AntiCult - Liberty & Individuality

Libertarianism v. Conservatism

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:42:00 +0000

Libertarianism v Conservatism Debate from Students For Liberty on Vimeo.

It's great how the conservatives had no real arguement, they just quotes the Founding Fathers and hoped people were fooled into thinking they have an intellect.

Public Pensions Packed With Government Debt

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:45:00 +0000

First quarter results show state and local pension fund investments regained some lost ground, but remain below the same quarter four years ago.

Washington, D.C. _ State and local government pension funds increased 19 percent in the first quarter compared to 2009, but still remain below first quarter 2006, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The Census Quarterly Summary released Monday is a survey of the 100 biggest state and local government employee retirement systems, representing 89.4 percent.

“Total holdings and investments continued their quarter-to-quarter climb for the fourth consecutive quarter,” according to the Census report.

The report stated that “public-employee retirement systems show year-to-year increase for the first time in over three years.”

However, a footnote pointed out a merger of the Denver Public Schools Retirement System with Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association “greatly increased the total government contribution for the first quarter of 2010.” The statement did not say how much that improved the apparent performance.

With public and private sector debt mounting, bonds make up almost 41 percent of cash in pension funds, according to the report. Pension cash consists mainly of Corporate Bonds, Federal Securities, International Securities, State and Local Securities, and Corporate Stocks. Debt is a major contributor to public pension funds.

Federal securities comprised over 6.5 percent public pension major cash and securities holdings this quarter. These securities surpassed all expectations when they reversed a three-year negative growth trend, rising 10.3 percent.

International Securities—which comprise 17.2 percent cash in pension funds—are up 1.1 percent. The securities appear to be recouping their 2007 nominal value, but are inconsistent; since this same quarter last year they escalated an unprecedented 59.8 percent.

Corporate bonds compose over one-sixth (16.9 percent) of major public pension fund dollars. This quarter they remained nearly flat compared to the same quarter last year, when they rose 10.5 percent.

Corporate Stocks amount to 33.5 percent pension cash, the largest single category. They are (barely) up 1.9 percent to over $834 billion.

Municipal and State securities are up 8.7 percent from last quarter. Mortgages rose 5.6 percent. Short-term cash investments increased by 2 percent. Other investments up 0.9 percent.

Phil Marrone is a research fellow for Sunshine Review
and State Budget Solutions

You can Follow him on Twitter AntiCult - @treason1776

His blog is AntiCult - Blog for the Culture of Individuality

Republic=Good, Democracy=Bad

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:35:00 +0000

To the People of the State of New York:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular Governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular Governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American Constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our Governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force [ 56 ]of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our Governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the [ 57 ]annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of Government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning Government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for preëminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to coöperate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful [ 58 ]distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern Legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the Government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? and what are the different classes of Legislators, but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction, must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the [ 59 ]landed and the manufacturing classes; and probably by neither, with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party, to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling, with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm: Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another, or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular Government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular Government, is then the great object to which [ 60 ]our inquiries are directed: Let me add, that it is the great desideratum, by which this form of Government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority, at the same time must, be prevented; or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together; that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the [ 61 ]same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure Democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference, between a Democracy and a Republic, are, first, the delegation of the Government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest: Secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen, that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the People, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the People themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive Republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations.
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the Republic may be, the Representatives must be [ 62 ]raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of Representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the Constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small Republic, it follows, that if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small Republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each Representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small Republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practise with success the vicious arts, by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the People, being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit, and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed, that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and National objects. The Fœderal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the National, the local and particular to the State Legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of Republican, than of Democratic Government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded [ 63 ]in the former, than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked, that where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust, in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a Republic has over a Democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small Republic, — is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of Representatives, whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices, and to schemes of injustice? It will not be denied, that the Representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes [ 64 ]of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States: A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it, must secure the National Councils against any danger from that source; A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union, than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a Republican remedy for the diseases most incident to Republican Government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being Republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Fœderalists.
PUBLIUS.

Free-Market Environmentalism

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:10:00 +0000

Free-Market Environmentalism

All environmental problems are economic problems. Whether it is the pollution in the air, the food we eat, eutrophication/acidification of the waters we fish/drink, or the machinery we use to power, the real question is how human beings can organize their behavior to maximize the standard of living for the greatest number of people. Today, global temperatures are on the rise, wildlife is being assaulted by hypoxic and acidic agents in the waterways, and other pollutants (neurotoxins, particulates, Sox. NOx, endocrine disruptors, industrial pollution, et cetera) still infect other areas of land. Since the Federal government manages well of a quarter of the land in the United States (O’Toole), it is evident that regulation is not the answer. How can a central authority know what the answer is without extensive experimentation? The answer is the oldest and most time-honored testing ground: the market. Fiduciary trusts are voluntary agreements entered into by the government, and business interested in being the custodian of these lands. Transforming these federal lands into fiduciary trusts would, if nothing else, save taxpayers $7 billion (O’Toole).
Congress would maintain the title of the lands, but the private enterprise that became it’s steward would reap the benefits. In exchange for maintaining the lands as per their agreement with Congress, business would be able to collect user fee’s which would be turned into a profit venture, to encourage conservation and environmental sustainability within the lands since any damage to the ecosystem would result in less profit as well as censure from Congress. Maintaining the productive capacity of the lands—i.e. farmlands and fisheries—would also be an incentive (O’Toole).
Like anything else, some will benefit from it and others will not. Whenever this is the case, one can always expect a clashing of worldviews. Environmentalist groups are against fiduciary trusts, as are avid recreationists (O’Toole); where they see a “capitalist bastard who would charge us for the air we breathe if he could” (cliché) the forward-thinker should see a genius solution to fiscal and environmental problems. By combating the “free rider problem”, the profit motive will in effect account for the externalities of pollution and climate change (Anderson, 27-37). Private entities will have an incentive to “reduce, reuse, and recycle” as well as seek alternative energy. This system would allow the benefits that Exxon-Mobil reaps from dealing in petroleum products to the preservation and restoration of ecosystems, whether for market purposes or simply to be good stewards of this. The economy will prosper by increasing the productive capacity of farmlands since, as all macroeconomic students know, output is true net income. The down side is that National Parks and other similar institutions would no longer be free, but the user’s would have to pay to use them which would help pay for externalities Anderson, 27-37).

