Posts Tagged ‘separation of economy and state’

Fresh Thoughts on Libertarianism

October 5, 2013

Certain ideas about Libertarianism have coalesced in Silverwolf’s mind, and the cats have threatened to go on strike if he doesn’t disclose them to the Public. (Labor Union Coercion!)

First off, Libertarianism is a vast, vast field or ocean, that is just being entered upon. It’s a long way to the other side, before one is debouched into Paradise. So this means that all thinking about the political Philosophy of Libertarianism is in the stage of infancy. It is as if “Democracy” had just come on the scene and was five years old, and every Greek was throwing in his two drachmas as to what it meant and how to define it.

So “Libertarianism” is just beginning, and since it is such a powerful philosophy — this Philosophy of Classical Liberalism — it will have many courtiers claiming that their brand is “His” brand above.

In Silverwolf’s brand of Libertarianism, four ingredients are necessary.

First, Individual Libertarianism must always be put above Corporate so-called Libertarianism, although Libertarianism should not entertain any unnecessary hostility towards Corporations, as long as they obey the Libertarian Non-Aggression Axiom. A share in a Corporation which has value on the open market should be treated just as any other form of private property, although while an individual income tax would be anathema to the Rights delineated in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, a Corporate Income Tax would not necessarily also be, because it taxes a Collective notional Institution, not an Individual.

So first, the Individual’s Rights must always be placed above the so-called rights of a coroporation.

Second, Libertarianism must fight to shore up and defend Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation” between Church and State. Church-State linkages throughout history have been disastrous both for the people and for Free-Market Capitalism, with the exception of the military hardware suppliers. We only have to look today at “religious” regimes throughout the world to see the most despicable forms of tyranny and torture being perpetrated, and to realize that little has changed since the Spanish Inquisition if Organized Religion once gets its bloody paws on the reins of government. Just as Free-Market Capitalist Libertarians call for separation of Business and State, so must they call for and maintain separation of Church and State, and a very strict separation at that.

Finally, while Libertarians believe that unconstitutional governmental laws should be overthrown in a day — laws like the individual income tax, or being forced into a government-run pension or medical-care scheme, or a “national service” involuntary servitude requirement, or the jailing of Americans by the hundreds of thousands for cannabis possession, or forcing Hindus, at the tax collector’s gunpoint, to fork over the fruits of their labor to pay for USDA beef inspections — we know that, given the public’s socialistic, big-government, brainwashing, it will not be so.

Thus, although you’d like to overthrow tyrranical laws in a day, Libertarian’s should probably settle for a gradualist framework for their change, because the American public is essentially conservative, and a conservative is someone who likes moderation. Southern Slavery, one of the Great Human Rights Crimes of recorded history, should have been overthrown in a day, but it took decades to burn its rotten carcass. Thus Libertarians should probably offer five to ten-year phaseouts of government programs like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance or Obamacare, not because we don’t think their injustices should be eliminated immediately, but because such a call would not be accepted by the majority of voters, but a gradual phaseout would be. We also think that maintaining these programs for those Socialists who think they are the greatest thing since Marx would be OK, as long as all the costs and all the liabilities fell completely on the shoulders of the program’s participants.

For example, if the State of California ended its mandatory, forced participation of all workers in the Unemployment Insurance Program, but then maintained a program called “California Unemployment Security Program” in which all costs and liabilities were thrown onto the program’s participants, and not the general taxpayer or anyone working in California, then we wouldn’t really object, although such programs should certainly not be within the pale of government functions in the mind of a true Jeffersonian Libertarian.

However, it is obvious that such a “State” program would be “State” only in name, and that such a program would not differ at all from a private, free-market insurance fund. The Socialists and Patriots could feel they were contributing to “their” government, since they both are fond of saying that “the government is us”, and they could walk away with that glow lonely Socialists feel when they kid themselves that “we’re a village”. Yet, they never seem to pool their bank accounts.

Lastly, Libertarianism must be fiercely anti-racist in its outlook, because the racist looks at others with an image in his mind, a pre-judgement. Just as the Marxist defines Individuals by their class, and always attempts character assassination by class association instead of argument, so too will the racist define individuals according to whatever images his exposure to propaganda has inclined him. A racist can obviously utter words that reflect Truth and point out an injustice, while a non-racist or anti-racist can utter false propaganda (and all propaganda is a lie!) and keep mum about heinous injustices which they perpetrate (the Democrats, for example, jailing people for cannabis possession and keeping it illegal, or deforesting the National Forests to benefit major corporations while spreading toxic pesticides far and wide).

So a racist, like a Marxist, pre-judges people based on the most infantile and neanderthalic thinking, whereas a Libertarian sees all men as possessors of sacred Natural Rights, which make them the highest creation of Nature. A True Libertarian would have a positive, non-aggressive attitude towards all, except those who want to violently aggress against the property rights (which include the bodies) of their fellow citizens, or those who want to incite hatred or violence against whole economic classes, religious groups, races, or nationalities. Such Individuals are anti-Libertarian and anti-Capitalist, though they may mascarade as Libertarians, or friends of Natural Rights.

