Archive for the ‘constitutional law’ Category

Is it Constitutional in America to Discriminate in a Business? An Internal Debate

August 5, 2013

Silverwolf cleared the decks of his internal Parliament, and presented to the tabula rasa MP’s the following question: Should it be legal and is it constitutional to discriminate, on whatever basis one wishes, in one’s business in America? For example, should it be legal for an American Citizen, of Turkish cultural background and ethnicity, to refuse to sell to American-Armenians, or not let them in his store, which is open otherwise to the general public?

Obviously, this was one of the key questions and objections in the Civil Rights Act of 1963, Few doubted that picketing in protest outside of a business was a legitimate exercise of Free Speech Rights as long as the thoroughfare was kept open to the flow of pedestrians, but was it legal to enter the premises and then sit-in, in effect crippling the owners ability to do business?

This was the question that tormented Silverwolf through the long, stormy, frigid nights of the winter of ’11. Tossing and turning in his wolf’s lair, Silverwolf debated with himself this key issue which is so weighty for American jurisprudence and political theory.

First off, if I can discriminate in whom I let into my private residence, why should I not be able to discriminate in whom I let into my business premises? The meateater, the Nazi, the hunter, the fisherman, the vivisectionist, and the Stalinist all pay taxes, but if I choose not to let them into my private residence or property, nobody cries foul or racial discrimination. So why should it be different for a business?

I put this question to the late Blue Dog, a bluedog Democrat. His snap answer was that businesses were there to serve the public.

Silverwolf chewed this over, but it seemed a little idealistic to him after a few hours mulling. Come on, businesses ain’t there to serve the public; they’re there to make a profit for the owners and stockowners, and they wouldn’t start it if they didn’t think they would materially gain from it (unless they were a Good Samaritan starting the business solely to serve the public, with no interest in any profits over and above those necessary for a rude self-maintenance — not your typical business owner in America). The businessmen’s interest in profit, to further their personal pleasures, was no different than my interest in my own personal pleasure in keeping the meateater, the hunter, and the Nazi out of my desmesne, even though the meateater, hunter and Nazi might all pay taxes that pay for police and fire protection that benefits me and my property, and from which they are excluded. If it’s fair for me to exclude them from my Residential Property, why is it unfair, and even immoral, for them to deny me access to their business property, simply because I’m a wolf?

This really puzzled Silverwolf, and he recalled that Senator Barry Goldwater had objected to the Civil Rights Act precisely on this point of business owners being able to have property rights over their business premises.

Then Silverwolf argued with himself against this business discrimination with the following argument: the business district in town in limited to a certain area; if businesses were allowed to discriminate, it would be possible for a block of racist business owners to effectively exclude everyone in an area from vital necessities and services which would, de facto, force them to leave the area. For example, if all the hardware stores and food stores in the business district of a rural town were owned almost exclusively by a group of White racists, they could in effect make it impossible for all the Black people in an area to obtain the food and building materials they would need to survive in that area, and no new Black entrepreneurs could come into the market because the White racists held a virtual monopoly on all the available business licences and rentals.

Now this problem bifurcates into two problems for the Libertarian, for his reply might be that zoning laws are anti-Capitalist restrictions on Free-Market activity, and in a Libertarian society one could set up a business wherever one deemed fit. This would in effect end the monopoly on business licences that occurs when a business district is created, and business permits are required to conduct trade, that blatantly Communist restriction on Capitalism which has been so miserably tolerated for so long in America. This ending of business zoning would mean that would-be Black entrepreneurs could set up shop wherever they willed, and the racist monopoly over business licences and premises would be smashed.

But here we come to another problem in the road. So far, we have only discussed discrimination in those businesses which front onto public thoroughfares, and let’s assume for the moment that such discrimination is illegal exactly because these businesses, due to their location, can be called public businesses which have a moral duty under some undefined natural law to serve all customers, regardless of race, religion or creed. But what if we postulate a business that does not front onto a public thoroughfare, a business which was contained completely within the property of a private landowner? Should the owner of such a business be free to discriminate on the basis of race or religion?

For example, say a Korean Supremacist opens a business on a 40 acre parcel of land he is fortunate enough to own in the midst of a major downtown metropolis. The parcel is divided into two 20 acre parcels. He operates a public business that faces onto the public street in which he does not discriminate, located on the front 20 acres, But on the back 20 acres, which at no point border public property, he creates a 5 acre business zone, enclosed entirely by the private 20 acres, to which he will only permit admittance to those he regards as racially pure Koreans, who share his Korean-Supremacist views. No Whites or non-Koreans or “Whitey-lover” Koreans are allowed in this complex of stores, and the stores only accept Korean Won in payment. Is such a store illegal under the 1963 Civil Rights Act?

At this point, a great Rothbardian White Light seemed to blind Silverwolf, although he had his eyes closed to give his eyelid muscles their usual afternoon nap. He suddenly saw the solution to his dilemma, but it proved not to be final.

The solution was actually very simple. What does it say on the money? A Federal Reserve note, legal tender for all debts, public and private. It was herein that the solution lay.

If a Federal Reserve Note is legal tender and a store owner on a public street (or in a public announcement like a newspaper ad) advertises something for sale in his storefront window, then the asking price of that good or service becomes a private debt publicly advertised, and any person with the requisite amount of federal reserve notes should be able to satisfy that private debt and obtain the good or service touted. In other words, offering something for sale in terms of Federal Reserve Notes requires that you accept those notes from anyone who offers them if the private debt was publicly advertised. Not to do so would violate the contractual conditions printed on the money.

So the real reason why it is illegal to discriminate on business properties but not on private residence properties is because the Federal Reserve Note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and anyone in America who has these notes has a right to exchange them for any publicly advertised private debt.

However, what would happen if we had precious metal coinage, as is stipulated by the U.S. Constitution? Since this coinage would not be a Federal Reserve Note, (and the Federal Reserve itself would hopefully not exist at that point) then it seems to us that the argument we made above, for non-discrimination when it comes to the use of Federal Reserve Notes, might no longer be valid. And the same problem might arise if the store only displayed its prices in foreign currency or currencies, since these are not legal tender for all debts public and private in America.

