Friday, September 3, 2021

We are under attack

Air Force veteran Brandie LaCasse told CBS News recently she is owed more than $23,000 in unpaid rent on three upstate New York properties but cannot force her tenants to pay or leave because of federal and state moratoriums on evictions.  She has become a homeless landlord, living at friends' homes and out of her car with her young daughter.

“I've cried many nights, like thinking, 'Where's my money?'” the single mom said. “I don't understand how they can give my private property to somebody to live for free. I bought that property. I fixed it up with my blood, sweat and tears.”

Well, Brandie, how can they give what’s yours to someone else?  Easy.  Government, media, and their useful idiots have created an atmosphere of fear worldwide, and anything goes in their plans to exploit that fear.  You’re one landlord and your tenants are three renters.  Assuming you all vote, do the math.  Politicians do.  


Eviction moratoriums are but one weapon in the State’s arsenal against those under its rule.  After the past 18 months it should be clear that it wants us either dead or slaves.  


The enslaving part is obvious.  Lockdowns, mandatory masks, business, church, and school closures — all done to protect us from a virus a man in England predicted would rival the slaughter of the 1918 H1N1 virus if governments didn’t take iron-fisted action, best summarized in Arnold’s now-famous outburst, “Screw your freedom!” to those refusing to wear face masks.  But in keeping people locked up the tyrants also killed a good many.


Sweden’s relatively light-handed approach proved doomsayers wrong, epidemic author and researcher Michael Fumento concludes in a recent article: 

Thus the country the media loved to hate is reaping the best of all worlds: Few current cases and deaths, stronger economic growth than the lockdown countries, and its people never experienced the yoke of tyranny.  

And he adds:

Though routinely labeled “socialist,” it ranks 10th out of 190 economies for ease of doing business, according to the World Bank’s Doing Business report for 2020.


Which for a lot of people is presumably another good reason to hate them.

Why test asymptomatic people?


We have seen how SARS-CoV-19, a virus no one has yet to isolate in infected individuals, has been elevated to a raging monster through various deceits, such as deliberately high cycle thresholds (CTs), thereby producing many false positives, labeled as real-life “cases” without symptoms, a novel idea in medicine, and dutifully trumpeted in the media to scare the living hell out of those who take authorities at their word. 


But it isn’t just the high CTs that are at issue.  According to researcher Tam Hunt, it makes no sense to test asymptomatic people at all.

It is well-known that widespread testing of people with a low probability of having the disease at issue will lead to high levels of false positives, even with accurate tests (Skittrall et al. 2020; Bokhorst et al. 2012; Dinnes et al. 2021; Madrigal et al. 2020). This has been described as the “false positive paradox” (Flender 2019). It’s a paradox because even quite accurate tests can lead to high levels of false positives when used widely in a population with low actual prevalence of a given disease.

Further in the same paper, Hunt writes:

Widespread screening during previous outbreaks and pandemics has generally not been recommended because of the potential for high false positives. The Center for Disease Control (CDC)’s 2004 guidance from the SARS pandemic (CDC 2004), for example, stated: “To decrease the possibility of a false-positive result, testing should be limited to patients with a high index of suspicion for having SARS-CoV disease.” (Emphasis added)

But if we shouldn’t be testing asymptomatic people why is it being done?  Are health agencies populated by scientific illiterates — or are they evil?  


A shockingly high “case” rate paves the way for experimental vaccines produced virtually overnight, instead of the usual 10-15 years, along with the mania to get everyone vaccinated.  


Why the big push to get everyone jabbed? Especially now when evidence has emerged that the vaccinated are hardly bullet-proof?


Israel’s vaccine risk and the war on alternatives


Israel, with its high vaccination rate, is glaring proof of this. 

Israel has among the world’s highest levels of vaccination for COVID-19, with 78% of those 12 and older fully vaccinated, the vast majority with the Pfizer vaccine. Yet the country is now logging one of the world’s highest infection rates, with nearly 650 new cases daily per million people.

But the real danger may lie with long-term effects, which because of the radically shortened vaccine development time remain unknown.   


For those of us who are not virologists, we can take a more pragmatic approach.  What can protect us from the virus?


