading about the proper role of government. Only when we have a well informed citizenry will we truly be able to secure the blessings of Liberty.

-- J. Avitabile

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
~ Mark Twain

Glenn Greenwald's "Most Important Issue"

I read Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon.com  almost everyday.  It is refreshing to see topics that most media ignore.  It is also nice to read an intelligent, well thought out article, and Greenwald does this with the best of them.  

Recently I came across an article written by Jeremy Scahill(see below post), documenting torture at Guantanamo that is still taking place under the Obama administration.  While this may be of no surprise, it is important.  You may remember that President Obama on his first days in office wrote a series of executive orders, among them was one that banned "enhanced interrogations"(a.k.a. torture) of detainees.  This article painstakingly documents how torture is still the norm or SOP(standard operating procedure) of Gitmo.  If this is the case, then CIA black sites are most likely still in operation.  The media, and the base of supporters who elected Obama, seem to be ignoring this issue.  Maybe they think if they ignore it it will go away.  

I am simply amazed that a blogger like Greenwald who has been covering Gitmo and related executive abuses for so long could simply not mention this report.  All this at a time when the national media was debating what should be done with the detainees after closing Gitmo.  The president announced a new system of "preventative detention" which is the equivalent to thought crime.  Still not a word about this report or it's implications to future thought criminals.  

Greenwald, who i admire, often suggests folks write congressmen and pressure Obama and others on issues that are important to the future of this country.  So after a week or so of reading Greenwald's work and seeing no mention of this report, I was prompted by his often given advice of applying pressure to those who I wanted to influence.  I wrote a few lines in the "comment" section of his blog, inquiring about why he has not yet discussed it and what he thought.  After a few other commenter's suggested I write my own blog (how little they know), I finally came across Greenwald's response.  And Here it is:

"There is never any such thing as The Most Important Issue. There are always many important issues. People who don't move beyond the adolescent stage of self-absorption always think that whatever issue they are most interested in at any given moment is, by definition, the Most Important Issue.

Every week, there are a whole slew of extremely important issues I never write a word about. For one thing, like everyone else, I only have a finite amount of time and energy and can't write about every important issue. I can't possibly write about all the important issues.

Beyond that, there is a whole slew of reasons why I may not write about even a very important issue: maybe I'm not aware of it; maybe I have nothing worth saying about it; maybe I'm ambivalent about it; maybe I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to write about it; maybe I think others are already writing everything there is to say about it; maybe I think there are more constructive ways to spend my time; maybe the topic just doesn't interest me much; maybe I'm not in the mood to write about it, etc. etc.

Imagine if I had spent last week writing about this Gitmo issue instead of what I wrote about -- how many people would be here saying: "Obama proposes indefinite detention and you have nothing to say about it??? Are you in the tank now for Obama?" -- or: "Obama nominates someone who is going to be on the court for the next 30 years and could swing the balance of power on all executive power issues and you have nothing to say???," etc.

No matter what issues I choose to write about, there will always be people who think that the issues I selected are unimportant and that I'm ignoring the Most Important Issue. I appreciate -- and rely on -- constructive suggestions about what topics to cover. I frequently follow those. But I don't appreciate petulant complaints that the topic I choose to write about -- the one that is interesting or important to me - isn't interesting to someone else. Who cares? There are 43 million blogs on the Internet. When the bloggers who I read focus on something that doesn't interest me, I just go read something else. I don't write to them telling them to focus on what interests me instead." -- G. Greenwald

My response:

Glenn

Your Blog is always pointing out what others write, and how they ignore blatant hypocrisy. You have repeatedly praised Obama's executive order banning the use of "enhanced interrogation". You always say you will judge Obama on his action not his words.

You did judge him on his words...granted it was his written word. Now it has come to light that the actions taken are contradictory to the words. NOT a peep from you.

This is just important to me...I am self absorbed. Well, you have no one to thank but yourself. You turned me on to this stuff. Pretending that this is just a minor issue that only concerns me is simply not the case. Your own writing shows how important this issue is. If these orders are nothing more then for show, then what things do you have left to point to to praise Obama?

I thought i let it go yesterday,then i read you ranting response about how

"Imagine if I had spent last week writing about this Gitmo issue instead of what I wrote about -- how many people would be here saying: "Obama proposes indefinite detention and you have nothing to say about it???"

well imagine you write about indefinite detention and fail to mention that those detained may be tortured!

Talk about hypocrisy....you then write:

"But I don't appreciate petulant complaints that the topic I choose to write about -- the one that is interesting or important to me - isn't interesting to someone else."

You do this to others all the time. I can't count the amount of post you have done where you are breaking down what others have written and complained about the content. Your rant is obviously searching for a good reason to avoid the topic.

Make it about me..not about the issue.

"I may not write about even a very important issue: maybe I'm not aware of it; maybe I have nothing worth saying about it; maybe I'm ambivalent about it; maybe I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to write about it; maybe I think others are already writing everything there is to say about it; maybe I think there are more constructive ways to spend my time; maybe the topic just doesn't interest me much; maybe I'm not in the mood to write about it, etc. etc."

How does any of those above reasons apply to this issue? You mean to tell me that your not aware of this? Or ambivalent to it? If this is truly your reasons for not addressing this issue...maybe it is time to read another blog.

and to all you "leave Glenn alone, get your own blog" types...

I will and I do"

--Jeff Avitabile

Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama

The 'Black Shirts' of Guantanamo routinely terrorize prisoners, breaking bones, gouging eyes, squeezing testicles, and 'dousing' them with chemicals.

by Jeremy Scahill

As the Obama administration continues to fight the release of some 2,000 photos that graphically document U.S. military abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, an ongoing Spanish investigation is adding harrowing details to the ever-emerging portrait of the torture inside and outside Guantánamo. Among them: "blows to [the] testicles;" "detention underground in total darkness for three weeks with deprivation of food and sleep;" being "inoculated ... through injection with 'a disease for dog cysts;'" the smearing of feces on prisoners; and waterboarding. The torture, according to the Spanish investigation, all occurred "under the authority of American military personnel" and was sometimes conducted in the presence of medical professionals.

read the rest of the article