Saturday, August 30, 2008

False Prophets of Freedom

One might be tempted to celebrate the “growing” number of people here in America that associate themselves with the “freedom movement.” As encouraging as it may be to see a loss of confidence in the present “neo-con” ruling class, there is certainly no reason to think that what most people would replace them with would result in any more liberty. Sadly, as was the case in Germany in the early 1930’s, the opposition to the present tyranny simply thinks their form of tyranny is better. Using Bastiat’s terms, they don’t object to legal plunder, they just have a different idea of how to divide up the loot.

While professing to be staunchly against tyranny, it is apparent that most people don’t seem to understand what tyranny is, and most importantly don’t understand its motivation. Perhaps many do not WANT to understand, because their solution may not be substantively different. Let me clear the air in the hopes that the 800 pound gorilla hiding in the corner of this tea party we call the “freedom movement” can cease to be politely ignored. In all of human history, there has only been one motivation for tyranny: plunder.

No conqueror in history has gone to the expense and trouble of raising, training, and feeding an army, marching them across vast distances, and risked his own position and wealth for the purposes of suppressing free speech. Neither has he done so to suppress freedom of religion, the writ of habeas corpus, or the right of the people to freely assemble. While he may have attacked all of these rights, he did so only as a means to one end: plunder. Every tyrant that ever lived has violated the rights of his own people and of those he has conquered for no other reason than to gather wealth that he did not earn.

The reason that most people don’t understand tyranny or its sole motivation is that they don’t truly understand liberty, either. If your understanding of liberty ends at freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and the right to due process, then you are omitting the heart and soul of liberty – property rights. Without a right to keep the fruits of your labor, there can be no liberty, no matter how fiercely the other “civil liberties” are protected. The right to the fruits of your labor is the central right, the foundation of liberty. Without controlling the fruits of your labor, you have no control over your life. Whether you have nothing to eat, a little to eat, enough to eat, or enough to save for another day all depends upon your control over the product of your work. However, it is the violation of precisely THIS right that is the sole desire of the tyrant.

This is why Jefferson said that “'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it” is the “first rule of association.”[1] Samuel Adams called it “self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.”[2] It is the reason that John Locke devoted an entire chapter of his 2nd Treastise on Civil Government to property, and the reason he said that “The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.”[3]

Plunder is the violation of this central right. Plunder is the use of force to divest people of the fruits of their labor without their consent. When it is done by individuals or groups outside of the law, it is recognized as a crime. When it is done by government, it becomes what Bastiat called “legal plunder.” Legal plunder by government generally falls into two categories: welfare and warfare. While cosmetically different, these two practices are essentially one and the same. They represent the use of government force to plunder the property of the individual. One merely does so farther away than the other - a relatively minor difference.

Recognizing that the right to property is the most important civil liberty (without which there can be no liberty), and recognizing also that plunder is the only true threat to liberty, Bastiat devoted much of his brilliant essay “The Law” to the subject of legal plunder. Like Locke, our founding fathers, and all philosophers in the liberal tradition, he recognized that government in a free society has only one purpose, beyond which it may not be permitted to go. Its sole purpose is to protect life, liberty, and property. According to Bastiat, the minute that government goes beyond fulfilling this role, it must necessarily attack life, liberty, and property. This is the fundamental principle of government which must be understood before one can begin answering questions of liberty.

Bastiat correctly concluded that there are only three alternatives for a society in determining how to address the question of plunder. Only by choosing the last of these can a society be free. It is not surprising that our two political parties generally align themselves with one of the other two. I will take the “liberty” of inserting their names in parenthesis next to the alternative they advocate:

1. The few plunder the many. (Republicans)
2. Everybody plunders everybody (Democrats)
3. Nobody plunders anybody (Freedom – the position of neither party)[4]

Like the unfortunate child in the middle of a game of “pickle in the middle,” Americans have been running back and forth between the first two alternatives offered by their political parties for decades. It has never occurred to the great majority of people that NEITHER ONE can benefit them in the end. There are only two possible reasons for this. Either the great majority of people do not understand the true nature of liberty and tyranny – that they both revolve around property rights - or the great majority of people DO NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND. This may be because they secretly do not want to let go of the possibility that THEY ALSO might benefit from legal plunder. This second possibility is even more pathetic than the first. Like the gamblers in Las Vegas, they should know by now that the House always wins.

Rather than objecting to legal plunder itself, false prophets of freedom frame the debate into organizing opposition to the present ruling class on the assumption that the loot should merely be divided up differently. At the moment, the Democrats position themselves as against the war in Iraq, not because it is wrong, but because the Republicans started it. Their position is no more the position of liberty than was the Republicans’ in objecting to President Clinton’s war in Kosovo, or their ludicrous impeachment of him over a sex scandal. They are merely looking to divide up the loot differently.