So under current law, could business owners legally discriminate against customers if they only accepted gold and silver (and copper?) coins or foreign currency as payment for their wares?

This question remains unanswered, and Silverwolf is still as Libertarianly-puzzled as before. As to what the truth of the matter is, and if there is an unshakeable political reason why discriminating in one’s business premises is immoral, it remains unclear to him.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww—Silverwolf

Advertisements

Libertarianism and Socialism: Shared Concepts of Two Antagonistic Philosophies

July 21, 2013

One has talked (and is not writing, talking?) long and hard contra the Socialistic Philosophy of government, and taken it to task many times in our essays, but we cannot overlook the affinities, and, yeah, even the agreements of Libertarians and Socialists.

Firstly, Libertarians and virtually all Socialists agree, though they may not even be conscious of the fact, that they both accept the Industrial System as necessary to a viable modern society. There still may be a few Socialists who would like to smash the weaving looms of modern society, and return to a primitive society, where everything was handmade, where we gave up the automobile and returned to the horse, with its concomitant huge increase in futures trading in oat contracts, and crushed all the farm equipment, sending Bucyrus-Erie stock eerily lower, and where we reverted from the computer and the iphone to the letter and the smoke-signal. A return to the pre-Industrial Age would certainly solve the unemployment problem.

However, these primitive Socialists are few in number compared to all the Socialists in the world who just love all the comforts and distractions provided them by the Industrial System. And certainly the Democrats and Republicans—those milquetoast individuals who lack the clear or clouded passionate vision of the Libertarians and Socialists and fall somewhere ‘tween the two, — certainly those Lost Soles wandering away from Truth also accept the modern Industrial System as a given of modern society and their own individual enjoyment.

So virtually everybody agrees on the necessity of the modern Industrial System, and you can see this truth now throughout the world. The psyche of the Indian and the Chinese will soon be identical to the Wyoming Wyomian or the Battersea Londoner. We want our commodities, and we’re not going back to the “good ol’ days” of great-great-grandpa.

The key insight that Libertarians have over Socialists in this area is the necessity for the Libertarian, or Classical Liberal, for the Free-Market to exist in order for this industrial system to exist and thrive. Whenever government intervention or diktat interferes with the Free-Market, the Industrial System suffers because it needs that free-market to thrive. There has been so much wealth built up in America due to the relative freedom of its industrial sector heretofore, especially before the introduction of the income tax, that it has built up a huge capital reserve of this wealth, and government has been able to parasitically suck off that wealth for almost eighty years now, and even before. But as you can see, and as Mises predicted, middle-of-the-road Socialism eventually breaks down the entire economic order, and we can see that in America today very clearly, where things are far worse than thirty years ago, although we could see the emerging problem clearly even then. But the general public of Democrats and Republicans never or rarely see the connection between this middle-Socialism and the final economic breakdown of society, as we’re seeing in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy, because of the huge lag-time between Cause and Effect in the economic sphere.

A second affinity between Libertarianism and Socialism is their common view that there is a Ruling Class in society; they just differ on who that ruling class is.

To Libertarians, the Ruling Class are those people who have seized control of the State Apparatus, the Government, and are ruling the rest of Society. In the old days it was the King and the Nobles. Under the Czar, for example, it was the Czar, his family and relations, the other Russian nobles, the military men, the contractors who got the government purchase orders, and the vast bureaucracy, including all the retired bureaucrats drawing lucrative pensions. In North Korea, it is obviously the Illwind Kim family and the top military brass who are the Ruling Class.

In modern America, the Ruling Class are the people in government, both the politicians and the bureaucratic heads, the administrators, and generally the workers, who receive much higher pay and retirement benefits than those in the Free-Market sector. In addition to these, the ruling class includes the government contractors and consultants who do business with the State, as well as the corporations who get farm subsidies, the scientists and specialists working for government scientific departments, the university administrators and professors who draw huge salaries thanks to government subsidies to many favored universities, and of course the thousands of major corporations who benefit from government loans, subsidies, or craftily crafted tax breaks specific to their situations.

Finally, in America, the Ruling Class also includes the millions receiving welfare benefits or checks from the government every month who will go out and religiously vote for those parties or politicians who will guarantee that those benefits and checks will continue to flow. Thus, even many poor people are in the Ruling Class in America, although they might not see themselves that way, or may still complain about how they have been victimized by society, which in one sense is true since that has been a Socialist society essentially since FDR, and such a society crushes the Individual by dissipating his energy in a thousand useless activities that would not exist under a Libertarian government.

To the Socialists, however, the Ruling Class are the Capitalists, the people who pay the wages to the factory workers, even though these workers may have, for the first time in their lives, more money than they ever had before, and can experience the freedom to choose from many consumer products that they obviously feel make their lives more commodious. Few Americans would now use an old Sears Catalog or old newspapers for toilet paper, but in the 1930s and before, it was probably fairly common.

Moreover, these workers make possible the consumer products that the Socialist uses and likes just as much as the Libertarian. It seems contradictory for them to say, “Yes, we like all these products that the exploitative, wicked, industrial factory system makes possible, but we also want to “liberate” these workers from there drudgery.” And if they “liberated” them to the extent that nobody had any incentive to work at dull jobs, then their “bourgeois comforts” would quickly disappear. Did you notice how the Communist in “Reds” had to have her Chase&Sanborn coffee, and how Stalin and Castro were addicted to tobacco? Food could have been grown in place of all the coffee and tobacco Communists and Socialists have consumed since the start of their movement, and saved many from starvation. Masses of grain and potatoes could have gone into food feeding masses of Human Beings, instead of going into all the beer and vodka that German and Russian Socialists have drunk since the start of the Communist-Socialist project.

So Libertarians and Communists or Socialists agree that there is a Ruling Class in Society, they just differ radically as to who that Ruling Class is.

Another aspect of Socialism that is also embraced by Libertarianism is the essentially Libertarian quality of Democracy as a revolt against Monarchy or one-man rule or Totalitarianism. That everybody should get to decide equally on major decisions that affect large chucks of society is obviously much fairer than that one lunatic should get to make the decisions and all are forced at gunpoint to obey him.