Whatever we find, government will sabotage it.  Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, both effective for prophylactic and early treatment of covid, and ivermectin in hospitalized cases as well, have become the magic words to get you censored on social media.  Both have been around for decades and have excellent safety profiles.  And according to Dr. Peter McCullough, “85% of covid deaths were preventable with early treatment which was squashed.”


Governments not controlled by Big Pharma — Africa, Mexico, India, and now Japan — have used ivermectin with impressive results.  Ivermectin obviates the need for an experimental vaccine.


Since both drugs are essentially outlawed in the US, people have had to turn to vitamin and other protocols for prevention and cure.  But where do we find guidance in corporate media?


War arrived under cover of covid


We have been at war, not with the virus, but with the government.


We, the disobedient and questioning, are under attack.  The Powers-that-be are trying to kill us or control us.


We are not dealing with a nanny state on steroids. 


We are not victims of normal government incompetence and malfeasance.  


We are experiencing an all-out assault on our lives.  Those in positions of power want a large number of us dead.  The rest they will control through mandated injections.  


Once again, this not the normal level of government evil (war, taxation, money-printing, propaganda, etc.), which is bad enough. We are under attack from every direction, a major bet-the-farm assault. People are protesting, especially in European countries and even Canada, and that’s great to see, but if most Americans continue their obedience it's all over. They will go along with any atrocity. (See here and here)


As always, stay positive and exercise due diligence.


If you find value in the author’s articles, please consider purchasing one or more of his products. George Ford Smith is the author of nine books, including The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, a novel about a renegade Fed chairman.  He is also a filmmaker whose works include Do Not Consent- Think OUTSIDE the voting booth, Last Day, and Risky Pinch Hitter


 

Sunday, August 22, 2021

“To us, the CDC was less than irrelevant: it was nonexistent.”

Since the arrival of Covid, too many doctors are deferring to the proclamations of the health agencies.  They act as if all valid health and medical measures emanate from lofty bureaucracies.  To Dr. Simone Gold this is a nightmare.

She has written a book that’s dangerous to begin because it’s impossible to put down. I Do Not Consent: My Fight Against Medical Cancel Culture is a real-life, page-turning horror story that won’t let you go until the end.


Most readers have at least heard of Dr. Gold and the politicized attacks on her for prescribing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a common antimalarial drug that had been approved by the FDA in 1955, had been prescribed countless times since, and that “can be safely taken by pregnant women and nursing mothers, the young and the old.”  Long before the orchestrated fear campaign descended on the planet in 2020 she had used it herself on a trip to Africa—“It was a simple, white tablet, taken weekly.” 


At the start of the Covid crisis her first patient was a woman in her fifties with a low fever, some difficulty breathing, and chest pain.  Gold treated her with a combination of HCQ, the antibiotic azithromycin, and zinc.  


Within 24 hours her condition dramatically improved.  Gold was thrilled and, no doubt, so was the patient.


The next day Gold was called into the office of the hospital’s medical director.  


If you had been a practicing emergency physician for two decades, as she had been, and had just cured a patient of Covid at a time when the world was desperately looking for answers, what would you expect from your boss?  Kudos, perhaps?  I think so.  So would just about anyone, including Dr. Gold.  


Instead, she was punched in the face.  HCQ “wasn’t indicated,” the medical director said, and therefore using it was unjustified. He told her she was stepping on big toes (“a powerful consortium”) and if she ever prescribed it again he would fire her.

It was the strangest encounter I had ever had with a medical colleague. It came seemingly out of nowhere, almost as though an alien force had taken control of him—like something out of the 1950s film Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

The Medical Reign of Terror


After Trump called HCQ a “game-changer” on March 19, 2020 the forces aligned against him started attacking the drug.  “The media vomited all over it,” she said in a recent speech.  Only quacks and charlatans prescribed it, the media blared for all the world to hear.  


“Before that day nobody cared about it,” she said.  Among doctors it was: Use it, don’t use it, it’s safe, use your best judgment.  After that date everyone had an opinion on it.  Doctors began taking different positions, not based on their clinical judgment, but on what the CDC said.  “I knew early on the problem was going to be the doctors,” as well as those pharmacists who were refusing to fill prescriptions for HCQ — who in so doing were practicing medicine without a license.  


In her book she writes:

From the federal government down to the local level, it was worrisome to me to watch the lockstep conformity of those listening to the CDC’s public pronouncements and the media’s spin. This just wasn’t the way doctors practiced medicine, I thought. In my decades-long experience treating patients in hospital settings, I couldn’t recall a single conversation with colleagues which began, “Let’s see what the CDC says to do and then do that.” Our decisions were influenced by our education and formal training, experience, articles in scientific journals, and discussions with colleagues. To us, the CDC was less than irrelevant: it was nonexistent.

On April 6, California Governor Newsom sent out a letter telling health professionals that prescribing HCQ for SARS-CoV-2 would be deemed “unprofessional conduct,” a direct threat to a doctor’s license to practice medicine.  Other governors did the same.  Never before had this happened with an FDA-approved drug.  


HCQ, often coupled with azithromycin and zinc, has shown remarkable results during early treatment, in outpatient settings.  But the FDA had granted an EUA for hospitalized patients only.   Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet (DrLee4America), who advocates making HCQ over-the-counter (OTC), wrote in May, 2020:

HCQ was FDA-approved in 1955 and used in hundreds of millions of prescriptions worldwide since then. If HCQ were actually killing people as media headlines and pundits claim, it would have been taken off the market decades ago. The FDA itself in the CDER [Center for Drug Evaluation and Research] data has only 62 cardiac deaths related to HCQ out of 50 MILLION prescriptions. [Italics added]

As Gold discovered, it wasn’t a variation of “Orange Man Bad” that kept HCQ from being an OTC drug in the US.  HCQ is OTC in countries that have malaria or in countries where their citizens visit countries that have malaria.  In the US, there was no market demand for it.  No demand, no profit — no profit, no OTC.  


But there was demand in France, where people took holidays in Africa.  On January 13, 2020, France, with the exception of Marseilles, quietly removed HCQ from their shelves and made it a prescription-only drug, something that’s rarely if ever done, anywhere.  


Why?  It turns out if you have any available approved medicine that works, you cannot do an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for any other medicine.  


Cui Bono?  The vaccine manufacturers.  


On April 7, the CDC announced there were no approved drugs to treat COVID-19.  Meanwhile, the media continued to wail about the mounting cases and deaths.


Lancet and NEJM fake it


Something was definitely up, Gold concluded, and the infamous Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine articles in May proved it.  Lancet said they had tracked over 90,000 patients and concluded HCQ was decreasing hospital survival rates and causing patient deaths.  Where the hell did Lancet get 90,000 patients in so short a period of time?


Turned out the research was the offspring of Surgisphere, a company in Chicago with six employees, including a science fiction writer and an adult model and events hostess.  The NEJM squandered their reputation with the same Surgisphere data.  Both journals retracted their HCQ studies, but the damage had been done. 


Gold with five other doctors spoke to Deborah Birx about prescribing HCQ off-label and the difficulty they were having.  Birx suggested doctors could prescribe it for malaria.  


Come again?  


Birx, on the coronavirus task force committee, was telling her that doctors who wanted to prescribe HCQ for Covid could get around the restriction by writing the prescription for malaria.  Gold says she recorded the conversation.  


On June 15, 2020 the FDA revoked the EUA for HCQ and CQ for the treatment of COVID-19, due to”serious cardiac adverse events and other serious side effects.”  


 “Excessive use of Tylenol is the number one reason for liver transplants,” Gold says.  “Does that mean we don’t sell Tylenol?”  Or aspirin?  In the ER, she would see some degree of GI bleeding from aspirin almost every day.  


We know about this virus, she says.  It is controllable.  You don’t necessarily die if you’re old.  But if you’re obese, diabetic, and are denied early treatment, you might do badly!


Survival rates are excellent for all age groups with no treatment.  With early treatment they’re close to 100%.  “That we’re even talking about this is abnormal.  From my perspective as an ER physician, this is sheer insanity.” 


Suspicions grow when we see governments locking down children and failing to protect people in high-risk categories, she says.  Public health textbooks have long provided guidance for fighting pandemics.  One, protect the frail.  We knew early on that the frail were dying.  We didn’t protect them.  Two, don’t quarantine the healthy.  Three, treat early.  Don’t tell patients to go away and come back when the condition gets worse. That used to be called malpractice.  Four, please note that doctors are traditionally risk averse — don’t smoke, don’t drink, don’t eat sushi when you’re pregnant.  Oh, but do take this experimental vaccine!


