“The hardest thing to see is what is in front of your eyes”
Attributed to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Ask almost any American adult: “Is government necessary?” and you’ll likely get an answer in the affirmative, perhaps with some qualifiers. The fundamental idea that government is necessary for the functioning of any society is axiomatic in the sense that it’s taken for granted. Without it, we’re told, all hell breaks loose and civilization is doomed. This is why we are trained from an early age to pledge our allegiance to the State, in our case the United States of America. It is the people in the nation’s capital, sometimes adhering to the wisdom of our Founders, that keeps us from sinking into barbarism, as they pass laws and issue decrees to keep us safe, healthy, and prosperous.
Government might be evil, as Thomas Paine argued, but it’s still necessary, unless it becomes intolerably evil, in which case a new government is needed. It’s on that premise —- that some government is necessary — that we stake our lives and the lives of our loved ones.
What kind of government do we have and what kind do we want?
With these questions in mind let’s take a look at some recent issues.
Ron Paul reports that the federal government is considering a law to force the federal reserve to combat racism with monetary policy. The FED, in undertaking this responsibility, will keep counterfeiting American dollars and diluting lending standards to improve the lot of the poor, who are often people of color. But counterfeiting dollars only helps first recipients of those dollars, not the poor. Furthermore, granting loans to people while considering only their race is sentencing them to “ruinous debt.” In addition to the other problems with federal reserve counterfeiting — depreciating the currency, creating the business cycle, funding the welfare-warfare state, making the money supply dependent on FED bureaucrats — the mandate to help the poor through federal reserve policy is an act of cruel deception.
The Audit the Fed bill, otherwise known as H.R. 24: Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2019, has a 4% chance of being enacted according to Skopos Labs. A NYC-based company founded by computer scientist John Nay and two law professors, Skopos Labs uses “machine learning and natural language processing” to help “identify which [bills] are likely to emerge, or not, into the light of real-world impact.” The 4%-chance outlook is typical for most of the thousands of bills introduced.
Any bill that threatens to drive a dagger into the heart of the FED will be defeated. The power elite who benefit from FED policies will never allow a peasant revolt, although they’ll go through a pantomime of democratic deliberation to give the appearance of serious consideration.
A Brookings Institution writer noted in 2015,
If backers of the “audit the Fed” movement want to get rid of the agency, they should say so, and let that debate begin. If it does, central banks will win. No modern country operates without one, and it is inconceivable that the United States would prefer to have no central bank . . .
For those who understand central banking and its consequences (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and even here — for starters), it is quite conceivable. A bill such as HR 24, though likely doomed to fail, might raise public awareness of the FED as a government-created monopoly counterfeiter.
Narrative control by way of deception
Paul Craig Roberts tells us that “Over the course of our history we Americans have been deceived about many things for the sake of political agendas.” He then lists some of the better-known government scams of the 21st century: “September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden and the Talliban, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, the endless lies about Gadaffi and Libya, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Russiagate, Impeachgate, Russian bounties to the Tallian to kill American soldiers, the lies about China, Somalia, and now the Covid Deception.”
Read his article for details of the Covid Deception — the widespread adoption of medically useless and often harmful masks, the move to outlaw cash, hospitals incentivized to code all deaths as Covid deaths, the war on cheap but proven-effective Covid remedies and prophylactics . . . the “bought-and-paid-for Western media” with its constant headlines of impending doom when the bug’s lethality is little different from the seasonal flu.
Meanwhile, journalist John Pilger witnesses the extradition trial of journalist Julian Assange at London’s Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey, with US media conspicuously absent. Assange’s crime? Truth-telling, the kind that exposed government criminality by way of Wikileaks files. Writes Pilger:
The lead prosecutor, James Lewis QC, ex SAS and currently Chief Justice of the Falklands, by and large gets what he wants, notably up to four hours to denigrate expert witnesses, while the defence’s examination is guillotined at half an hour. I have no doubt, had there been a jury, his freedom would be assured. . . .
However, the defence has succeeded in demonstrating the extent to which Assange sought to protect and redact names in the files released by WikiLeaks and that no credible evidence existed of individuals harmed by the leaks. The great whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg said that Assange had personally redacted 15,000 files.
Other than natural events like hurricanes and earthquakes, it is difficult to find social problems that don’t have government meddling as their root cause. And if we recall Katrina, even natural disasters aren’t exempt from gross government incompetence (FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers).
Diagraming our choices
Recently, Vasko Kohlmayer delineated what he considers the correct political spectrum:
He writes:
In this paradigm, the spectrum is delineated by the degree of statism intended and aspired to by various political actors and ideologies. Thus, on the extreme left you have statist totalitarians while on the opposite side you have non-statists and state minimalists.
Oddly, there is nothing in the diagram that shows the possibility of society without a state (“non-statists”). If I were to use such a schematic I would amend it to show No State to the right of Minimal State. But even that is unsatisfying. The US originally had a minimalist State under the Articles, but it soon headed left with the establishment of the Constitution.
As the State grows in power it is called upon to grow even more. Albert Jay Nock notes in Our Enemy, the State,
State power has an unbroken record of inability to do anything efficiently, economically, disinterestedly or honestly; yet when the slightest dissatisfaction arises over any exercise of social power [people acting voluntarily], the aid of the agent least qualified to give aid is immediately called for.
The State is clearly appealing to certain individuals. With its ability to tax and inflate, and offer legal privileges to certain industries, it is well-qualified to establish a plutocracy wherein the super-rich milk the political system.
If all government is evil to some extent, why not get rid of it? Why keep it around to grow into a monster in fine clothes, as it always does?
The answer is, not all government is evil.
The kind of government that imposes itself as a monopoly of force over a designated territory — commonly called a State — is the evil kind because its coercive nature is a violation of your liberty. And mine. What we and every other country on earth have is government-by-State.
Coercive monopolies are damaging, and the State is literally the mother of all coercive monopolies. It creates subordinate monopolies (such as the FED by way of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) as favors to select groups (big bankers in the FED’s case) in return for their support. Is there any doubt the FED and its printing press support the State?
But what do we have without a State?
Answer: It’s obvious. Government by the free market.
Free markets have already proven their excellence in providing every other human want or need. What is there to prevent them from performing the task of protecting us from aggression?
Answer: Only the monopoly power of the State.
Another answer: The lack of courage on the part of the public and political experts.
As Judge Napolitano suggests, “What if when government fails to protect inalienable rights, we simply ignore it?”
I develop the idea of free market government here and here.
***
George Ford Smith is the author of nine books, including Do Not Consent: Think OUTSIDE the voting booth, The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, Eyes of Fire: Thomas Paine and the American Revolution, and The Fall of Tyranny, the Rise of Liberty. He is also a filmmaker whose latest work bears the same title as his most recent book, Do Not Consent. PLEASE WATCH IT AND VOTE!
No comments:
Post a Comment