However, despite its Libertarian quality, Democracy was soon seen to quickly decay into Mob Rule through Government, with Tyranny in the name of “the People” replacing Tyranny in the name of the King. This could only be corrected by a Bill of Rights for all Individuals, which would protect the minority and the Individual against the depredations of Society at large.

That struggle for the Bill of Rights is still being fought in America, 237 years after Jefferson wrote it down, and encapsulated in that document the essence of his studies of the Classical Liberals, or Libertarians, who came before him.

And so, both Libertarians and Socialists look favorably on Democracy as a reaction to Authoritarian Dictatorship or Monarchy, and as a process for electing people to public office. The Libertarians just also insists on a Bill of Rights, and say that Democracy without a Bill of Rights can and most probably will be just as tyrannical, if not more so, than Monarchy.

Finally, besides Libertarians, Socialists seem to be the only political group that has a passionate desire to radically change the world and society. Most Democrats and Republicans want things to roll on pretty much as they are now, with a little tinkering or reform to smooth out the thousand-and-one-insults to the psyche that psychic flesh is heir to in America. And Socialists have changed the societies they have taken over radically, though almost invariably to the worsement of their peoples, save for perhaps Yugoslavia under Tito when he backtracked and started his program of de-stateification, or a move back towards Free-Markets.

So while Libertarians and Socialists differ fundamentally over principles of political and economic theory, and individual rights, they do agree on a whole list of issues, and that should not be forgotten while they are ripping each other apart, politically speaking.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww—Silverwolf

They Call It Democracy: The Great American Myth

July 12, 2013

Listen to any speech of the Democratic Donkey and you will probably hear them braying out a lot of hot air about “Democracy”, and how “our Democracy” is so wonderful. People who criticise “Democracy” are labelled as Fascists, although Fascists like Hitler attacked “Democracy” too.

But do we have Democracy in America? Silverwolf is always hearing people say we do, but how can that be?

First off, let us say that we do not object to Democracy in the sense of Democratic elections picking elected officials, and deciding ballot measures. Of course, we should have majority rule; of course, the people should vote and 50.01% or more should decide the elections; but only in a Democratic Republic or a pure Democracy with a Constitution and Bill of Rights similar to ours, which institutionalizes the basic tenents of Classical Liberalism, now called Libertarianism, which were developed by many European thinkers during the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, and synthesized by Jefferson into the American Constitution. Without such a Bill of Rights, Democracy does indeed lead to mob rule, and the tyranny of the majority over a minority, or even over just one individual (as in the case of the innocent person who is convicted of a capital crime and executed — he is in effect and in fact murdered by those individuals in society who support the death penalty and vote for it, or serve on juries that impose it. Indeed, if justice were truly to be done under our own current law, every time an innocent individual is executed, all the people who voted for the death penalty should logically also be executed based on their own pro-death penalty view of the law).

But to return to the question of whether we have Democracy in America, and should we have it, let us ask you this: Would you want to be up on a murder charge of which you were innocent when the sentence for your particular crime was the Death Penalty before a jury that only needed a simple majority to send you to the gurney or the gallows? If you believe in Democracy, then why should not a simple majority of seven to five send you to the death chamber? Why doesn’t the Democratic Party “fight” for the right of juries to put people to death by a simple majority?

Then there is voting itself. If you believe in Democracy, it seems to Silverwolf you’d have to believe that at an election it should require a majority of all the registered voters, whether they vote or not, to pass a measure or elect a politician. Would that not be true Democracy, since majority rule means a majority of the eligible voters, not just those who vote?

But even that is not accurate enough, for why should it be confined solely to registered voters. If you were a true Democrat who believed in the “Rule of the People”, then you would require all the people to vote or decide an issue, not just the ones who mailed in the ballot, or just the registered voters, but all people in society over 18, and not suffering from such dementia that they could not read the ballot (illiterates could have the measures read to them by election officials, who could also show them where to fill in the little oval circles).

And what about tax measures? How can it be Democracy when it requires a 60% majority to pass certain tax and bond issues? A pure Democrat would say that has no place in a Democracy, but again, he gleefully overlooks the total populace who did not vote in the election, and claims to speak for them. Nor does he seem to mind that 20-25% of the voting registered voters can impose a tax on a whole specific class of individuals (usually property owners) in the name of Democracy, when obviously a majority of the People did not vote for the measure. In a true Democracy, a majority of Everyone (excluding children) would have had to vote on the issue, and since in actual fact only 20% of the People actually voted for the measure, the Democracy touters are obviously lying when they accept such elections as valid examples of Democracy.

Then again there are the glaring Congressional anti-Democratic requirements that it take 60% of one house or the other to override a Presidential veto, or shut up a filibusterer? How does that square with our beloved “majority rule”?

No, we do not have a Democracy in America, nor even a Democratic Republic any more. About all we have is majority rule at the elcctions, and with electronic voting instead of the old infallible paper ballots, not even that is a sure thing.

No, we don’t hate Democracy with a Bill of Rights, but we know from history that Democracy without the Bill of Rights soon leads inevitably to mob rule and the exploitation of the minority.

And since the Bill of Rights is actually, in a profound and deep sense, a defense of private property Rights (i.e., you can’t have a free press without the Right to privately own a printing press and newsprint, or free speech without the Right to rent a private hall), any Democratic Socialist society or highly collectivized society, such as EU Europe, will eventually lead to a complete breakdown of the monetary and social system, as we are currently witnessing in Europe — a development of Socialism that has taken 50 years to putrify into the current mess. Europe is the classical example of how democratic socialism always leads to “the tragedy of the commons”, that is, the overuse of underpriced social services at the expense of producers in the private sector. Eventually it ruins the “public grazing lands, the commons” for all so that none can graze there.

So next time you hear the Democratic Donkey politicians, or even their government-school brainwashed children, spout out about how grand “our Democracy” is, throw some of the above contradictions in their faces, and know you are either talking to a very ignorant fellow indeed, or else a habitual liar.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

The Paranoia of Absolute Power: From King John to Modern America

June 26, 2013

It seems that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were, unfortunately, dead right. ‘Twould be much better if absolute power made the Chief into a benevolent angel, using his power for moral ends, to better the lives of the people in one way or another, if only to get out of their way.