Her message: Tell people how WEIRD all this is.  What is the chance of survival for a 35-year-old woman?  99.98% with no treatment at all.  How can you say she should take something experimental?  


At minimum, all of the doctors supporting the vaccine are violating their Hippocratic oath.  


My message: Get her book.


***


If you find value in the author’s articles, please consider purchasing one or more of his products. George Ford Smith is the author of nine books, including The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, a novel about a renegade Fed chairman.  He is also a filmmaker whose works include Do Not Consent- Think OUTSIDE the voting booth, Last Day, and Risky Pinch Hitter

 

Thursday, August 19, 2021

Memo to the vaccinated: Get off our backs!

Regarding the current push to get everyone to take an experimental vaccine, there is only one consideration: Whose decision is it?

I’ll answer that.  It’s yours.  It’s mine.  Do as you wish but don’t tell me what to do.  


But the reality is quite different.  Our freedoms are becoming contingent on getting vaccinated, with our inalienable rights swept under the rug.  The unvaccinated are being demonized as a threat to the obedient.  Some even signed Mark Price's fake petition to arrest and jail uncompliant adults. Then there is opinion such as this:

The unmasked and unvaccinated range from the misinformed and time-constrained, to the lazy and selfish, to those who are ideologically committed or deep in the grip of conspiracy theories. At the very edge of the spectrum of shame are the self-serving political, media and activist leaders who feed vaccine misinformation and encourage skepticism though they should know better.

It’s really true: Anything that departs from established narrative is conspiracy theory, and if it’s CT it can’t be conspiracy fact.  And of course concern for our health and the health of our progeny is selfish in the derogatory sense, and lazy we are to research and challenge the shifting claims of bureaucrats who exist to serve our well-being.


We have been overloaded with social media, seemingly on their own, censoring unwanted information.  But as press secretary Jan Psaki made clear on July 16, 2021: 

So we are regularly making sure social media platforms are aware of the latest narratives dangerous to public health that we and many other Americans seeing ...


So let me give you an example, just to illustrate it a little bit. The false narrative that remains active out there about COVID-19 vaccines causing infertility … which has been disproven time and time again.

So Jan who did the disproving?  The same guys who “disproved” the safety of hydroxychloroquine, the cheap, safe drug that has saved lives?  Probably not, they’ve disappeared, but there are always others willing to lie for a buck.


Don’t worry Jan, you’ve got the badges and guns, not Mark and Sundar.  Where would we be without badges and guns?


Arnold: “Screw Your Freedom”


In today’s cultural climate of intimation, disinformation, and censorship, it’s necessary to remind people that we are not the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or Maoist China — or any other totalitarian, murderous slave state.  In theory the governments under which we live are restrained by virtue of the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.  Our Founders knew the State is the greatest threat to their liberty, and without liberty we are slaves, a condition we seem headed for under cover of alleged safety.  Every means possible has been deployed in trying to make us forget our roots in freedom, with our media leading the charge.


No politician had the right to impose lockdowns, but they got away with it.  The damage done to young people, the least vulnerable to the virus, was far worse than the disease itself.  


Shutdowns devastated small businesses.  “As of August 31, [2020] 163,735 total U.S. businesses on Yelp had closed since the pandemic began in March, with 97,966 of those going on to shutter permanently, according to a report from the company.” Based on the math I learned, that’s 59.8% of small businesses that disappeared from the economy.  That’s a lot of pain and hardship not suffered by those who shut them down.  And for what?   


The media brayed in lockstep it was the virus that shut them down.  Don’t blame the corrupt governors for mouthing the orders, the virus was calling the shots.  Only a few business owners had the courage to defy the orders, and did so at a steep price.


Confusion reigns.  We see headlines such as this one: “People with both COVID-19 shots are fully vaccinated without booster, surgeon general says” competing with this: “You’ll likely need your third COVID-19 shot soon. Here’s when.