Anderson, Terry L, and Donald Leal. "'Free Grass to Fences.'" Free Market Environmentalism. NY, NY:
PALGRAVE, 2001. 27-37. Print. O'Toole, Randal. "A Matter of Trust: Why Congress Should Turn Federal Lands into Fiduciary Trusts." Editorial. CATO. The Cato Institute, n.d. Web. 3 July 2010. .

Insecurity in Municipal Securities

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:32:00 +0000

By
Phil Marrone

WASHINGTON, D.C.—House considers municipal bond enhancement as fears of local debt rise, tax-payers to foot the bill from two sides.

The recent conference committee on financial reform impacted state and local budgets with the inclusion of provisions related to municipal securities.

The current Financial Reform package, titled “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act”, has provisions designed for interest rate swaps of municipal debt. The law purports to create a code of conduct of all swap dealers and participants. The law also requires dealers to verify that state and local government have independent advisors when acting as counterparty to pension or endowment funds and municipal finance in general. How these provisions will work in practice remains to be seen.

San Diego is on the verge of bankruptcy. Los Angeles’ bond rating slumped, and the city could reach bankruptcy within months. Pennsylvania must decide whether to terminate swap arrangements—which might cost the taxpayers $145.7 million—or continue making payments, which last December cost the Turnpike Authority over $52 million. Jefferson County Alabama, with a $3.8 billion reliance upon variable rate debt obligations (VRDO’s) and interest rate swaps related to sewer bonds, could be the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history.

The main culprit is interest rate swaps, which as the Chief Counsel and Policy Director for the Auditor-General’s Office in Pennsylvania states: “Interest-rate swaps are tantamount to gambling with taxpayer money, and they have no place in the public sector.” We all remember what happened the last time Wall Street and government went gambling.

Rep. Gerald Connolly of Virginia submitted H.R. 1669, the “Federal Municipal Bond Marketing Support and Securitization Act of 2009”, to the House Financial Services Committee last year. The bill is currently in Committee. If passed, the law could have consequences for the local budgets. The bill would prompt the Treasury to purchase municipal securities and issue its own securities backed by pools of municipal securities.

Insuring these securities runs the risk of creating a moral hazard that could encourage municipalities to default rather than take on the hefty interest payments. Investors could feel too secure with government insurance and given the tax incentives could speculate more and increase risk.

A Senate bill introduced in May titled “Municipal Bond Market Support Act of 2010”, adds additional incentive. The law would increase the annual limit of tax-except municipal bonds from $10 million to $30 million. Providing incentive for more municipal debt with all the other problems of the current State fiscal nightmare will not lessen risk but increase it.

The Next Bubble

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:27:00 +0000

We all remember where we were when Lehman Brothers went under; we all remember what we said to ourselves: that never again would we be so foolish and gamble away our prosperity on phony stocks, bonds, securities, and other toxic assets. No, we told ourselves, we would be more careful in the future. And then, when contemplating how we would react the next time, we were told by those in authority that there would not be a next time, because the behaviors that caused the stock and housing bubbles would be tempered with government regulation. Well, next time is here and it is exactly those in authority that have led us to it.

The next bubble is Municipal bonds, which take several forms and are a primary source of funding for local projects. Variable Rate Debt Obligations, VRDO’s for short, are short-term investments based on long-term municipal bonds, and are losing money for the taxpayer. The idea is to have a long-term investment with interest rates that reset often (every few days/weeks) to attract short-term investors. Nobody is holding onto bonds for long-term investments, but short-selling to make a quick profit. This has all the same signs of a speculative bubble, just as stocks and housing securities did during the Greenspan Era. Increasingly, the SEC reports the risks of VRDO’s, Auction Rate Securities, and Bond Swaps yet they do not understand the real danger from them.

Contrary to what we so often hear, the boom period is the problem and the bust is the solution. The boom period is caused by the expansion of money and credit, which provides funding and thus incentives toward business projects that otherwise would not make it past tighter lending standards with a smaller money supply. These projects often look attractive at first, and investors anxious for quick returns will invest in start-ups, even if they have no earnings. Moreover, the low cost of borrowing that comes about from low interest rates via the expansion of the money supply makes it easier to malinvest in securities, stocks, bonds, and other toxic assets that in a sane economy would be seen for the worthless pieces of scrap that they are. Instead, when these assets achieve any measure of popularity amongst unwitting investors blinded by the false signals in the market, they become bubbles. And as we well know from the stock and housing bubbles, when they burst they can mean disaster for the average working person who might his or herself without a job.

Aside from the monetary incentive of low interest rates, there is another attractive element to the municipal bonds bubble: they are tax-free. All profits gained from municipal bonds are exempt from Federal taxes and often State taxes as well. Therefore, it is clear why in the aftermath of the Financial Collapse brought about by the bursting of the housing bubble, investors and speculators would move toward municipal bonds, simply because they are tax-free and any financial asset backed by the government has long been fallaciously considered “low-risk”.

What happens when municipalities and states lose too much money, and are on the brink of financial ruin? Local government will do as it always has, and ask Uncle Sam for a bailout. The Federal Government, no matter who is in office at the time, will feel obliged to rescue the failing States and municipalities. This bailout, a further burden to a highly indebted government, will cause the government to create more Treasuries to sell abroad, further straining the dollar and increasing the sovereign debt. Ultimately, as the State and Federal governments fail to meet its financial obligations, the private sector will lose the support of the government in bailing it out of municipal bond hell, and then like any monetary disaster interest rates could rise, which could trigger to the destruction of even more of the private sector. If the Fed at this point decides to lower rates, the end of the dollar is a distinct possibility. This would cause the further decoupling of the emerging markets, especially China, and their rise to prominence as the United States continues to decline.

This scenario looks grim, but there is hope. If you are holding these securities, get out now and go into safe investments; metals, dividend-yielding manufacturing stocks from Asia, and the Brazilian Indexes are looking attractive as well.