In the future perfect Capitalist society, where the industrious will happily work at their callings, and be materially rewarded for it, and those who wanted little but the freedom to wander, or write poetry, could go to voluntary welfare societies set up by Capitalists who believed in Socialism, — in that society there will be no coercion. One Capitalist may be greedy, but another Capitalist may be a Socialist who thinks that  everyone is entitled to the basics of food (vegan of course), clothing, and shelter. The Socialist-believing Capitalist could donate, or set up himself,  a charity, and set the rules according to his Moral Views. Such a man might agree with Erich Fromm”s argument for Socialism, once made in an interview with Los Angeles television reporter Jerry Dunphy,: “You don’t expect your dog to work. But you feed him. I think a man should be treated as well as a dog.”

Such an argument carries much weight with Silverwolf. But it presupposes and forgets two facts: Firstly, while I may feel compassionate enough to give a meal to a hungry man, the next fellow on the block may not feel the same way, and I don’t have the right to impose my moral beliefs on my neighbor. As a Libertarian, I am only concerned with his actions; and that those actions do not constitute a violation of the Libertarian non-aggression axiom: No man or group of men may aggress against the Person or Property of another man. Such an aggression is regarded by the Libertarian as “invasion”, and it is. Such an invasion is a Crime against the Property Rights of that Man, and since we own our bodies, an attack on our persons is also technically a violation of Property Rights.

Secondly, the Socialist argument above flounders in the face of the fact that by confiscating, or voting to confiscate from my neighbor, money or “taxes” to fund my own personal Socialistic moral views, I am committing an act of Violence against my neighbor, which in itself, is a form of treating a Man like a dog, the very argument used above to justify Socialism.

So, what are we to do in the face of this inconsistency between Capitalism and Socialism?

To Silverwolf the answer lies in a radically free-Capitalist free-market society, where 95% of all people had voluntarily, through no coercion, found something they loved or liked to do, and so there would be a vast Middle Class. Some people, who for their own personal reasons, wanted to accumulate truly vast amounts of Capital and Wealth, could go ahead and do so, but most people would be satisfied with a type of upper class-Middle Class life, choosing leisure and amusement over passion-driven, fanatical accumulation. Emelda Marcoses could accumulate 700 pairs of shoes if they liked, but most sane people would settle for three to seven. More than that would become encumberences to all but the collector.

In this Free-Market  prosperous Free Society, with Thomas Jefferson’s Bill of Rights rigorously enforced, a certain percentage of people would be inclined to give to charity, which would, in turn, support those who were completely physically disabled, like someone in an iron lung, or those who wanted to live completely outwardly indolent lives, but focus all their energy on the Inner Life. These would be called Philosophers and Poets, but the Philosophers and Poets would know that if the people ever became hardened enough, they might stop giving to charity, and then the Philosophers and Poets would have to deal with a precarious situation.

All these arguments are pretty academic now that we live in a world where, given the capacities of our factories, everyone could easily be given a daily ration of grains and beans, a few Mao Suits to wear during the year, and a tent that could easily be Solar Heated. Mist collectors, as we recently saw reported, can now collect and condense enough water out of the air that people can survive on it in very dry climates or areas without a well. (Just the thing you need next time you break both your ankles hiking in Chemehuevi Valley, and your car battery goes dead when you try to start it.) With such condensers,  many desert areas could become livable again. Composting toilets, and the sanitary advantages of the vegan diet, or even charity built septic systems, could serve individuals or tribes when it came to the unthinkables of these few Philosophical Indigents and Poets. (But who would read them, or join in their philosophical explorations? The rest of Mankind would be busily working away at their Callings, havin’ a great ol’ time.) Some Philosophers and Poets would even be so brilliant and engrossing that their productions of Thought and Word would sell on the open- and Free-market, and they’d grow wealthy. Look at the Stones. Jagger is a Damn Good Poet.

But say we didn’t live in such a world. Say that five or ten men owned all the land in America, that they could charge a grand-a-night rent for every man, woman, and child, and since they owned all the agricultural land, they could charge a $100/lb for cornmeal and oats, those delicacies of a vegan society. Obviously people would starve to death, and there would soon be five or ten men left, and their families, and maybe some favored buddies and their concubines.

 Such circumstances of material inequality, Professor Rothbard maintained, only exist where the Crime of Land Theft has taken place in the past, as in Central and South America, and, on a local scale, in parts of the Old American West. In other words, such inequality indicates a massive violation of the Libertarian non-aggression principle, and would have to be rectified.

But in a truly Free-Market Jeffersonian Bill of Rights Society, with a vast Middle Class, no such draconian inequality would be possible. Monopolies and Trusts, though they may exist in certain markets and local economies, soon break down, as happened over and over again to the various “Trusts” in America, because of the phenomenon of the “Price Buster”, the guy in the Monopoly or Trust who starts giving secret kickbacks to favored customers in order to take advantage of the absurd price rise the Trust has created. This happened in Sugar, Kerosene, Train Freight Charges — every kind of Trust. They always went Bust. That is, until they learned to have Government help them restrict competition, from FCC licenses to Teaching Credentials to Barbers Licenses to the Screen Actors Guild, to that crucifier of Youths, the Minimum Wage Law.

So the arguments Socialists always pull out, about how a free-Market would lead back to the poverty of the 19th century and the robber barons, is absurd, and obviously a lie to justify their religion. The Industrial Revolution, as harsh and brutal as it was, had led by the 1920s to the possibility of a comfortable, Middle Class society, although still in the 1920s, 90% of Americans were poor farmers. But the momentum of prosperity was clearly there, and now in 2013 we have an absolutely incredible technological society, so complex that no individual can hope to understand it all, unlike the American Indian and the Kalahari Bushman who could completely understand their environment. They knew Everthing they needed to survive, and were Masters at it. We know nothing, except perhaps our little niche.

For example, in the future, modern  factories could easily manufacture super suits of clothes that were especially perfect for each of the four seasons. Each citizen could buy, or would be given by the Socialist charities, one or four of these suits, and that is all the clothing they would need. The suits would last a few years or decades. But the suits would probably be boring and functional, like Mao suits, as sterile and heartless as the modern bureaucratic services one sees in Great Britain, Australia, and America Northern. Only those who worked would have the capital to obtain their clothing on the free market, where they could satisfy their personal predelictions, like the late Brian Jones, or the connoisseurs of Saville Row.