However, politicians will be politicians, and I am much more concerned about the average American than I am about them. In the end, politicians can be bought with votes. If the vast majority of voters demand liberty, liberty is what they will get. However, when the vast majority of voters are persuaded to demand legal plunder, then it becomes clear why Madison described democracy as “the most vile form of government.”[5]

For those interested in finding their way through this maze of false assumptions, I offer the following examples of common arguments made on current issues and their implications for true liberty.

If you are (rightly) against the war in Iraq, but go on to say that the money we are spending on that war should instead be spent on providing healthcare to uninsured Americans, you are not against legal plunder. You merely want to divide up the loot differently.

If you are opposed to the recent bailouts of the banks during the mortgage crisis, but like False Prophet of Freedom Lou Dobbs go on to say that the government should instead help average Americans that are in danger of losing their homes, you are not against legal plunder. You merely want to divide up the loot differently.

If you are against the fascist alliance being formed between large corporations and government, but suggest taxing the profits of corporations more heavily to fund some public redistribution of wealth, you are not against legal plunder. You merely want to divide up the loot differently.

If you are concerned that Social Security and Medicare are imminently insolvent, and go on to argue that they must be “reformed,” rather than abolished (or at least phased out), then you are not against legal plunder. You are merely concerned that you won’t get your share of the loot.

These are only a few examples of the lapses in reason so common even among those who claim to be part of the “freedom movement.” Presently, average Americans are running from the Republicans (the few plunder the many) to the Democrats (everybody plunders everybody) in their perennial game of pickle in the middle. They still haven’t noticed that no matter which side they’ve run to over the past century, they never actually get to catch the ball. However, the implications are more ominous than this.

After at least a century of practicing legal plunder in one form or another, the inevitable end to which such a society comes is now in sight. Having given up the central civil liberty – property rights – Americans now see that the government monster they have built is coming to gather up the rest of the rights that people have deluded themselves that they retain. It is vital to realize that the police state measures and the perpetual war that we now find ourselves confronted with are not an aberration of the Bush administration BUT THE LOGICAL END OF DECADES OF LEGAL PLUNDER. This was Hayek’s central point in his classic The Road to Serfdom – that Naziism was the natural result of socialism, and that England’s and America’s socialism of the 1940’s would eventually lead to the same results in decades to come as Germany’s socialism of the 1870’s had led to by 1933. He was not only correct in theory, but seems to have correctly predicted the duration.

In conclusion, there will be no “freedom movement” until Americans recognize and understand the nature of freedom and tyranny. Until Americans cease to marginalize or ignore property rights, and again recognize them as the MOST important rights, as our founding fathers did, we will not move one inch toward freedom. In fact, even if we were able to completely end warfare for several presidential administrations in a row, our practice of welfare would lead us right back to our present circumstances.

Do not look to your politicians to offer you Bastiat’s third alternative. They have seduced free people throughout history with the prospect of sharing in legal plunder, while keeping the majority of the loot for themselves. It is left up to every American to reject the notion of legal plunder on their own, to reject the false prophets of freedom, be they named McCain, Obama, Clinton, Dobbs, Paulson, Bernanke, or Roosevelt, and again take responsibility for their own self preservation, and thus regain the right to determine it themselves. This is the ONLY path to freedom.

Tom Mullen

[1] Jefferson, Thomas Note in Destutt de Tracy's "A Treatise on Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466
[2] Samuel Adams The Rights of the Colonists (1772) The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772 Old South Leaflets no. 173 (Boston: Directors of the Old South Work, 1906) 7: 417-428.
[3] Locke Second Treatise Ch. IX, Sec. 124
[4] Bastiat, Frederic The Law (1850) (words in parenthesis inserted by the author of this article)
[5] Madison, James Federalist #10

Home

2 comments:

rocwizard said...

Government public policy

As to the inability of the corporate United States to recognize and to work with any entity other than another artificial corporate type structure can be found in the case which is known as S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54

“In as much as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons the imaginary having neither actuality or substance is foreclosed from creating and obtaining parody with the tangible, the legal manifestation of this is that no government as well as any law agency, aspect , court etc.. can concern itself with anything other than corporate artificial persons and the contracts between them.”

The various bankruptcies

The legally created fiction called the UNITED STATES is bankrupt and holds no lawful Constitutionally mandated silver or gold coin to back up or pay their debts. Privately held and federally held gold coins and bullion in America were seized by Executive Order of April 5, 1933 and paid to the creditor, the private Federal Reserve Bank Corporation (FRB) under the terms of bankruptcy.

Congress -- still meeting under Executive Order authority -- confirmed this bankruptcy through the Joint Resolution to Suspend The Gold Standard And Abrogate The Gold Clause, June 5, 1933 in H.J. Res. 192, 73rd Congress, 1st session, Public Law 73-10. Within this 1933 Public Law, it states in part:

“...every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy.”