When facts see light there’s hope


The mind-numbing mantra that the vaccines are “safe and effective” was shattered by US naval officer J.H. Furman in a paper written in response to the Defense Secretary’s memorandum requiring all servicemen to take the vaccine or possibly face court martial.  To Furman the shots are neither necessary nor safe:

The average member of the U.S. military is young and in excellent physical fitness, two categories that are nearly immune to the dangers of COVID. So far, only 24 people out of 2.2 million military personnel have died of COVID-19, a rate of less than one per 91,000.

And:

Currently, the U.S. military has proven completely capable of weathering COVID-19 without any loss of effectiveness, so forcibly making the entire service a test case for a novel type of vaccine is a pointless risk.

And then we find this from Paul Craig Roberts:

In the European Union (EU), more than 22,000 vaccination-associated deaths are now documented in the EU drug adverse events database. Which caused Doctors for COVID Ethics (an international doctors group from over 30 countries) to conclude on July 9, 2021 “[…] the benefits of vaccination are highly doubtful. In contrast, the harm the vaccines do is very well substantiated […]” Vaccine-enhanced herd immunity is in question. On August 3, Iceland’s Chief Epidemiologist announced that their 95% nation-wide full vaccination rate, “[…] has not led to the herd immunity that experts hoped for. In the past two to three weeks, the Delta variant has outstripped all others in Iceland and it has become clear that vaccinated people can easily contract it as well as spread it to others.” [emphasis mine]

Dr. Roberts explains why we have vaccines to deal with:

For the entirety of the time that the “pandemic” has been upon us, the official protocol enforced by CDC, NIH, FDA, and WHO has prevented known preventatives and cures—HCQ and Ivermectin—from being used to treat patients.  Eli Lilly* has announced a new cure, but it has “been put on hold,” that is, blocked from usage.  Why has the medical establishment blocked treating Covid patients with known safe cures?


In clear words, the official medical protocol is entirely responsible for the Covid deaths. It was the lack of treatment, not the virus, that killed people.


Why were people not treated?  They were not treated because the absence of any known treatment is the sole legal basis for the use of an untested, unapproved, experimental “vaccine.”  The law is clear.  Unapproved vaccines cannot be used if there is a cure. [italics in original]

The case for the vaccines is steeped in corruption.  I stand firm in agreeing with US Navy CDR Furman, that the vaccines represent a pointless risk.


Stay informed, exercise due diligence.


* Eli Lilly’s “combination therapy of two antibodies, bamlanivimab and etesevimab, effective at treating mild to moderate cases of COVID-19,” and shown to reduce the “risk of hospitalization by 70%,” was approved in February.



Links in this article:

1.  CNN's Dr. Leana Wen: Make It Clear To People That The Vaccine Is Their "Ticket Back To Pre-Pandemic Life" And Freedom


2.  Experts warn unvaccinated are greatest threat to pandemic recovery


3.  In disturbing experiment, Americans sign petition to arrest and jail all unvaccinated adults


4.  President Biden Demands Mercola Be Banned From Social Media


5.  The Surgisphere Scandal: What Went Wrong?


6.  Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review


7.  Do Not Consent- Think OUTSIDE the voting booth


8.  The Damage of Lockdowns to Young People


9.  Yelp: 60% of small businesses were shut down are now closed forever


10.  NJ POLICE to GYM: ‘Formally You’re All in Violation of an Executive Order, On That Note, Have a Good Day!’


11.  People with both COVID-19 shots are fully vaccinated without booster, surgeon general says


12.  You’ll likely need your third COVID-19 shot soon. Here’s when


13.  Revolver Exclusive: Navy Commander Warns of National Security Threat from Mandatory Vaccination


14.  Here’s what will happen to US troops who refuse mandatory COVID-19 vaccines


15.  US Navy Commander J.H. Furman Concludes that mandatory vaccination of US military personnel is a threat to US national security


16.  Eli Lilly's combo therapy for COVID-19 cuts serious illness and death in large study


If you find value in the author’s articles, please consider purchasing one or more of his products. George Ford Smith is the author of nine books, including The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, a novel about a renegade Fed chairman.  He is also a filmmaker whose works include Do Not Consent- Think OUTSIDE the voting booth, Last Day, and Risky Pinch Hitter


Thursday, August 5, 2021

Our enemy is STILL the state

In The Great Fiction, author Hans-Hermann Hoppe starts where any discussion of government should begin, with the defining attributes of a state. 