One thing the anti-Capitalists don’t like to admit is that as people as a whole get wealthier, and the Middle Class grows, the number of goods and services that people want increases, providing more work or jobs, in increasingly more specialized areas, thus creating an even more prosperous society. There would be no end to this in a truly Free-Market society. In a poor society, a hungry arthritic pensioner is not going to hire someone to walk their beloved dog; in an upper-Middle Class society it is possible, and so someone who is unemployed but loves both to walk and to be with dogs, may and probably will be able to earn a wage. In a wealthy Rich society, you might even have those who specialized in walking certain breeds, or had a magical rapport with such breeds, and their wealthy arthritic owners might pay through the nose to hire such people to walk their dogs. Such walkers might become wealthy and noted celebrities, (and then there would be the profits from their book sales when they retire: “Vicious Great Danes I Have Known and Loved”).

But all this wealth, Freedom, and non-coercion is only possible if that Free Society has the Jeffersonian Bill of Rights, and it is here that we see in the Modern World the greatest threat to that great Capitalist Libertarian Society.

Sadly, very sadly for America, the fact that the two most powerful other monolithic Powers in the Modern World. who are completely anti-Libertarian in their attitudes and rule (Russia and the Old Soviet Republics, and Fascist China) and ruled by Paranoid, self-delusional Powermongers, are now in the process of being joined by the one place in the world where there still seemed to be some remaining spark of Libertarian creativity and Freedom left: The United States of America.

That was solely due to the Bill of Rights, and the fact that a large part of her economy was still in the hands of private Capitalists (the Small Businessman and the Investor). But these two Siamese twins, the Bill of Rights and Free-Market Capitalism, were dependent on one clear inalienable Right: the Right of Privacy.

It seems that when the Paranoia of Absolute Power strikes, it strikes first at this sacred, Natural Right, the Right of Privacy, the Right to be left alone if one is not violating the Libertarian Non-Aggression Axiom. This is what that beautiful thinker, Jefferson, as well as Madison and many of the others, could see so clearly, and what the modern politicians are trying to overthrow: that Beautiful Fourth Amendment.

They’ve succeeded in that overthrow of Privacy in the Totalitarian Societies, like Fascist China, and all the dozens of other unspeakable dictatorships that curse this globe, be it North Korea or Zimbabwe.

And they’ve succeeded in the castrated Socialist societies like Australia, where the Australian Board of Statistics can throw you in jail and fine you $170/day if you do not answer questions about your sex life, as we recently saw on a report. And England and the EU, where the individual is tracked and kept track of, from Birth to Death. Never his own Man, but always a cog in the Socialist Machine.

And now, thanks to the Paranoiac in the White House, and the Politicians of both Parties, this violation of the Right of Privacy is coming to America.

Sir Richard Evans, in his brilliant series of lectures on Victorian England, pointed out that it was entirely possible for a man to go through life in Victorian England without ever once having had contact or engagement with Government or the State.

Not so in Modern America, with her dog-sniffing random searches of law-abiding motorists, or Socialist Australia, or Fascist China.

When the Lords put the squeeze on King John, he was forced to cede to them with Magna Carta, and Libertarian Freedom had its first Outbreak.

But when we come to the psycopathic Criminals and Mass Murderers, Hitler and Stalin, we can see what those who achieve absolute power, by absolutely destroying Privacy, are capable of doing. And the more power they have, the more paranoid and bloodthirsty they become. It’s almost like a Law of Nature, a Law that Thomas Jefferson well understood. Go read defecting former-KGB agent Oleg Gordievsky’s great “KGB: the Inside Story”, and you will see what Absolute Power does to the men at the top, as we are now seeing in America, as it becomes more and more a bureaucratic police state, that can harass anyone who criticizes it.

The road from The Lords of England’s victory over King John with Magna Carta, to the Libertarian Jefferson’s victory over King George III with the Bill of Rights, was a long one.

The degeneration from Hitler and Stalin until today is a short one, made all the more sinister by the perversions of modern science and technology. And the Politicians are exploiting that technology to overthrow the Bill of Rights, a Bill that doesn’t talk of “balance” when it comes to Natural Rights, but “Inalienable Rights”, Rights that can never be taken away from any Human Being without violence being perpetrated.

Is Mankind to go forward into a bright upland of Prosperity, non-coercion, and Privacy, or is he to be the plaything of Socialists and Fascists like the head of Fascist China, or the sexually-prying questions of a perverted Hag like Australia’s PM, Julia Gillard?

Strangely enough, Silverwolf believes that Libertarian Man will eventually Prevail over the Fascism and Socialism of the modern Politicians at the top.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Oregon’s Fascist Immunization Bill SB 132 Passes

June 22, 2013

Oregon’s Fascist Democratic Governor, John Kitzhaber, has stated he will sign the Fascistic SB132 Bill which requires that parents who wish to opt out of the mandatory school vaccination program will now have to not merely sign a statement that they object because of religious or systems beliefs, but also get a signed statement from a physician attesting to that fact, or else present a certificate stating that they have watched an “educational” online video on the vaccinations, euphamistically called immunizations.

This vile infringement of the Bill of Rights, which in effect requires involuntary servitude for parents in the form of going to a physician (and paying for it, of course), or being forced to sit through a video that will undoubtedly tout the “benefits” of vaccination and then present a certificate to that effect, is being foisted on Oregon parents and their non-voting children by the Fascists Democrats in the Oregon Senate who voted en bloc 16-13 against the Repulicans to send it to the House and thence to the Governor. The Fascist Kitzhaber has said he will sign this heinous and anti-Libertarian piece of state coercion.

This is just another typical example of the Fascisti that represents the Democratic Party in the Oregon Legislature and Governor’s Mansion. These Immoral Fascists say nothing about the pesticides that are routinely used around Oregon schools, to which the unvoting children are forced to submit themselves, nor the vast amounts of pesticides, including atrazine which is banned in the EU, that the Timber Industry sprays all over Oregon, poisoning children and adults, while the Governor and State Legislators do nothing about it.