Libertarianism and The Anticulture

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:21:00 +0000

To me, Libertarianism is not another word for "paleo-con", nor does it have anything to do with religion. It is a philosophy that regards liberty as the only true building-block of any social structure, such as community and government. Even the Founders were not entirely Libertarian, as evidenced by the powers of Congress in our Constitution. The Conservatives of the past were not Libertarian, although there are some similarities regarding Foreign Policy. Since the Ron Paul Revolution, it has been common to compare the Republican and Libertarian Parties and infer that the Republican Party was at one time the party of Liberty, Constitution, and the rule of law. This is not true, and when Ron Paul implied this he meant that the conservatives within the party were at one time philosophically "republican"--i.e. constitutionalists. They were the radical republicans of the old days. However, those days have been over since the progressive era, and they did not last long to begin with. Thsoe of you familiar with American Political History should trace the origins of the Republican Party, and you will find that it was the continuation of the Federalist Party, and kept the Hamiltonian Agenda up through the present day, with the Whig Party as the intermediary. Today, we call these people "neo-cons", but there's the same group. So yeah, there never was a "libertarian" republican party. They've always been big-government nationalists.
To me, Libertarianism extends into life and does not require politics to survive in my mind. Free Speech is one of the most precious, as is academic freedom and freedom of conscience, without these the other essential freedoms would not follow. One of the more controversial issues of my version of libertarianism is Free Love. Although I am not anti-marriage, I am against civil marriage because it is a violation of the sovereignty and independence of the individual. I believe that marriage is coercive, and should not be the norm in society. Personally, I would only settle down with one person if it suited both myself and my partner, and not because of arbitrary social restrictions. Love is a beautiful emotion that should not be controlled or restrained, but fully embraced and expressed at the pelasure of the individual.
I think we all agree on the legalization of drugs, so I will not go into that.
I believe freedom from the cycle of consumerism, or from the idea that I have to work and slave away for the priviledge of consuming things that I do not want/need, though this choice is up to the individual. If you want to conform to social estrictions then go for it, but all vagrancy and other laws which attempt to keep me locked into the consumerist cycle need to cease. By the way, this is not extreme socialism but rather extreme capitalism because I am talking about the individual controlling more of their wealth and property.
Cencorship needs to go the way of the dodo bird, and artists and writers need to do their part of fight the system of coercive force, as does the rest of society.

Be yourselves, be extreme individualists. Follow your desires, your interests, your passions, and your reason!

My ideas may seem reminiscent of the counter-culture of the 1960's, but there are some differences. First and foremost, all a counter-culture needs to dissipate is for it to become the mainstream. My vision works against this because it is an "Anticulture", or exists on its own with no influence from the mainstream, whereas the counter-culture exists to move against the mainstream until it becomes the mainstream. Furthermore, the Anticulture exists for the individual, and shares none of the collectivist ideologies of the countercultures of the past, which were largely inspired by collectivism. The Anticulture is strictly for the extreme individuals, their followers can be called "counter-culturalists" or "posers.

You are your own President, as am I. I, for one, am constantly using my veto power.

Catholicism? Veto. Consumerism? Veto. Christianity? Veto. Marriage? Veto. Suburbs? Veto. United States Forign Policy? Veto. National Currency? Veto. Procreation? Veto. Taxes? Veto. Veto. Veto. Veto. Reject. Reject. Reject.

What should I accept? It's all up to me.

Culture is all about getting groupings of individuals to think and act alike through clothing, food, music, literature, philosophy and art. Therefore, an "Anticulture" is the appropriate term for the "culture" of an extreme individual, a society of one. A generation of extreme individuals, regulating their own behavior and correcting no one.

Obama Becomes Bush-- News Article

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:52:00 +0000

http://www.telegram.com/article/20090410/NEWS/904100376/1052/rss01&source=rss

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama asked Congress yesterday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.

Obama’s request, including money to send thousands of more troops to Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.

Obama also is requesting $350 million in new funding to upgrade security along the U.S.-Mexico border and to combat narco-terrorists, along with another $400 million in counterinsurgency aid to Pakistan.

“Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future — and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan,” Obama wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy P. Pelosi, D-Calif.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, acknowledged that Obama has been critical of Bush’s use of similar special legislation to pay for the wars. He said it was needed this time because the money will be required by summer, before Congress is likely to complete its normal appropriations process.

“This will be the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan. The process by which this has been funded over the course of the past many years, the president has discussed and will change,” Gibbs said.

Last June, Congress approved $66 billion in advance 2009 funding for military operations. All told, the Pentagon would receive $142 billion in war funding for the budget year ending Sept. 30.

The request is likely to win easy approval from the Democratic-controlled Congress, despite frustration among some liberals over the pace of troop withdrawals and Obama’s plans for a large residual force of up to 50,000 troops — about one-third of the force now there — who will train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and personnel and conduct anti-terrorism operations.

The official request was sent early last evening.

The request would fund an average force level in Iraq of 140,000 U.S. troops. It would also finance Obama’s initiative to boost troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from 39,000 now. And it would provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon’s plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, including a 547,400-person active-duty Army.

Some Democrats were not pleased.

“This funding will do two things — it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely,” said anti-war U.S. Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey, D-Calif.

House GOP leader John A. Boehner of Ohio said Republicans would overwhelmingly support the request, provided congressional Democrats don’t seek to “micromanage” the war by adding a timeline or other restrictions on the ability of the military to carry on the fight.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, said, “The reality is the alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places, and I don’t know anybody who thinks that’s a good idea.” He said, “The reality is it would put everything we have achieved in Iraq at tremendous risk, and I believe it would greatly endanger our troops.”

Non-Cooperation, Part Four

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:37:00 +0000

I have already spoken about the merits of Non-cooperation, but I do not believe I have made myself clear enough in certain areas. Non-Cooperation is not only a form of protest, but also a form of resistence. Too often today, we see empty protests for substantial causes. Just recently I attended the "End the Fed" Rally in Boston. There were many people there chanting, shouting, making noise and discussing their dissent for our government's financial system. As righteous as their cause was, they failed to grasp the purpose of a protest: it isn't just about expressing oneself and making noise--thats a demonstration--a PROTEST has to be a form of public resistence. I discussed this and they seemed to udnerstand this, yet how can they understand it when they applied for a permit and complied with every single police order? The government won't want to do away with such a huge money-making scheme as the Federal Reserve just because a bunch of people don't like it, they would only do away with it if business-as-usual was disrupted in such a way that they had no choice but to comply with the will of the people, and the Constitution--the supreme law of the United States.
Making noise and rasing awareness has been the goal of the Libertarian Movement for over forty years, and nothing has been gained from it. Libertarians have never truly "resisted" any infringment on constiutional liberty--at least not on any worthwhile scale. The result has been an increase in government, more and more morally atrocious wars & banking schemes, terrorist attacks, and an increase in domestic and foreign militarism on the part of the West. The "End the Fed" Movement would have worked if it had been enacted without permits nationwide, and not dispersed when asked by police. That is resistence, something the Civil Rights protestors knew and the Hippies lived their lives by. Yet now we see utter conformity in every aspect of life. Do you really think the government will give up all the tax revenues from the Income Tax--give up MONEY, the driving force of every war in history--if they aren't forced to? The system is too corupt to be changed from within. According to the Supreme Court, the income tax has to be apportioned, yet it isn't. Why? Because the Supreme Court has no power to enforce such a measure, and because nobody gives up money unless they are forced to. The system to too corrupt to change from within, so our actions must weaken the system so that those in charge will have to settle disputes with dissenters. In this case, violence will not work on the dissenting side. Rather, the dissenters should remain passive-resisters while the Establishment institues violence against them. In other words, protest without a permit and when the police come, let them harm you because in the end their violence will win the overall struggle for us. Non-violent RESISTENCE will help us achieve our goals, not vocal dissent under compliance.
Getting back to the "End the Fed" Protests, perhaps some other methods of protest may have been more effective. First of all, a sit-in may have been more newsworthy than a rally on a weekend when the Branch was closed. On the same note, a sit-in during operational hours would have disrupted bussiness-as-usual, especially if it was being done at all the Branches.
We need to peacefully resist in any and all ways we can. Activism was once a form of resistence, not recreation. We need to reaffirm our goals and our convictions, and we need to try to meet them. There has not been a single liberty movement that has succeeded until it disrupted business as usual.
During the Indian Indepdendence Movement, the followers of Gandhi and the Indian Congress were arrested, beaten, and even attacked by all-out military force. Their victory was the greatest blow to the British Empire since the American Revolution. The Civil Rights workers in America during the fifty, sixties, and seventies were arrested, beaten by police, had the fire-hoses turned onto them many times, and many were killed for their efforts. If the Libertarian Movement in America is to succeed, we must face these threats and challenges, because they signify a threat to the status quo.