Why this approach?  Governments that populate the earth are all states, though there is no good reason they should be.  


What are these attributes, exactly? The most salient feature of a state is its self-appointed monopoly powers.  If it declares it can’t be sued, it can’t be sued.  If it or its agents decide to tax its subjects, it will fleece them.  If it decides to go to war, it will unleash its war machine. If it decides to outlaw market-derived money, which has been gold and silver, and replace it with easily-inflatable fiat currency, everyone must begin accepting the state’s money in trade.  Any violation of these laws is subject to punishment, enforced by the state’s badge-carrying thugs.


Those who constitute the state apparatus are a minority in any society, and thus need to convince the rest of the population that their rule is necessary, just, and inevitable.  For this they engage intellectuals, who otherwise would be at the mercy of the market and would largely remain unemployed.  As Hoppe points out, not just some intellectuals but all of them.

Even intellectuals working in mathematics or the natural sciences, for instance, can obviously think for themselves and so become potentially dangerous. It is thus important that [the state secures] their loyalty.  

Thus, during the 2020 presidential campaign we witnessed a major American popular science magazine, among others, endorsing the candidate for whom the state is foundational to his programs. 


In education as elsewhere, the state becomes a monopolist.  Importantly, education up to a certain level must be compulsory, to teach people to think as subjects of the state.   


Have the intellectuals done their job?  Ask people if they think the institution of the state is necessary, and Hoppe believes 99% of them will say it is.  States have been around so long they seem part of nature, like trees and bees, or floods and earthquakes.  One of the great achievements of the statist intellectuals is never allowing the question of the necessity of the state “to come up for serious discussion.  The state is considered as an unquestionable part of the social fabric.” 


But if it is questioned, Hobbes and his “state of nature” argument apparently wins the day.  According to Thomas Hobbes, without a state life is permanent conflict.  As Hoppe writes,

Everyone claims a right to everything, and this will result in interminable war. There is no way out of this predicament by means of agreements; for who would enforce these agreements? 

The only solution is the establishment of a third independent party, by agreement, to serve as “ultimate judge and enforcer,” what has been called a state.  But as Hoppe argues, there’s no way this arrangement can come about peacefully, because a prior state must exist to enforce it.  


States are conquering parties that have imposed their will on its subjects.  

If A and B now agree on something, their agreements are made binding by an external party [the state]. However, the state itself is not so bound by any outside enforcer. . .  The state is bound by nothing except its own self-accepted and enforced rules, i.e., the constraints that it imposes on itself. Vis-à-vis itself, so to speak, the state is still in a natural state of anarchy characterized by self-rule and enforcement, because there is no higher state, which could bind it. 


State has the guns, market has the goods


As states grow their agents make deals with major market entities.  In today’s world it is quite easy for a state to purchase anything it wants.  With a monopoly money producer in its ranks, it can always borrow what it needs if there is insufficient tax loot available.  And as its debt grows no one cares, except a few Austrian economists.  


Why would a nominally private firm deal with the state?  For legislative or other privileges, in addition to the revenue.  A firm that refuses to deal with the state runs the risk of penalties.  Under state rule, laws are made to be broken, and they’re broken every minute of the day.  As Jeff Thomas writes,

The level of governmental dominance now exists to such a degree that literally everyone is a criminal, whether they know it or not. It’s been estimated that the average American commits about three felonies per day, in addition to many lesser crimes. If, for any reason, the authorities wished to victimize you, they’d find their task quite simple.  (My emphasis)

A cozy and broadening relationship with formerly free-market entities develops, often under the heading of state capitalism.  The entrepreneurial spirit that created companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and others has been corrupted by state interference. 


In our ongoing Covid environment, pharmaceutical firms, social platforms, and government agencies are working hand-in-hand.  How can a vaccine be granted an EUA if other safe and effective treatments are available?  If, for example, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are safe and effective, as well as cheap and plentiful, the vaccines get put on hold.  Therefore, not merely dis vaccine alternatives, but threaten and arrest those promoting their use.


Hoppe sums up his discussion of the state with a proposed riddle:

Assume a group of people, aware of the possibility of conflicts between them. Someone then proposes, as a solution to this human problem, that he (or someone) be made the ultimate arbiter in any such case of conflict, including those conflicts in which he is involved. Is this is a deal that you would accept? I am confident that he will be considered either a joker or mentally unstable. Yet this is precisely what all statists propose.
 

Links used for this article:


If you find value in the author’s articles, please consider purchasing one or more of his products. George Ford Smith is the author of nine books, including The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, a novel about a renegade Fed chairman.  He is also a filmmaker whose works include Do Not Consent- Think OUTSIDE the voting booth, Last Day, and Risky Pinch Hitter








 

Wednesday, July 14, 2021

The limited government dilemma

Libertarians call for a free society but few, if any, bother to define what this means or explain how to achieve it.  Is a free society one with a limited government?  If so, how do we keep it limited?  Who gets to define the limitations?  How many people today even want a limited government?  Not many, or libertarianism would be more popular.

The path to this limited government ideal is cleared by unlearning the fallacies government schools have taught us.  But if the unlearning is consistent, the result will be to wipe government as we know it out of the picture altogether.  Not even libertarians want that.  Why else would there be a Libertarian Party?  Someone has to oversee this limited government to make sure it doesn’t meddle unnecessarily in our lives, and libertarians of the Libertarian Party are presumably most fit for the job. 


Libertarians are stuck with an inconsistent premise.  Their sacred nonaggression principle seemingly must coexist with an agency of aggression, allowing some people to dictate to others in the form of laws, orders, or decrees.  


For libertarian authors, this isn’t necessarily a bad deal.  They get to expose the state’s countless evils, and other limited-government libertarians love reading about them, even if it darkens their day.  And it’s not just libertarians who soak it up — regular people, who run their lives on common sense, recognize criminality when they see it without having read Murray Rothbard.  


The situation for libertarians reminds me of eager researchers devoting their lives to finding a cure for cancer.  A cure would be wonderful, but it would also end research funding.  If anarchy is the cure for the state, what would libertarians write about if it’s gone?  (On the issue of cancer research, see Bill Sardi’s We Already Know How to Cure Cancer.)


Suppose, though, that anarchy isn’t the ultimate political horror?  What if “anarchy” serves as cover for a free market and a free society generally?  What is it about the free market that it can provide almost all, but not quite all, of society’s needs?  Is it possible that’s a myth—or worse, a hoax?  


Let’s look at a few examples.


Why can’t free men (and women) decide on their own to institute courts and advertise their benefits to the public?  Why can’t others do the same and attempt to persuade the public their courts are better?  And wouldn’t it be possible that some people would prefer the courts of A over the courts of B?  And couldn’t they contract with others to agree on which courts to use in cases of dispute?  


Who among us would feel safe without a means of protecting ourselves from foreign invaders?  Would this not be an incentive for companies to offer defense services, and knowing they have competition, to open up their operations for public inspection?  


What would happen to the needy under a free market?  Would they be left to perish in a so-called dog-eat-dog world?  Other people, acutely aware of their own vulnerability, have proven to be charitable even in an age when government has grabbed the welfare reins.  In days before the welfare state, charity was the pride of the semi-free society we once had.  


Would income disparity exist under a free market government?  Absolutely, just as disparities exist among people in all areas of life.  But the fortunes made by some would depend largely on their ability to satisfy customers, not on their nonexistent political connections.  Under coercive government Burton Folsom’s political entrepreneurs (the real Robber Barons) thrive at the public’s expense.  


When you hear “anarchy,” think “free market” and remember all the blessings it has brought us — and when you hear “government” think of war, the IRS, its response to 9-11, the war on drugs, Critical Race Theory, the decimation of the dollar, the Deep State, spying, the covid hoax, stolen elections, and the rest of its contributions to our lives.  



Links cited in this article:


George Ford Smith is the author of nine books, including The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, Eyes of Fire: Thomas Paine and the American Revolutionand The Fall of Tyranny, the Rise of LibertyHe is also a filmmaker whose works include Do Not Consent- Think OUTSIDE the voting booth, Last Day, and Risky Pinch Hitter.

Tuesday, June 22, 2021

Why do we live under a monopoly when we don't have to?


“there are strong reasons to suppose that civil war would be much less likely in a region dominated by private defense and judicial agencies, rather than by a monopoly State.  Private agencies own the assets at their disposal, whereas politicians (especially in democracies) merely
exercise temporary control over the State’s military equipment. . . . In the 1860s, would large scale combat have broken out on anywhere near the same scale if, instead of the two factions controlling hundreds of thousands of conscripts, all military commanders had to hire voluntary mercenaries and pay them a market wage for their services? — Robert P. Murphy, But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?


In today’s world we have nothing but coercive governments, and aside from politically-slanted media few people would say our social and economic life is in good shape and getting better.


Where is the evidence for this dim perspective?


Clearly, coercive government is not bad for everyone under its rule.  As one example, roughly half the people don’t pay any income tax, while the heaviest burden falls on relatively few high earners.  Sounds a lot like slave labor since those who create wealth for the benefit of others do so under compulsion.  Only a marginal few think this way, so the racket sails on with the blessing of moral leaders, until it either collapses or Atlas decides he’s had all he can stand.    


But what exactly is the problem with a central government that rules an area with a legal monopoly of violence?  True, the world is ruled by a multitude of bickering and sometimes threatening monopolies, with media struggling to hold the lid on government genocide, but if things work out for Klaus and Bill someday soon they will all be rolled into one big happy monopoly-fest with one Woke military force securing our safety.


But wait a minute — monopoly?  No one likes a monopoly except the monopolist and its close friends.  Any long-standing monopolist will necessarily have a lot of friends, government being the prime example.  But rather than exonerate its malfeasance, it only obscures it.  It also explains why a formal definition of government rarely appears in big media.  If people thought of government as an honest-to-God monopoly with all its documented evils they might infer something is terribly wrong with the world — but government’s grip on education and media keeps that threat a whisper.


Regardless, let’s keep this bad boy


But here’s the odd part: The great majority who see the evil in government don’t want to get rid of it altogether.  Not only do they want to keep it small, but they consider it their ideal political system: Limited government.  It’s like shrinking but not eradicating a cancerous tumor.


What’s their argument for limited government?  It is a belief that free markets are incapable of providing security from domestic and foreign threats, and are incapable of providing a legal system for securing property rights and settling disputes.  And there’s the argument that without coercive government gangs (warlords) would take over, as Robert Murphy addressed.  Free markets have never had a turn at bat, but limited-government advocates somehow insist free markets have built-in deficiencies: Markets deliver the goods, but they don’t answer the call for traditional government services (defense, courts, and police), in their view.


They don’t answer the call because they’ve been forbidden to answer the call.


They also somehow think limited government will stay limited.  They are big on history yet didn’t get the memo: Governments grow, and as they grow they take a great many down with them, through intent and incompetence.  This is anything but a secret.  Any night watchman government that wants to flex its muscles can create a crisis.  Emergencies call for extraordinary measures, and though the emergency might end only some of the measures go away.  Government thus accumulates an inventory of interventionist statutes, such as the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 and The Current Tax Payment Act (withholding tax) signed into law on June 9, 1943.  Free-market economist Milton Friedman had a hand in creating withholding legislation, commenting in his memoirs, 

At the time, we concentrated single-mindedly on promoting the war effort. We gave next to no consideration to any longer-run consequences. It never occurred to me at the time that I was helping to develop machinery that would make possible a government that I would come to criticize severely as too large, too intrusive, too destructive of freedom. Yet, that was precisely what I was doing.

Free markets can provide for all our needs, if only we let them.  


The first step in living under a free market government is to announce you want to.  For more information see my book, Do Not Consent, or watch my YouTube movie of the same name.


***


George Ford Smith is the author of nine books, including The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, Eyes of Fire: Thomas Paine and the American Revolutionand The Fall of Tyranny, the Rise of LibertyHe is also a filmmaker whose works include Do Not Consent- Think OUTSIDE the voting booth, Breaking Free from 2020, Last Day, and Risky Pinch Hitter.

We are under attack

Air Force veteran Brandie LaCasse told CBS News recently she is owed more than $23,000 in unpaid rent on three upstate New York properties ...