This bill passed the Senate 16-13, with every Democrat voting for it, and every Republican voting against it, save one who was absent.

Several press sources have stated that the national average for non-compliance with vaccine requirements in public schools is 1.2%, while in Oregon the rate is 6.4%. In Ashland Oregon, a Liberal Democratic stronghold with an Oregon State University campus, the rate of non-compliance is reported to be 25%. It’s interesting to note that in this highly-educated, Left-leaning Liberal city, the non-compliance rate is four times the statewide average. Quite a contradiction to the Fascist Democrat Governor’s position. It well shows what an arrogant Fascist is Governor John Kitzhaber, who is also an M.D.

The solution to this criminal violation of the Bill of Rights is to vote the Democratic Fascists out of office, vote in Libertarians who respect the Jeffersonian Bill of Rights which outlaws involuntary servitude, and to close the public schools, which are merely tools of the Fascists designed to brainwash and condition small children. Parents should seek alternative modes of education for their children, like home schooling.

Oregon’s Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber and the Oregon Democrats in the Legislature —- 100% pure unadulterated Fascists.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Obama and The Bipartisan Fascists Attack Privacy and Capitalism

June 13, 2013

Once again, thanks to the voters who voted for Obama, Fascism is on the rise, reaching peaks it had not achieved since the days of Hitler and Mussolini. Its animosity towards Individuality and Privacy are well noted, and now the very people who put the Fascist Obama into the White House are cringing with fear as they realise that every intimate revelation, every minor misdemeanor, and every detail of their private lives, and business and financial transactions, have undoubtedly been stored and perhaps seen by one of the thousands of private contractor NSA financial snoopers. Soon all their medical history and conditions will also be up for blackmail, thanks to Obamacare. Capitalism and the free-market have been dealt a blow that they will probably never recover from. For Obama voters, and the rest of us, it’s too late.

Undoubtedly, many people will be blackmailed by NSA snoopers who now know intimate secrets about them. Their financial deals and trades, their sitting orders to buy or sell, can now be frontrun by NSA snoopers who can give this information to their friends, family, and business associates. The absolute necessity of Privacy to the conduct of the Free-Market has been forever destroyed by a coalition of Liberal Democrats like political commentator John Rothmann, who strongly supported Obama’s reelection, and Fascist Republicans like Lindsey “Cracker” Graham, who doesn’t mind that your Privacy has be destroyed.

However, the real criminals in this case are the people who voted for Obama over anti-Fascist choices like Congressman Ron Paul and Governor Gary Johnson. The Obama Voters have destroyed the Fourth Amendment, the inalienable Right to Privacy that Jefferson so well understood, and Free-Market Capitalism, all by sticking that stylus through the name of Barack Obama in the voting booth. The crimes that they have committed in their private lives and have put online in emails and social media are now stored on vast databanks, waiting to be used against them if they ever threaten the Fascist’s powerstructure. Thanks to their stupidity, faith in government, and lack of political science knowledge, the Obama voters have elevated the Fascist State to a new level of power.

The only benefit of all this is that now a vast swathe of the public has become deeply cynical about Collectivist Politics. They remember that Democrat Party Liberals like Oregon’s Peter DeFazio, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, who now are making such a big stink about their own privacy being invaded, were the very ones who only a few months ago were urging the people to reelect the Fascist Obama. And they continue to remain in the Fascistic Democratic Party, while the Republican Fascists actually are endorsing this heinous overthrow of the Bill of Rights under the Fascist Obama, showing that they haven’t changed much since the days of the Fascist Bush (the second one), save for the exception of Senator Rand Paul.

With a new Gallop Poll showing only 10% of the public think Congress is doing a good job, the only good news coming out of this is that there is a growing Libertarian revulsion amongst the public against the intrusions of the Fascist State against the Individual and his most intimate secrets. They now feel instinctively that Jefferson was right in saying that government is a necessary evil, but at heart an evil institution, and that its evil can only be kept in check when tied down by the Bill of Rights. But the Democratic Party politicians and voters have put an end to the Bill of Rights, now a part of past History.

The damage done to Privacy and Capitalism is irreparable. Thanks to the Obama Voters and the Bipartisan Fascist Politicians, Human Freedom has been destroyed in America.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Nix On the President: Richard Stinkhouse Obama

May 15, 2013

So he finally opened the door to the Fascist outhouse, and now all those cheering Liberals and champions of the President can smell that we were right and they were wrong when we warned the nation of the Fascist nature of President Obama. A man who could attend a church for 20 years that would give its Man of the Year award to the racist bigot, Louis Farrakhan, was certainly not fit to be President. And now the entire public, and the President’s own defenders can see why.

President Obama’s assault on Press Freedom may come as a surprise to modern Democrats in 2013, but it would have been no surprise to Thomas Jefferson, or those inflamers of the desire for Liberty, John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, the authors of the famous “Cato’s Letters” that both aroused and instructed the American colonists against Tyranny.

In those “Letters”, Trenchard and Gordon wrote, ” We know, by infinite Examples and Experience, that Men possessed of Power, rather than part with it, will do anything, even the worst and the blackest, to keep it, and scarce ever a Man upon Earth when out of it as long as he could carry every Thing his own way in it…”

“It is the Nature of Power to be ever encroaching, and converting every extraordinary Power, granted at particular Times, and upon particular Occasions, into an ordinary power, to be used at all Times, and when there is no Occasion, nor does it ever part willingly with any Advantage…” (Page Obama and Holder)

“Alas! Power encroaches daily on Liberty, with a success too evident; and the Balance between them is almost lost. Tyranny has engrossed almost the whole Earth, and striking at Mankind Root and Branch, makes the World a Slaughterhouse, and will certainly go on to destroy, till it is either destroyed itself, or, which is more likely, has left nothing else to destroy.”

No gullible believers, like the bulk of the modern American Public, these 18th century Libertarians knew that government is not a friendly neighborhood grocer, but a necessary evil full of power-hungry men who must be bound down by the chains of a Constitution and Bill of Rights. They knew the types of President Obama and Attorney General Holder very well, a quarter of a millenium ago.