In 1950, the corporate U.S. declared bankruptcy a second time, whereby the Secretary of Treasury was appointed as “Receiver” of the bankruptcy in Reorganization Plan No. 26, Title 5 USC 903, Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, page 5967.

The only asset the UNITED STATES has, in order to pay their bankruptcy debt since 1933, is the people themselves. If the UNITED STATES openly declared this, the people would never allow their labors and futures to be collateral to this bankruptcy debt. Consequently, they legally pledge the future labor and tax revenues of Americans, by and through the ALL CAPS fictional legal persons they have created, as collateral for credit to pay daily operational costs and the ever increasing debt.


ALL CAPS legal person v. the lawful being

Just who is the full caps person, i.e. JOHN JAMES SMITH? He's the legal fiction the government created to take the place of the real being, i.e. John James Smith. The lawful name of birthright has been substituted by a legal fiction created by the government. If the lawful Christian name answers as the legal person, the two are recognized as being one and the same. However, if the lawful being refuses to accept the legal fiction, the two are separated. Therein lies the simple solution: Refusal by the lawful person to accept or answer for the legal person.

How did this happen? A result of the federal government bankruptcies was their creation of a legal fiction known as THE UNITED STATES as a part of their legal reorganization. Each STATE was also converted to their respective fictional legal person, i.e. THE STATE OF IDAHO. Legal fictions can create further legal fictions, such as corporations or any other fictional person easily identified by being written with ALL CAPS.

All areas of government, including the purported courts of law, are currently authorized by, and operating as, legally created fictions. For example, the FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO or the U.S. DISTRICT COURT can only recognize other legal persons. This is why your lawful name is never entered in their records. It has been substituted with the legal person written with full caps. Jurisdiction in such legal fiction courts is only with other legal fictions. The only jurisdiction a lawful being can enter into is a lawful constitutional court.

(Note: While it does seem to be true the legal fiction governments and their legal fiction courts have no lawful jurisdiction over natural persons, they gladly use police power to arrest, assault and imprison natural persons until they acquiesce to their fictional authority. Justice, therefore, has nothing to do with what is right and wrong under the law, it is dominance and submission; one must either bow to the will of the state or be subject to its wrath).
The “catch 22” is that lawful courts no longer exist. Only “legal” courts are available to Americans.

ALL CAPs intent revealed

The purpose and reason for the government use of proper names written in ALL CAPS is now revealed. The only way to counter this is for lawful Americans to stop accepting the use of the substituted legal fiction the STATE has given them. Most documents now issued by government addresses the person written in ALL CAPS. Lawful Americans must insist that they are not that legal fiction and refuse to accept it. By joining together and doing so from the local level, each community will begin to upset the legal order. Lawful Americans must begin to demand lawful government and lawful courts. The legal fictions can only come to an end when the people refuse to use or recognize them.

The only way to restore lawful government in America is for the people to refuse the privileges of the legal government now unlawfully in place. We've all been duped. The use of full caps to write a proper name is absolutely no mistake.
by; Dr Sam Kennedy

Eldon Warman said...

The S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters and 'all caps' arguments are 'red herrings'.

The corporate UNITED STATES rules over the American people by way of 'property right', and courts use the medieval master/servant laws to administer and discipline the 'slave' population of America. The 'property right' and litigation arising out of its violation trumps constitutional and statute law.

The American people have the status of slave imposed upon them by way of the 13th Amendment, and by their violation of the property right of the State, and thus the super-corporation, UNITED STATES. With any corporate body being a 'make believe ship at sea', any violation of the property of a corporate body is in maritime jurisdiction, where the accused is guilty unless proven innocent, and if uncontested, as a man's violation of the property right of the UNITED STATES is deemmed to be, the right to impose involuntary servitude prevails.

The birth certificate name, where the family name has been converted into a primary or sur name is intellectual property of the State. The man uses that name without authority, right, grant license or permission by the State or UNITED STATES. Use of another's property without such permission is a violation of that other party's property right - theft.

Upon determination that the man is in violation of the property right of the UNITED STATES, the legal maxim arising out of the property right is then invoked - accessio cedit principali - an accessory attached to a principal becomes the property of the owner of the principal. An 'owned man' is a 'slave'.

The 'all caps' only means that the slave has been pledged as chattel in bankruptcy. It does not make the 'legal identity' fiction.

The remedy is: 1. Use the Statement of Birth and/or the Birth Certificate as proof that you, nor the name on those documents had nothing to do with their creation, and that you are not the party named thereon. As an infant, you could not have been party to its creation, and the legal identity name is just a figment of imagination.
2. An affidavit declaring that you, as a free will adult man (male or female) only use that birth certificate name under private necessity as you agent in commerce to sustain and maintain your life, thus negating the imposition of the legal maxim, accessio cedit principali.

Eldon Warman
www.detaxcanada.org
(A free ministry service)