The Election

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:02:00 +0000

I will not be writing any fancy introduction. I am very disappointed in the incompetence of the Libertarian Party. Here they had the opportunity to run as many candidates as possible, using the peaking of the Ron Paul Movement & dissatisfaction with business-as-usual, i.e. the Republicans and Democrats. However, this band of bickering old men failed to even some close to winning a seat in Congress or any state legislature. Why, i ask myself, can the Vermont Progressive Party--a statewide Party--hold six seats in the legislature and get within arm's length of the Governor's Office, while the Third Largest National Party cannot even get close to one legislative position? The truth is, they do not want to win, and their nominee this election proves it. Bob Barr ran for one of the possible two reasons: revenge against the Republican Party for abandoning him, or just simply to have ran for President. This is indicative of the type of person in the Party, people like George Phillies: people who do not want to win, or come close to winning, and who say and do things to articulate this.
There's no reason to fear, however, for there is a new hope: The Campaign for Liberty, the organization spawned from the awakening that was the Ron Paul Revolution. This organization sought out and endorsed a number of "Ron Paul Republicans"--Libertarians with the Will to Suceed. Even though every single one of these candidates lost, they at least came closer than the Libertarian ones, who never seem to be able to recieve more than 10% except under ridiculous circumstances, such as merely being on the ballot with only one of the two major parties. Even so, they never win. Well I actually believe in Libertarianism and through my research i have discerned that it is the only thing that can get us out of our current troubles--all of them, and so I am not content with supporting a losing cause. The Campaign for Liberty will rebuild the Republican Party into a close enough relative of the Libertarian Party to make a huge difference in policy, which can only result in the Revolution promised by Ron Paul: a return to operation as a Constitutional Republic. Hopefully this will mean ratifying Ron Paul's Declaration of Independence that he proposed a number of years ago. Even if many of these goals cannot be met, with a major Party operating under Libertarian philosophy, the country will be better off. Naturally, there will always be disagreement, but right now many of the solutions to our problems are not even in the dialogue, even most of the problems in America today are not even discussed, such as the complete ignoring of the Constitution. The Campaign for Liberty will educate the people on the problems, and will hopefully make the Republican Party a more libertarian-minded group.
As for the lesser of two evils: the days seem to be perpetual to say the least. I thought with the Ron Paul base igniting, that the Duopoly would be dealt something resembling a wound. I had thought that someone, somewhere would be elected an independent or under a third party, somebody with some different ideas. Different, not "bipartisan": "bipartisan" is a term that assumes the only ideas that are acceptable or not "crazy" are the ones proposed by Democrats & Republicans, when in fact academic institutions such as the Cato and Von Mises Institutes base their decisions on fact. Lieberman is an independent due to the technicality that he did not run under a political banner, but he is "bipartisan", or a man of the Establishment as a whole. He represents the Single Party System known as the Duopoly. There is also a Senator and a Representative from Vermont, but they are Socialists that vote with the democrats, and have done nothing to make elections fair for fellow Independents and Third Parties. So really, elections have become pointless, because no matter what we never seem to elect anyone that can make any difference, because all the candidates that run are either incompetent and run just to educate people, or are thrust onto the shoulders of the masses because they are "independent" enough to run on their own, but give establishment-type answers to virtually every problem.
For those of you interested in Liberty, go to the website of the Campaign for Liberty, to make the Republican Party a Free-Loving, Constitution-Abiding Party.

Social Business: Libertarians Proven Right

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:47:00 +0000

Some may not be aware of this, but the eradication of many of the world's worst poverty-related problems is now in its infancy stages. Finaly, the human race has determined a method of counteracting starvation, lack of drinking water, and low standards of living in the Middle East, Africa, and everywhere else through the art of financing. The method is called microfinancing, and the model is called "Social Business", the model that does what welfare and foreign aid never could. These social businesses have contributed more than just money to a problem, they have contributed the idea that will solve the underlying problem in these developing nations: lack of a suitable, sustainable economy. Social Business aims to give these regions sustainable economies, thus increasing their standard of living.
I recently heard of a Social Business on the radio, called Grameen Bank. For over an hour, I listened to the founder Muhammad Yunus discuss how Grameen works, and how it has helped people worldwide. First, they provided basic utilities to their home of Bangaladesh: running water, energy, industry, and telecommunications through either starting a non-profit company themselves or financing a startup through microcredit. These utilities were designed to be affordable to the average person in these developing areas, many of whom only make the equivalent of 75 Dollars per year. They also gave out loans for small businesses, which paid off. Now the area that they began in has a sustainable economy and a real future. Now, over 32 years later, Grameen has spread their ideas. The beauty of these programs is that if they can work in the Third World, they can work in Europe and America as well. Therefore, we can thank Grameen for giving us a blueprint for cheaper utilities and more efficient businesses as well--ideas which can help the poor in America and revitalize poor neighborhoods.

Thus the answer has been within our grasp, and most scarcely know it: Capitalism and Freedom are the Progressive Ideas, not Socialism and Government Hegemony.