The essence of Capitalism is Liberty, the Freedom of two Individual Human Beings to engage in a trade of commodities voluntarily, in which both parties are happy with the results. Primitive tribesman did this in the jungle, but the modern day Socialists say that such actions are wicked.

So Libertarianism, at least Silverwolf’s brand, must include placing the Individual above the Collectivist Corporation, a fierce separation of Mosque and State, an anti-racist and anti-xenophobic ferocity, and a defense and championing of Liberty, as the essential ingredient of Free-Market Capitalism.

What’s your brand of Libertarianism?

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf


Silverwolf Urges a “Yes” Vote on Oregon State Measure 64: Three Degrees of Separation

October 12, 2008

Silverwolf has been perusing the synopses of the various State Measures offered to the voters in the former British Colony of Oregon. And one of the more appealing State Measures, number 64, is one banning or more accurately penalizing the current heinous crime of  the co-mingling of political and private organizations with the state, by allowing for automatic payroll deductions, set up by the state, to flow to private political, charitable, and union organizations. For the state to be involved in any way with fundraising for private groups that undertake political action is a violation of that “third degree of separation” which Silverwolf feels is axiomatic for the perpetuation of the Republic.

And this takes us to the discussion of what Silverwolf terms the “Three Degrees of Separation”.

Wisechief Jefferson taught us and warned us that we must “build-up a wall of separation” between Church and State, if we wanted to keep our Republic. He knew what mayhem the breakdown of that wall would lead to, and was warning us exactly against people like Bush and Obama whose “Faith-based initiatives” are clearly unconstitutional violation of this principle and a clear danger to the continuance of the Republic, a danger to which both their parties have remained completely mum.

Wisechief-ess Ayn Rand, and her successors Murray Rothbard and Congressman Ron Paul, have taught us that we must have a similar “wall of separation” between economy and state. This is something Rand emphasized in her TV interview with Mike Wallace in the late 50s. And the current collapse of the Keynesian economy, due to the existence of the Federal Reserve (or any National Bank, call it what you will) and a fiat currency, has vindicated their position in spades.

But likewise, Silverwolf strongly feels, we must build up a “wall of separation” between government and private organizations, like charities,  private sector unions, trade lobbying groups, and public employee unions. In the arguments section of the Oregon Voter’s Pamphlet for this measure, a former school teacher claims that he was forced to make payments to both the state teacher’s union and a national teachers group, and that if he opted-out, as the opponents of this Measure say any state employee can easily do if they so wish, he would have been forfeiting all his rights as a union member according to the “opt-out” clause in his union contract. In other words, you’re free to opt out of paying those automatic payroll “free-will” donation deductions to your union, you just will lose any rights and privileges you had as a public employee union member if you dare to. No, no coercion there, is there, oh union lovers.

Even the ACLU, an organization that Silverwolf feels has done far more good than harm, and with whom he agrees a large percentage of the time, is on the wrong side of the fence on this one. They maintain in their argument section, that an employee has only to fill out a simple form to be able to “opt-out” of the automatic payroll deduction to the union, but Silverwolf wonders how they can fail to see that such a requirement is a form of involuntary servitude, in excess of the performance of their job for pay, which they are being forced to carry out to maintain their rights under the Bill of Rights. Being forced by the government to fill out a form in order to avoid a non-governmental imposition or impost is tantamount to being forced to stand or say the Pledge of Allegiance, which Silverwolf would remind the public was ruled Unconstitutional over 60 years ago,  or being forced to take a Loyalty Oath (except to become a Naturalized American Citizen, or work in the Armed Forces or FBI-like groups). Having to fill out such a form to avoid an Unconstitutional confiscation of ones property rights is a form of slavery, if the confiscation of ones property is for the benefit of a non-governmental agency. And why should the government be in the business at all of collecting funds for private groups, even if it entails a minimal effort from a computer once it is set up?  And here also is where we can clearly see the Unconstitutional contradiction Measure 64 abolishes, for who pays to print the forms to opt out, or pays or sets up the automatic payroll options, either on the computer, or at the state printing office? The public pays, obviously, for the labor and ink that benefits these private groups. That is an outrage.

Finally, there is no power under the sun stopping these leeches, that leech off government payrolls, to get their funds by having their supporters mail in checks or donate over the net with their credit cards just as thousands of  other American charities and groups have to do, and do so successfully enough to fund their continuing operations.  Why should immensely weathy private organizations like public unions, major charities like United Way, and major groups like PTA, be privileged to collect funds with the assistance of publically set-up payment systems, when thousands of other groups have to get their funds directly from their supporters through the mail or online? This amounts to an Unconsitutional privilege extended to a few specific non-governmental groups at the taxpayer’s expense.

It’s clear that Oregon State Measure 64 will defend the Human Rights and Property Rights of the American Individual over and against the Unconstitutional impositions that Collectivist non-governmental organizations try to weedle into the fabric of government. Don’t let them continue to get away with it: the continuation of the Republic requires we stop them at the ballot box.

Vote Yes on Oregon State Measure 64.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf