PDA

View Full Version : From Citizen to Serf in 200 Years




Todd
09-02-2009, 02:34 PM
P.C Roberts get's it on so many levels.:)


From Citizen to Serf in 200 Years
by Paul Craig Roberts


America is a strange place. Liberals get emotionally distraught that the Founding Fathers stuck Second Amendment rights in the Constitution. For American citizens to possess firearms is considered to be dangerous. Yet, it is quite all right for Americans to possess deadly green mambas.

Mambas are large, fast and very poisonous African snakes whose bite is usually fatal. Their venom is neurotoxic and cardiotoxic. It attacks the central nervous system and shuts down the lungs and heart. On Aug. 20, a Comcast workman was installing an underground cable outside an apartment building in Hollywood, Fla., when he was bitten by a green mamba.

Capt. Ernie Jillson, head of Miami-Dade Fire Rescue’s Venom Response Unit, said the green mamba probably only delivered a warning bite instead of a lethal one. The Comcast worker was saved by antivenin. It is unclear how the dangerous snake, which is still on the loose, was identified. How many Americans could identify a green mamba? Perhaps the cable company worker was an immigrant from Africa able to recognize the snake.

No one knows where the snake came from. According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 187 green mambas have been imported into the U.S. as pets since 2004. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission says that all people licensed to own or sell green mambas in the area have their snakes accounted for.

Americans who tire of their pet pythons, when they grow too large, have been dumping the snakes in the Everglades, where a large breeding population now exists that is destroying the remaining ecology of the Everglades not already destroyed by real estate developers and sugar plantations.

Will green mambas be the next immigrant invader?

Try to imagine what it is like living in a house with a mamba. Are bedroom doors tightly shut at night and carefully opened in the mornings? Do you first check to make sure the snake is still in its container before moving around the house in the morning? Imagine coming home and finding the container empty. Strikes me as far more stress than living with a handgun in the house.

I would put the stress level from a mamba right up there with the stress our politicians create for us. We never know when “our” government will next strike at our livelihood and liberty.

The White House Office of Management and Budget just announced that the federal government will be running trillion dollar annual budget deficits for the next decade. If the past is a guide, this is an underestimate.

Obama says he is going to attack the deficit by getting entitlement spending under control. He means Social Security and Medicare. Getting them under control means reducing the funding. Americans have paid taxes all their lives for retirement pensions and health care, but Obama is going to cut the promised benefits in order to fund his wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to pay for new U.S. military bases in Colombia.

We are now into the third presidential term in which the U.S. government remains mired in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Inheriting two wars didn’t stop Obama from starting a third one in Pakistan and from threatening more wars.

These wars bring no benefits to American citizens, only high costs, but the wars bring political contributions to the politicians from the interest groups that profit from the wars.

Where is the World War I, World War II and Korean War excess-profits tax? The answer is that instead of paying the U.S. Treasury, the war profiteers pay the politicians.

Obama’s budget director, Peter Orszag, says the U.S. is in a “dire fiscal situation” and requires “serious steps to put our nation back on a sustainable fiscal path.” However, halting pointless wars is not part of the Obama administration’s solution. The wars will continue. Orszag says the U.S. will be put on “a fiscally sustainable path” by “slowing the rate of health care cost growth in the long run.”

Orszag says that health care reform will not only be deficit-neutral—that is, provide no new services—but also “will incorporate changes that will help reduce the deficit.” The budget is to be balanced on the backs of Americans denied health care. And you thought your private health insurer was evil.

Many thanks to Orszag for a clear statement of U.S. government priorities.

In the face of such clarity, why are Democratic groups associated with Obama pushing a “health care reform” that will reduce health care?

The attitude of government toward taxpayers is no different at the state and local levels. Some conservatives still suffer from the delusion that government is more accountable the closer it is to the people.

Recently, NPR reported that it was the Correctional Officers Union that was behind California’s “three-strikes” law. Once that unjust law passed, California’s prison population increased fivefold. The Correctional Officers Union grew dramatically in membership. Of the $10 billion annual cost of California’s prison system, 70 percent goes for salaries and administration. One in 10 correctional officers makes $100,000 a year.

What was sold to a gullible public as an “anti-crime” measure was just another way for an organized interest group to pick the taxpayers’ pockets.

Even the “clunkers law” divided the spoils between two interest groups. Car dealers got taxpayers’ help in reducing their unaffordable inventories, and parts manufacturers saved their business by having “clunkers” limited to vehicles made in 1984 or afterward. Older cars did not qualify for the trade-in subsidy, which was hyped as a way of getting fuel-inefficient and polluting vehicles out of service.

All you need to know about “governments close to the people” can be learned by examining the property tax response to falling real estate values, foreclosures and homelessness. Jurisdictions everywhere are raising the property tax.

In America, government always comes first. The citizen last. The transformation from citizen to serf has been completed.

torchbearer
09-02-2009, 02:35 PM
from sovereign to citizen to serf.

powerofreason
09-02-2009, 03:07 PM
Inevitable, though, sadly. Doesn't have to be like that. Take away the criminal institution of government, let the market work its magic, and everyones happy.

powerofreason
09-02-2009, 03:08 PM
Read and learn, my confused friends.


Limited Government, An Impossible Dream

by John Sampson

Our present political system is coming unglued, a victim of its own contradictions. It is apparent even to those in great denial that there is something terribly wrong, that the center cannot hold, and that we are rapidly adrift in a very bad direction. The widespread anger that has been shown in town hall meetings all over the country is a sign that mainstream Americans have begun to have a sense of foreboding, and they are angry at the position in which we now find ourselves. People are looking for answers, but the old solutions obviously are not working. Any number of writers has emerged to propose remedies that were unthinkable only a few short years ago, but which are now becoming acceptable topics of discourse. These topics include such ideas as government being the cause, rather than the solution, to our current predicament. These ideas received rhetorical support from at least one of our recent presidents, but his actions, however well intentioned, continued to contribute to the problem. The libertarian position, on the other hand, is now beginning to receive increased attention and support, and there have appeared any number of fine writers who have contributed to the literature of liberty. One such line of libertarian thinking accepts that the institution of government is legitimate, but that government should be confined to certain well-defined tasks and must be strictly limited to a very small size and influence. This is known as minarchism, and it is a widely held and respected position of libertarian thought.

There appears to be reluctance on the part of many fine libertarian writers, however, to pursue their line of reasoning to its logical and final conclusion. They elaborate current failures of government in a most convincing and articulate fashion, enumerating any number of government failures, abuses, and outrages and pointing out even worse catastrophes as a result of further government mismanagement, negligence, ignorance, wrong-headedness, and even outright hostility. The "solutions" often proposed are the familiar nostrums of "limiting" government to its "rightful" functions, respect for the Constitution, reducing taxation to a bare minimum, eliminating a great deal of the current legal code, secession of one or a number of states, or even more drastic solutions.

In many articles, though certainly not all, there is the unstated position that there is something wrong with our government, or with some other affiliated state. Rarely are we exposed to the proposition that government by its very nature is an illegitimate institution, that governments arise by conquest and confiscation and no other way, and that they represent the institutionalized form of violence and coercion. In the words of Murray Rothbard, they are a criminal gang writ large.

A fairly representative position of the minarchist writers is that we demand government return to its rightful role as defined by the Constitution and as described in the Federalist Papers, where the powers delegated to the national government were "limited and few." This is a position that I held for years. It is a chimera and a lost hope so to believe, and it involves those who care about their freedom in a fruitless struggle whose outcome has been rigged long before. One of the routine ploys of running for political office is to promise to downsize government and return it to its "proper place" in our lives.

Is it not right for us to demand that which the politicians promise us over and over? Do not most of them run on a plank of change, and is not the rhetoric, year after year, to downsize government, to lower taxes, and to reduce the heavy burden of government on our lives? Yet year after year, for some unexplainable reason, government regulation becomes more onerous, taxes increase (or because of government money manipulation, taxes are nominally the same, but our standard of living inexorably continues to erode), and the government, far from being a government of consent, becomes more and more a government of naked force. Even when the citizenry almost unanimously favor a certain course of action (in this case, opposition to the financial bailouts of late 2008, or opposition to the complete federal takeover of the health care industry), our so-called leaders pretty much do exactly what they wish.

My point is that government by its very nature is not susceptible to control. If there were some hypothetical entity to which we could petition for redress of grievances when government exceeds its rightful authority, that hypothetical entity would be the real government. The reason is that government is the entity that arrogates to itself the monopoly of deadly force within a certain geographical area. It is sovereign, that is, there is no other authority to which to turn when government usurps its authority. By the logic of the many who ascribe to this theory, there is not in reality, or can there be, any usurpation, because of the fact that government is sovereign, or the supreme lawgiver. It justifies itself, and would not be expected to do otherwise. There will always be apologists who by glib fabrication and wily use of words, as well as appeals to emotion, will affirm that there is no such thing as an absolute right, and that government is justified in placing "reasonable" limits on our rights. This line of reasoning is wrong, dead wrong. A right, by definition, is absolute. That is why it is a right, and not something else. The adage that we cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater is likewise dead wrong, and the fallacy of that attack on our right to free speech has long since been proven false and discredited. But by then, the damage had been done, and the popular wisdom had been led to believe that government could circumscribe our rights whenever the government had a "sufficiently strong" reason to do so. Thus we have seen all our treasured freedoms vanish more or less within our lifetimes, certainly within the lifetimes of such close ancestors as our grandparents. Such things as sound currency, habeas corpus, privacy in our persons and papers, even freedom to practice our own religion (yes, some may challenge me on this, but I have strong evidence for my case) have come under attack and are now rather commonly understood as being subject to government control.

Our venerated Constitution was written to "bind our government down with chains," to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson. But government, by its very nature, cannot be bound with chains. A "limited government" is a contradiction. Either it is limited (in which case, the entity doing the limiting is sovereign), or it is government. It cannot be both. I challenge any reader to enumerate for me any government within recorded history that did not grow and metastasize. It is in the nature of governments to do this. It is what governments do. It is of no more validity to insist that government remain within its circumscribed bounds than to insist that a breast cancer limit itself to a small part of the body, and for life to go on as before.

I hesitated at the logical conclusion of this line of thought, and I did so for many years. Even the word "anarchy" had a very negative and unsavory association in my mind. Basically, it connoted chaos, and I recoil at chaos as much so or more than any man on earth. It is the one condition that nature abhors, and is to be avoided at all costs. But after much immersion both in libertarian literature and even religious literature, I have come around 180 degrees from my former position. I believe our addictive attraction to the power of government to improve our lives is the very thing that has got us into our current predicament, and that government, far from securing our lives, liberty, and property, is the only real threat to them. It actually fosters chaos, and retards the process of mutually beneficial exchange that is the very basis of civilization. Government is the mortal enemy of mankind and civilization. Call it what you may, either free market, creative and peaceful anarchy, or whatever, the alternative to government is the only hope we have of enjoying ourselves, and passing on to our progeny, the blessings of life, liberty, and property. There is no middle ground, and we are engaged in a fierce struggle whose outcome will be monumental.

I would urge those who are inclined to liberty to carefully reconsider their position in regard to anarchism. Granted, it is a minority opinion, even within the libertarian community. But that does not of itself make it wrong, only under-appreciated to this point. In the event that the forces of freedom win the titanic contest with collectivism with which we are now mightily contending, what are we to do with our victory? Shall we return yet again to that faith in government that has been so destructive to this point? For more than 2,500 years we have tried the same thing, over and over, always with the same dismal results. The greatest political minds of the age, informed by the most advanced and elevated thought, and concentrated as they were in a rather small geographical area, of fairly similar backgrounds, education, and values, and mindful of the centuries of government abuse that preceded them, produced what was regarded as the finest political document ever crafted by the hand of man. In the words of Lysander Spooner, however, the Constitution either provided for the situation in which we find ourselves today, or it was powerless to stop it. In any event, it was not worthy of consent.

If we are able to win our titanic struggle, are we to try yet one more time to make government work? Will it be different this time, and if so, why? In the almost certain likelihood that we find ourselves back exactly where we are right now, will all our struggle have been merely to have put off the inevitable victory of totalitarianism just a bit longer? I cringe at the thought. A beautiful future beckons us, if only we remove our self-imposed shackles.

August 29, 2009

InterestedParticipant
09-02-2009, 05:12 PM
From Citizen to Serf in 200 Years
I'm no citizen and I am also no serf. My mind is not controlled by their techniques, and the spirit of the Declaration of Independence burns brightly, a light that will not be extinguished by childish power plays.

PC Roberts COINTEL ass is going straight to hell with the rest their phony network of controlled assets. Humanity is gong to win this final battle and marginalize them forever, for their techniques are outdated, rigid, transparent and hence, no longer effective. What their technocracy does not understand is that it works under its own systems of control, and their internal control systems block them from critical feedback. This arrogance, their misunderstanding of the Ghost in the Machine, and the publics rapidly accelerating awareness has moved society past the point of no return. Baudrillard's "reversibility" is at hand.