History of Banking and Finances

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:54:00 +0000

In light of the recent Financial Problems on Wall Street, I thought it would be nice to provide my readers with an obscure yet interesting topic: the origins of Banking and Financing, directly out of the Ancient World! Compare these early practices to the Federal Reserve, and the large lenders. The details are different: our institutions exahcnge currency while earlier banks stored commodities such as grain and livestock as well. However, the essentials are the same--lending as a business, investing as a form of high-risk money-making; uses credit notes (bills of credit--?fiat currency?) to avoid being robbed in transit. It's interesting to see where these things began.

http://viking.som.yale.edu/will/finciv/chapter1.htm#crash

Don't forget to read Non-cooperation, Part 3!

Non-Cooperation, Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 15:46:00 +0000

Our Goverments do not want us to speak out against their policies. They want us to only see their Democratic-Republican way of seeing the world. This is because any serious inquiry would lead to the realization that many of the institutions and traditions we hold dear are mere illusions, hoisted upon our shoulders for the benefit of those our politicians deem worthy. As we well know, the Democrats and the Republicans are essentially the same party, with no major philisophical distinction. Their arguements are minute and tidious, but because they never debate any Party besides one another, most people are ignorant as to the possabilities for real change. All the the laws regulating First Amendment Rights--such as protesting and demonstrating, election Debate regulations, Election coverage, Speech Laws...are all deseigned to create in the mind of the average American person, the small world-view under which a Democrat or a Republican are considered "correct". Therefore, we must not only lobby for our goals, but also go against the rules meant to keep us at bay.
On Constitution Day of this year, the We The People Congress were supposed to have had a large hunger-strike in Washignton D.C., in an attempt to recieve from the government a Redress of Grievences. However, they were denied a permit because--as the City claims--it is illegal to sleep in the park. The We the People Congress responded to this in the worst of ways: they cancelled their protest. In a proper Non-Cooperation Campaign, they should have carried on without permission. These are the movements that make changes. If reformers and liberty-activists in America had always acted this way, we would still have slavery, women would be treated like pets, and we would probably still be British Colonies. The We the People Congress failed us by following the hegemonic rules that they should be against, but where they failed we shall suceed. The only way to protest oppression is to not cooperate with the authority that institutes it. Next year, every Liberty- Acvtivist in the country should go to Washington D.C. on Constitution Day and sit in that park and have that hunger strike, without even applying for a permit. That would be the perfect protest, one that would make strides in restoring freedom to this country.
I have read that "sit-ins" are the perfect form of protest because they are non-violent, less "in your face", but they get the message across better than any other form of protest. Non-violence is key, for violent insurrectionists are often labelled, jailed, and discarded and their cause loses all gravity. If we follow the example of Gandhi and King, we shall overcome. If we can suffer the economic, social, and political crises our American governments have caused, we can suffer a little more mistreatment at the end of the long struggle for freedom. Sit-ins are a direct form of Non-Cooperation, and thus go against the rules put in place to stifle dissent; because of this, it is crucial that a sit-on demonstration not end when the protestors are asked to leave, but when they are moved by force. Leave the governments their monopoly on force and violence, we have no use for it in our revolution.
Another travesty is the requirement of permits for public protests. This is a severe violation of our rights, and can be changed. First, we must gather in the thousands and decide on a place of importance--Washington should work. Next, we gather and march in our numbers. They will send the police and perhaps the National Guard, due to the erroneous notion of the "illegality" of such a protest. Then, we will march on and be dispersed, but we must never give in to the temptation of violence, especially when we are attacked. A few marches like these, and we will see a decided change in Congress. Morever, picketing and waving signs outside of State Assembly Buildings, Local Federal Reserve Branches, and other important symbolic places will be useful in provoking change. Meanwhile, the unconstiutional laws surrounding protesting will be challenged, and perhaps overturned.
Such Campaigns must be organized. If it begins in one part of the country, other parts must follow suit. Protestors in Massachusetts should be met by equally provocative protestors in Texas, California, Arkansas, Florida, and Kentucky...The only viable way to organize such a Movement is through the Campaign for Liberty Organization. Their website is http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ membership is free, and this site is not only a great way to stay current and informed, but also to organize and network with other Sons and Daughters of Liberty. Unfortunately, the Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples of America are no longer in the business of promoting freedom. They are more worried about maintaining their tax-exempt status--and who can blame them? But without them, the Campaign for Liberty is our best Organizational tool.
Another step might possibly be to influence our religious organizations to take on this cause. This is a long-shot, and by no means should this be the primary method of achieving our liberty. However, if we can turn Churches and other religious organizations on to our cause, it will expediate the process and make our concerns, National Concerns.

We must send the message: we will not shut up, we will not go away, and we are not just blowing off steam; we are here to stay. Liberty is here to stay.

Non-Cooperation, Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:15:00 +0000

The truth of the matter is, the American people are getting ripped off. Poor and middle class communities are suffering from Government agencies controlling families, such as the various so-called Social "Services" which divide & dictate to many families; law enforcement agencies enforcing drug laws and unconstitutional social restrictions ruin lives daily; Taxes of all sorts, such as property, sales, excise, mandatory charges--such as driver's license fee's, and hidden taxes--such as bank fees (instituted by the Federal Reserve), and the worst: inflation. Inflation is the "invisible tax" because it cannot be measured in monetary amount, only buying power. These taxes--many of which are illegal, are harming our economy and our lives in a variety of ways. Inflation is primarily stealing from the middle class and the poor, since the rich aren't nearly as affected in their daily lives, because their wealth provides a shield against inflationary losses. Moreover, most of us have savings and retirement accounts. If we, the poor and middle class of America, have $100,000 dollars saved for retirement and there is an annual inflation of 2-3%, over time we could lose over 20%. In the short term, this harms buying power, and impacts savings. With 2% inflation, savings accounts are losing 2 dollars on every hundred. Meanwhile, the cost of living goes up because the currency is worth less, and wages stay the same. This causes strain on the poor and middle class families when they are attempting to keep their homes, put their children through any level of school, pay the legal taxes; this also makes buying food, clothing, fuel, and the other necessities of life all that much more difficult. This combined with all the other taxes is causing tremendous strain on the American economy, as seen by the Crisis in the Financial Markets, which was caused by inflation and government subsidies. We, the people, should no longer put up with such undemocratic policies, and fight this injustice. Many would say that it is foolish to resist the government, and in some ways it is. It would be foolish to do so violently--as some have attempted in the past--after all, America part of the problem is the militaristic tactics the Government is using. Further, violence solves nothing, as we have seen in the War on Drugs, Terror, and the War in Vietnam--where 60,000 American soldiers and many more Vietnamese lost their lives for a War in which Democracy lost. Since then, Vietnam has instituted reforms and we have solved in peace what could not be solved in over Twenty Years of war. And since every major Non-cooperation Campaign in the Western--and even Eastern--World seems to have suceeded to a large degree, it is evident that our current predicament is a problem which can only be solved by non-violent civil disobedience, and the namesake of this tract: Non-cooperation. A people so oppressed must end that oppression by ceasing all compliance with injustice.
This has been done before, both in America and abroad. The Civil Rights Movement, which is credited with beginning with the civil disobedience conducted by Rosa Parks, now a national icon, when she refused to comply with the laws regarding the Segregation of busses--this movement changed America forever, and for the better. Now we have black children and white children, Catholics and Protestants, and all variety of ethnicities and religious people coming to gether and become friends and allies regardless of these superficial differences. Moreover, this movement is a working example of how Non-cooperation can and ultimately will--if the cause is just--succeed. However, it is necessary first to look an earlier example, to illustrate how this can make changes on an even wider basis.
The Indian Independence Movement evolved when Gandhi brought his Non-cooperation Campaign to India, after his strides against apartheid in South Africa. Now in Champaran & Kheda in 1918 he led impoverished farmers, mired in social evils such as unhygienic conditions, domestic violence, discrimination, military oppression, oppression of women & untouchability. On top of their miseries, these people were forced to grow cash crops like indigo, tobacco and cotton, instead of food, by the government without compensation, thus causing starvation and numerous financial problems. In addition, they would have to pay taxes despite a famine. Due to Non-cooperation, the people in these regions won the largest victory against the British Empire since the American Revolution: the cessation of taxes during famines. This Non-cooperation movement consisted of people quitting government positions, boycotting government services and law enforcement, boycotting the courts, boycotting government goods. These measures led to major problems for the British when there was a communcation blackout when every telephone, telegraph, and radio operator ceased work. Meanwhile, the Salt march led to a major blow to the British Monopoly on Salt in India, a vital resource in many areas in the economy and life. The result: the eventual rise of an Indian Nation-State, the goal of the movement. All of this was accomplished with widespread Non-cooperation, begun at the local levels.
This too, must be our goal: to cease cooperation on the local level, which will lead to the rise of more such movements, and eventually a national one will emerge and reign victorious. The Indian Non-Cooperation Campaign did the equivalent of what Americans must do: break the two-party system, abolish the Federal Reserve & return to sound money, force the government to respect our civil & human rights, return to the Constitution, and cease the U.S. role in the militarization of diplomacy. More on statement of methodology in Part 3.
The civil rights movement grew in the local communities. The Movement can be traced back to the Radical Republicans in the 19th Century, but the modern movement began in 1955. One of the Movement's earliest Non-cooperation campaigns was the famous and glorious Bus Boycott, as mentioned previously. This Campaign grew out of local congregations, and met at the Church of Dr. Martin Luther King, whose actions in subsequent years made him a Nation hero. This local movement recieved Nation attention, resulting in a major victory: Alabama's racial segregation laws for busses were deemed unconstitutional. There was still work to do, but this was one early example of the power and success of Non-cooperation.
We too, must gather people at the local level through useful agents. Together we as a Nation can rise up in defiance of Government policies, uniting together through religious centers, town centers, and political action groups. however, we must be careful to remain decentralized; centralization will only lead to our movement becoming an easier target for attack, both violent and in a propaganda sense. The usefulness of a decentralized Non-cooperation is that it does not rely on central leadership. Therefore, if a prominent component of our Movement is somehow taken out of the picture, the other numerous groups can continue the struggle.

Non-Cooperation, Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:37:00 +0000

Greetings to all those who may read this,

In times of great peril and tribulation, when the power that be have decided in favor of elite governance by the self-interested, it is required that those under this system of hedgemony learn of their oppression through any media which may grant the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and enslumbered to awaken. Through this hour of challenge from the Great Powers of all things, we must focus our vision to adequately turn away and shut out the hurricane of silence that entombs and imprisions us. It is in such an hour that the people, led by a self-sacrificing few, rising above the shackles of the status quo, and the indoctrination thereof, will overcome all obstacles and reign in an era of victory for all. This rhetoric is no mere complaint, but an organized declaration of necessity regarding a Non-Cooperation Campaign against a system designed to work without the people who are required by it to turn the wheels with the toil from their labors.
Every generation has it's share of injustice, and its taste of reprisal. Yet, when the injustices from one generation are thrusted upon the shoulders of another, all the way down the timestream, it is then evident that a change of a monumentous proportion is necessary if humanity is to further the progress that has been the objective of all the ancestors of all families, of all tribes, of all peoples. Our forefathers, and their constituents, fought for Seven Long Years to bestow a better opportunity for such progress than they themselves had, upon all posterity. And though there were sundry problems and injustices yet to be solved, on the day when the war-drums fell silent, every generation from the Founders until the present day, triumphed. Though abolition, equal protection, and universal suffrage were not yet enacted, they were now possible.
Yet with every good possibility, there is always many destructive ones. None could imagine that the Constitution would be ignored after so much had gone into it, that Centeal Banks and Government Departments would replaces the people's Representatives as the Lesiglators. While once the idea of a Monarch was a laughable occurence, we have seen many Presidents take upon the role, with the cheers of Congress behind them. We have seen two Major Parties become one, we have seen Private Ownership detested by those at the recieving end of it's generosity, and we have heard ideas trampled, overpower the voices of those that have oppressed it, to no avail.
But we must always remember that through the leaps in progress, we have seen former convicts become national heroes, we have heard speeches that break through all barriers and unite us in celebration and sorrow, and we have seen all that Disobedience can do for the world. Disobedience is the difference between a protest, and a Revolution; between a losing battle, and a victory. Disobedience stopped the draft in America; it toppled the British, French, Roman, Egyptian, as well as Three German and Two Russian Empires; it saw to the end of segregation and apartheid in the Twenitieth Century, and slavery in the Ninteenth; it made the Transcendentalists, Beats, and hippies respectable historical movements; and finally, it made sure one shot was heard around the world, for well over three hundred years.
The United States are the greastest Nations on the Earth. We heard about their greatness often, but never of they're mistakes. They have violated their own sacred Document in favor of an Anthology and a Manifesto; they have broken with their Republican Principles and invaded soveriegn Nations without due cause; and they have entered into alliances which have stripped them of all economic freedom. And finally, they have propped two indistiguishable Parties upon their shoudlers through various conspiring and dangerous Organizations, with the purpose of stripping the United States of their liberty and property. We may take comfort in the fact that a people long oppressed, cannot remain so forever.
Non-Cooperation is inevitable, when a people have had enough of life without liberty. One day, the masses will stop paying taxes, charging taxes, requesting permits to protest, electing Big-Government bureaucrats, supporting Central Banks, and being afraid to protest their government. In that day, liberty shall triumph.

The Constitution and the Judeo-Christian Tradition

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:31:00 +0000

Today in class, a fellow student of mine stated that "The framers built our Constitution around the Judeo-Christian Tradition". I stated that I have read both the Constitution and the Bible, and there is no relation to the two aside from the invocation of a Deity at the end, which bears no legal weight and has no effect on the running of government.
He replied that "The founders were very religious..." and I am still in the dark. As far as I can tell, if the Founders had built our Republic around the Judeo-Christian Tradition, they would have established a monarchy controlled by an eccelestical class. Britain could be said to be founded on Christian Principles, as they have a State Church and a Church-Ordained King. My colleague was forgetting the first Amendment, which prohibits a State Religion, or State Church. I grow weary of this argument, as it is always stated and can never be backed up. The very fact that he could not describe the relationship between the Judeo-Christian Tradition and the Government of the United States demonstrates the fallacy of this argument. No matter your religious beliefs, I think most well-read thinkers on the subject would agree that while it might be nice from the religious perspective to have everything that's "right" or "good" in the world have a relationship to your beliefs, it just simply isn't always true. The Christian Churches and the Christian People of the World have done many wonderful things to make our world a better place, but the Constitution of the United States of America is not one of them. It is a secular document, and has no relationship to the Bible, another good document of a different nature.

I challenge all who share this belief to convince me that the Constitution is based on Christian Principles.

To Complement my Subsequent Post

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:57:00 +0000

http://www.revolutionmarch.com/Pamphleteer

I will follow up this brief post with a more detailed and well-thought out post on my revolutioary ideals and politics, and how they apply to the Ron Paul rally.

I Was There!

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:07:00 +0000

I recently saw the new Bob Dylan film, "I'm Not There". I've heard many complaints about the film, chief among them that it made no sense and was a complete absurdity. This is not true. Though I agree that this film wasn't a biopic, but more of a surreal odyssey which sought to explore Dylan the man and legend, it was not absurd. This movie did what so many of Dylan's songs do: using heavy metaphor to create images and express ideas. Dylan was the greatest surrealist songwriter in American, perhaps even international, history. Only a movie such as this could truly capture Dylan.
For those of you who do not know alot about Dylan, here is a suggested study guide before watching the film:

songs: (reading lyrics helps)
desolation row
it's all over now, baby blue
like a rolling stone
One More Cup of Coffee
mr. tambourine man
the times they are-a changing
visions of johanna
love is just a four-letter word(baez performs, lyrics by Dylan)

books:
Tarantula(reading just one or two poems from this would be sufficient for the time being if you're in a rush)
*Bonus* Chronicles Volume One(not super-necessary, but will help alot)

films:
Don't Look Back(1967)
Dylan Speaks!

Nonsense

noreply@blogger.com (AntiCult) — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:18:00 +0000

Philip Marrone
A Treatise of reason
6/27/07

Nonsense?

In our present age, we have at our disposal a plethora of utilities which have increased the comfort and convenience of our lives since the antebellum age. Industrialization coupled with advancement in medical technology has allowed health to become a primary component in our lives; no longer do common ailments, such as strep throat, end our lives. Geostationary satellites have allowed for instant global communications, an advancement met with a decrease in large-scale wars between nations. Likewise, the internet has provided humanity with its latest, and possibly final, completely free forum for discussion. Socially, equal rights movements for women and ethnic minorities have at last made the words of Thomas Jefferson true: all men are now not only created equal, but treated as such. Likewise, there hasn’t been a war between Europe and the United States for over Sixty years; nor have there been any wars within Europe. Yet the antebellum times had something which we do not: an accurate view of human rights, and the role which government should take in presiding over a free society.
In modern America, we live under a strong central government; this government, once purported to be dedicated to freedom, justice, and preservation of inalienable human rights, has gone against the very purpose of its creation. This government places restrictions on the most basic of rights, except that of speech, all in the name of the security of the people whom it serves. In today’s America, a permit from the government is required to protest; again, in the name of the security of the people. It also places restrictions on businesses, such as banning smoking in private establishments, which have a less than salutary effect upon the businesses involved. These restrictions have just as detrimental an effect upon the general freedom of the people; this too, is said to be in the name of public safety, in this case from harmful chemicals. The list of government intrusions in the everyday lives of almost every American citizen to too long to list completely. Yet can such a government truly be dedicated to the freedom of its citizens?
During revolutionary times, the general concept of freedom was far different from the one which is prevalent today. Thomas Paine, the first great American thinker, embodied the Revolution-Era concept of liberty within his work: “Rights of Man.” Within this document, he lists and briefly details the basic nature and rights of the entire human race. For the first of the listed rights, Mr. Paine writes: “Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect to their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on public utility” (Paine, 217). In other words, all human beings are born free and equal, and the only distinctions which can be made by a government are purely for the good of the public. The last portion was most likely added to account for criminals, for surely they must be punished for society to function.
This quote shows how the people of that time regarded and defined freedom, much in contrast with the people of today. For the most part, the current government has followed this principle, but with a few unforgivable exceptions. The right to marry is being limited to a select group by the government. Thus, two groups are being oppressed by the government regulation and restriction of marriage: homosexuals and polygamists. Neither group causes harm to society, nor do they victimize anybody. Yet they are denied the right to marriage by the government. In the case of polygamists, imprisonment is the penalty for their practices. So it can be concluded that our current government only protects “orthodox” practices which the majority of the public support, and not the rights inherent within the human race itself as Thomas Paine and the people of his day believed it should.
The next item on the list details the major categories of the basic, inalienable human rights. On the second item, Mr. Paine states: “…and these rights are Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistance of oppression.” These rights, and the liberties which support them, were considered untouchable by all government authority in Revolution-Era times, except if a crime has been committed and a sentence layed. Yet today, there are many restrictions placed upon these natural rights by the very government which claims to ensure them.
The most important of all items on Mr. Paine’s list was the fourth, which clearly defined the limits of a person’s liberty, as well as liberty itself. Mr. Paine states boldly in this article: “…Liberty consists in the power of doing whatever does not injure another…has no limits except to ensure every other man the free exercise of the same rights…”(Paine, 217-18). Thus, according to Mr. Paine and the ideas of liberty prevalent in his time, a person had the right to do anything which did not harm another or prevent anyone else from exercising their own rights. According to this principle, modern government restrictions regarding private consumption of drugs and alcohol, marriage, sexual orientation (unless it produces victims), militia formation and the ownership of firearms are an over-extension of government authority and contrary to the innate freedoms of the people.
The rights which Thomas Paine proposed were highly revolutionary for their time and inspired the fledgling nation of the United States not only to sever political ties with Britain and govern itself, but to dedicate this new government to protecting human rights. Previously, any rights the citizens had were seen as “given” by the state, while in antebellum America, thanks to great thinkers like Thomas Paine, rights were seen as inborn, and thus only protected by the government. The observance of these fundamental rights is important in the development of the human race, and allows for all people who stay within their rights to pursue their happiness as they see fit, which in turn aids the individual and society in self-growth. Also, the observance of these inalienable human rights should also, in theory, protect against persecution. For instance, when a government does not honor these rights, individuals and groups which are deemed unacceptable for either their views or practices, are subject to legal reprisals. Our current government operates under the modern philosophy that only certain freedoms, such as unrestricted speech, are to be honored while all others they disapprove of are to be outlawed(as evidenced in gun control, marriage, and drug laws); this sentiment shows exactly how much more enlightened the people of Thomas Paine’s time were than our present society.
Between the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and before the ratification of the current Constitution, there was a political group in the United States known as the “Anti-Federalists”. The Anti-Federalists believed in limited central government, a concept which proved far too advanced for their times. They believed that a strong central government with nearly unlimited power, such as the one created by the current U.S. constitution, would threaten the liberties which had been so recently won from England (Ketcham, Cover). Today, neither of the big political parties in power in the United States seems to have any concern about the power of the federal government. On the contrary, both parties seem to wish to extend federal authority to fulfill their respective agendas. The Democrats seek to use federal authority to dictate their various socialist policies while Republicans seem to wish to use it to dictate national morals. Alas, neither side seems to show any regard for the Revolution-Era ideals that the Anti-Federalists believed in. Among these ideals were the principles of limited central government, no direct federal taxation, a temporary army, and the Confederation as the ideal republican form for a free society.
Centuries ahead of their time, the Anti-Federalists believed in a limit on Congressional legislative power. On this subject, the great Anti-federalist writer Brutus wrote that: “The powers of the general legislature extend to every case…It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, liberty, and property of every man in the United States…”(Ketcham, 272). The danger is that without a check on this power, Congress will inevitably pass laws restricting the liberty that was won when England was defeated in the Revolution. Likewise, all federal laws, such as revenue laws, which Congress passes fall under the jurisdiction of federal courts, a policy which completely circumvents the states, which directly govern the people (Ketcham, 282). A logical check on this power would be to allow the courts of the state in which the federal crime was committed to try the alleged perpetrator. If then the law is deemed unjust or contrary to individual liberty, then the necessary changes could be made according to the ruling of the court. In modern America, there is still no limit to the laws that Congress can pass, except certain things outlined in the Constitution, such as the Bill of Rights. They otherwise have free reign to produce legislation concerning anything, even things which should be up to the states or even the individuals themselves. Without more limits, this Congress is open to corruption, and freedom will always be at the mercy of the politicians.
Similarly, the Anti-Federalists believed that one large republic could not justly govern a large country, but that several small republics under one larger, limited central government were necessary to maintain freedom (Ketcham, 275). Brutus, in his first essay on Anti-Federalism, stated about large republics: “The Grecian republics were of small extent...[as they]extended their conquests…their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world”(Ketcham, 276). Therefore, the Anti-Federalists believed, if one unlimited central government governed the entire United States as the principle government, and then there would be no checks on the central government’s power, which would allow for corruption (Ketcham, 276). Giving the states more power, as they had under the Articles of Confederation, would prove as a natural check on federal corruption. This argument ended up being true; because the states weren’t given as much power under the current constitution, the citizens of the United States have almost completely lost their voice in government because the institutions which directly govern them have no say in policy-making. Or, as Brutus wrote: “…Nor can any constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of any power given…there is no limitation to this power” (Ketcham, 272).
To go along with the prospect of a system of checks against overextension of federal power, the Anti-Federalists believed in a more consensual (consented, in the language of the day) system of taxation, contrary to the one proposed by the current constitution. According to our current constitution, Congress has the power to impose any taxation without state approval, and attach any penalty to their revenue laws that they see fit. Also, federal courts will have sole jurisdiction over tax-related cases (Ketcham, 281-2). To the Anti-Federalists, this was no different than a dictatorship. On this matter, Brutus concluded: “There is no way, therefore, to avoid the destruction of state governments, whenever Congress please to do it, unless the people rise up…” (Ketcham, 282). One of the primary reasons for the Revolution was England’s unfair taxation of the thirteen colonies, which justifies the Anti-Federalist’s passionate views on taxation. In present day America, people are written off as being cheap if they complain about government taxation.
Another advanced concept which set the Anti-Federalists apart from the people of today was their belief that there should be no standing army, or permanent army of professional soldiers. As Brutus most adequately stated:
“The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power…but there is great hazard that an army may subvert the forms of government…and establish one at the pleasure of their leader,”(Ketcham, 287).
Brutus was also weary of the Federal Government’s control over both the army and the militias (private militias were the only military allowed in peacetime under the Articles of Confederation), as this power was seen by many as a threat to liberty (Ketcham, 273). The abuse of this power is evident in the institution of the draft, the haste with which certain wars have been engaged throughout United States history, as well as the sundry human rights abuses against Native Americans by the United States Army during the westward expansion.
Though all our scientific, social, and diplomatic advancements are impressive, we have lost something far more valuable since Revolution-Era America: freedom. Both the Anti-Federalists and Thomas Paine believed in certain inalienable human rights, and a government which would only protect these rights and not vouchsafe the ones it deems reasonable, as the two major parties within the Untied States at present seem to do when in power. With the ratification of our current constitution, we gained unchecked federal authority over the nation and lost the perfect form of freedom-loving government: the Confederate Republic. In the centuries that followed the ratification of the current Constitution, the federal government has amassed more and more power, as thinkers like Thomas Paine hoped to prevent, and as the Anti-Federalists feared. Couldn’t we all, especially our politicians, learn something from the writings of the Anti-Federalists and Thomas Paine?

Works Cited Page

Ketcham, Ralph. The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates. New York, New York: Signet Classic, 2003. "Brutus", "Centinel", "Cato", "Federal Farmer"

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense, Rights of Man, and other essential writings of Thomas Paine. New York, New York: Signet Classics, 1989, 2003.