Ron Paul and legal scholar Jonathan Turley have long warned against the encroachments on Liberty of the current administration, but Liberal Democrats have ignored these warnings and abuses, and have continued to support the President up to the current time. Now they, and the Public, can see what an individual they have put into power, and it is primarily their responsibility to control and even impeach him if he attempts any further outrageous crimes against Press Freedom.

But it’s good news for the Fascists: Nixon is back!

Hoooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww

Senator Ted Cruz: Cruzifying the Democrats

May 15, 2013

The name of Senator Ted Cruz was first known to Silverwolf when he heard that Ron Paul had endorsed him in the primary for Cruz’s Senate campaign, which he won. This caused some controversy among some of Paul’s supporters at the time, accusing Cruz of being a bit of a Neo-Con. These critics supported someone else, whose name we forget.

We didn’t pay much attention to Cruz, even after recently watching part of his interrogation of Senator Hagel, during the Hag’s confirmation hearings. He made good points in that questioning, which we adduced to our post on Obama’s horrendous Hagel nomination.

But the other day, we stumbled across a more extensive questioning of Hagel by Senator Cruz, and we were so impressed by the quickness and perceptiveness of his mind, and the clear way in which he spoke in complete sentences, that we were driven to watch another video clip of him. Once again we witnessed a logical, forceful presentation, with no verbal pauses, searching for words, or the useless and boring verbage that is the stock-in-trade of the average American politician. One was struck by how clear and forceful was the brain in the head of this Senator. This guy was bright!

Then we noticed an article by Professor Alan Dershowitz on his experiences teaching Senator Cruz when Cruz attended the Harvard Law School. Dershowitz pointed out that Cruz was a super-intellect, and even when he debated Dershowitz, and they didn’t agree, he’d come up with interesting and difficult-to-overcome arguments.

After reading this evaluation of Senator Cruz by Professor Dershowitz, we knew that our perception of Cruz’s intellectual prowess was no illusion.

When you listen to him argue a point in one of his speeches, he presents it like a good prosecutor (he was one), laying on the points, one after another, documenting each with irrefutable evidence, and then finally recapping the points so that it is virtually impossible to disagree with him (or not be outraged).

And Cruz has a speech style a bit like an evangelist, when he is up before a highly sympathetic audience. We noticed this in his address to the NRA last month. The way he moved around the stage, used his hands, and talked to the audience, reminded us very much of a preacher leading his flock into the sermon and the theme of the week.

One of political analyst, commentator and radio show host John Rothmann’s favorite political dictums is “You can’t beat somebody with nobody.” In other words, if the incumbent has a certain charisma or political talent for speechmaking or simply just notoriety, even if his administration has been pretty awful, he’s not going to get beaten by someone who is like milquetoast or is unknown.”

With Senator Cruz, the Republican’s have someone who is not milquetoast, and in endorsing him, Ron Paul may have helped elect an upcoming President of the United States, and, ironically, perhaps ruined the chances for his own son, Senator Paul, to become President.

We certainly wouldn’t agree with a lot of Senator Cruz’s positions, as revealed in his campaign ad regarding the religious symbol outside the Mojave Veteran’s Cemetery, or with his support for Capital Punishment. But he strikes a lot of the same themes that Ron Paul struck in his campaign speeches, and Dershowitz described his legal arguments in their debates as being essentially Libertarian.

Incidentally, we noticed a lot of hostile debate and mud-slinging between several commenters on one of Cruz’s videos, arguing whether he could be President because he was born in Canada. One person didn’t believe it, while the other didn’t seem to realize that the fact that he was born in Canada doesn’t disqualify him because his mother was an American Citizen at the time of his birth, and so could legally choose to have him be an American Citizen. Dershowitz seemed to think Cruz could easily clear the Citizenship hurdle.

So now, when we see the dismal field of nothings that populate the American Political desert, we notice one bright oasis in that alkali wasteland.

The Republicans really have an orator now, someone who can espouse something along the lines of Ron Paul, without alienating 70% of the American Population. Cruz is so far above the opposition, like Mohammed Ali or Bobby Fischer, that he could easily win the Presidency.

The Republicans finally have “Someone”.

Hooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww — Silverwolf

Obama and NATO vs Leopold and Loeb: The Afghani Child Murders

April 7, 2013

When it comes to murdering children, the contest between Barack Obama and NATO on one side and Leopold and Loeb on the other isn’t much of a contest. It looks like Barack Obama, David Cameron, Ms. Merkel, and French Socialist Hollande are way ahead of the Chicago pair when it comes to wracking up child murders in their asset column, and getting away with it too. It took all of Clarence Darrow’s verbal elegance to save the necks of the two Chicago youths for one Child Murder, but with Obama and NATO, all they have to do is issue an “apology” to the victims families, if any are left, to get away with the Murder of masses of children, and don’t expect any member of Congress or Parliament to protest the crime, now that Ron Paul is no longer in Congress. The Liberal Democrats, who are always talking about “families and folks”, have just helped Obama murder 10 more children in an bombing raid in Afghanistan, but don’t expect them to call for his trial and imprisonment, or their own.

The simple fact is that the heads of the NATO governments, who have murdered civilians in Afghanistan over and over and over in airstrikes, deserve to be tried themselves for the Crime of Child Murder, and stand in the dock at Nuremburg or the Hague. They have made themselves War Criminals, and anyone who votes for them or their supporters is aiding and abetting War Criminals and War Crimes. It’s that simple.

So, when it comes to seeing who can murder the most children and get away with it, even when everyone knows who are the murderers, it looks like Obama, Cameron, Merkel, and Hollande are far ahead of Leopold and Loeb. Such is the “morality” of the State.

In the Leopold&Loeb trial, in the mid-1920s, the great Libertarian lawyer, Clarence Darrow saved the boys’ lives by arguing elegantly, for 12 hours, against the heinous and anti-Libertarian Death Penalty, which should be abolished world-wide, and which will be abolished forthwith when Libertarian governments extend over the length and breadth of the Planet. The State should never be given the power to murder, which is why the deadly NATO airstrikes, without any trial for the perpetrators, is as much a crime as if Leopold and Loeb had gotten away with their murder of the Frank child. One wonders how Darrow would have argued to save Obama, Cameron, Merkel and Hollande from the scaffold in Nuremburg?

Let us try these four War Criminals for War Crimes in Afghanistan and give them at least the sentences imposed on the Child Murderers Leopold and Loeb — Life in Jail without parole. Not to try them will unfortunately only serve to justify the Crimes of the Taliban Criminals in the eyes of many local people, and many worldwide.

Hoooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

The “Compulsory Adult Franchise Act of 2034” or President Silverwolf the Irascible

January 20, 2013

It was in the third decade of the 21st century that the Great Plague ravaged the world, including America, and brought to the Presidency Senator Lobo Silverwolf, the Junior Senator from Nevada at the time, 61st in succession to the Presidency, so virulent was the mortal sickness.

President Lobo Silverwolf the Irascible, also known as the Wise, brought such a Libertarian zephyr of Executive Order legislation, or rather un-legislation, to the country that his retrograde Cabinet Officials, all Democrats and Republicans except for the two Libertarians who had survived the plague, could barely keep pace with it. His un-legislative and anti-planned-economy innovations were varied and diverse. Protests against his un-activism grew and became more violent, as Democratic and Republican demonstrators, mostly Democratic, called for ” a restoration of Democracy”. “We’re a Democracy, not a Republic”, greeted the President and his top advisers on trips around the country, and even his speeches were interrupted by calls for “Democracy now!”.

Finally the situation grew so unruly that no Libertarian Administration figure could give a speech, or attend a public function without being rudely interrupted. Fortunately, the surviving Libertarians in Congress  outnumbered the surviving combination of Democrats and Republicans, so President Silverwolf said to his Chief of Staff, “Since these protestors are so adamant for their Democracy, draft me a Bill that states that all Democrats and Republicans shall vote at all future elections. By “shall vote” I mean “will vote”, and the Bill will be known as the “Compulsory Adult Democrats and Republicans Franchise Act of 2034″. Since Libertarians believe that this is a Republic using democratic means to resolve its elections, and not a Democracy, and since Libertarians, unlike Democrats and Republicans, do not believe in aggressing against those who do not violate their property Rights, this Compulsory Bill will not apply to Libertarians if thus registered as of today, nor to Independents. The penalty for not voting will be set at $100 per election, with no excuses for absence permitted other than a certificate of medical sickness from a registered physician. Voting will also be extended to include offices for municipal garbage collectors, teachers, parking meter attendants, public ticket-takers, nurses, hospital food workers, librarians, sheriff’s deputies, bank presidents, sanitation workers, animal pound euthanisers, public school custodians, Congressional mail openers, and any other positions that may occur to me at a later time. Pass this Bill through Congress, and bring it to me the day after tomorrow for my signature.”

The “Compulsory Adult Democrats and Republicans Franchise Act of 2034” was passed by the remaining Congressional members 24 to 7, with all the Libertarians voting “Aye”.

Within days, some of the most fervent activists in the “Democracy Now” Movement were beginning to have second thoughts. In the countryside, the compulsory voting process became irksome, with Democrat and Republican farmers having to get up at 3am to drive to the nearest city to vote for dog catcher, or mayor’s secretary, or whatever that day’s election might be. Even the wealthier farmers found the cost of not voting prohibitive, and it became something of a prestige-getter amongst the extremely wealthy that they could afford to flaunt the Compulsory Voting Act.

In the city, a new rush hour was created from 4am to 5am, and it was only a Libertarian or an Independent who could afford to leave for work at 7. Poor Democratic seamstresses and parking lot attendants who took the bus to work found they needed to get up at 2am to find a space on the overcrowded buses, and fist-fights frequently broke out in the waiting queues as bus after bus passed with no room available.

After several weeks of this chaos, a new movement began to be heard from calling itself the “Democratic anti-Democracy Movement”. “Democrats Against the Vote”, a national organization, boasted a membership of three million within days. And “Republicans for the Republic” served the harried voters on the other side of the aisle. Many lamented they had not had the sense to register Libertarian long ago, or even Independent, and a thriving business in forged voter registration documents sprang up, with a good forged Libertarian Party membership card now bring a Grand on the Black Market.

The protests became more aggressive. A young Democrat charged at, and actually bit, the White House Chief of Staff, who had to have a series of rabies shots, while an enterprising group of anti-Democratic Feminists bound themselves to one other, each standing on the shoulders of another Feminist, until their stack completely covered the Washington Monument, showing what they thought of that symbol of Democratic Male Domination.

Yet despite the growing protests, and the increasing chaos, President Silverwolf would not issue an Executive Order quashing the Act in the name of Nation Security. The Administration was adamant: they wanted a Democracy and they’re going to have it.

The situation in the Nation had become acutely critical, until one anti-Democratic Democrat hit on the expedient of “Crying for the Republic”. Soon, tens of thousands of Democrats and Republicans were staging “Cry-ins” all around the country. Exciting baseball games were turned into lugubrious and funerial quagmires, as thousands of anti-Democracy activists wept in unison. The Sunset Strip comedy spots were invaded by gaggles of crying girls, while church services were drowned out all over the country by the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Horrified viewers saw the Hollywood Christmas Parade ruined by whinning crowds weeping loudly as each new celebrity appeared, and Republican newscasters around the country sobbed their stories into the cameras. The nation fell into a great depression, and comedy-film DVD sales plunged.

In the midst of this chaos, President Silverwolf called in his most trusted Libertarian Cabinet Officials. “There comes a time when one must give way. Draft a Bill rescinding the “Compulsory Adult Democrats and Republicans Franchise Act of 2034″. Pass it through Congress and bring me the Bill for signing the day after tomorrow.”

The rescinding of the Bill was greeted with immense relief throughout the entire Nation, and stocks gained 3% in the following day’s trading.

When his advisors had informed him of the happy reaction in the country to the news and left him alone, President Silverwolf the Irascible, also known as the Wise, chuckled to himself.

“There are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with cream.”

“But”, he added as an afterthough, “I’m not sure that it is not the best way.”

(With thanks and acknowledgement for the idea to “Saki”, H. H. Munro)

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf