Posts Tagged ‘U.S. Constitution’

Mussolini’s Triumph: Obamacare, America Goes Fascist

October 17, 2013

Benito Mussolini must be smiling in the ash pile, 68 years after his death,  as the United States of America goes Fascist, forcing its citizens to buy insurance from private corporations.

Mussolini summed up Fascism in these words, “Il Fascismo e il Corporatismo”, Fascism is Corporatism, and today, October 17, 2013, with the failure of the Senate to stop the implimentation of Obamacare, Fascism has been firmly established in America.

No longer will a citizen be allowed to just exist on his own, violating nobody’s property rights, and not demanding that anybody else’s property rights should be violated for his benefit. The Constitution acknowledged the Human Being’s “inalienable” Right to his Life and Liberty, and to be left alone in privacy, but now Obama and his Democrats have finally overthrown those Rights, and turned all Americans into the slaves of the corporations — either that or live in poverty and let someone else slog all day to pay for your insurance, a kind of forced corruption of the Individual by the Government — or else pay the fine/tax, which of course forces you to dedicate your life and liberty to getting the money to pay the fine, a form of involuntary servitude. Clearly this is not only grossly Immoral, but also Unconstitutional, and no matter what the supreme court says, 5 to 4, it is clear to any logically thinking American that it is Unconstitutional.

It has taken 237 years for the overthrow of the Jeffersonian Constitution by the Corporate Fascists. Jefferson said that government, though a necessary evil, was essentially an evil because of the massive power it placed in the hands of individuals in the government, and that only the chains of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could hold it down.

It took the Totalitarians 237 years to overthrow the Constitution of Indiviidual Liberty. Today they are laughing, and Jefferson is crying.

And on the ash pile, Mussolini is smiling.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

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

President Obama: He’s Right and Wrong on Libya

March 24, 2011

Silverwolf is exceedingly glad that the British, French, and Americans read his last blog, recommending air action against Muther Qaddafi in order to avert huge massacres of civilians. Within twelve hours, they were following his advice, although he did state that America should not participate, due to the hatred felt towards her in the Middle East. America’s comparative silence in the face of daily massacres of peaceful protesters in virtually every Arab and Gulf capital is probably regarded as the usual way things run by the man in the Arab Street, and our hypocrisy in acting on Libya, but doing nothing about Bahrain and Saudi Arabian Human Rights Atrocities, not to mention our long support for Torturer Mubarak, shows how much the Administration “really cares about people”. We said that Britain, France, the Arab League, and those responsible for economically propping up Qaddafi, like Italy and Germany, were the forces that should be the ones engaged in overthrowing this Miscreant and Mass Murderer and Torturer, but that Silverwolf would not object if America joined in the force, either alone or through NATO, for he holds that genocide or mass murder of civilian populations are the responsibility of all Libertarians on the face of the Earth. However, when we talk of regimes that are comparatively mildly repressive (say, a regime that jailed political dissidents but did not engaging in murder or torture) then holding off on military action that could cost the lives of thousands of innocent soldiers and civilians versus a wait of a few years for a regime to economically crumble or internally reform may be a far better way to go. But in cases of outright genocide and mass murder of civilian populations  like Germany, Uganda, Turkey, Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia, Darfur-Sudan, the shelling of Sarajevo, and Qaddafi’s War on Libya’s Youth, it clearly is better for the individuals being murdered if the world intervenes and saves their lives, rather than standing around with its thumb up its ear.

Silverwolf believes that Jefferson’s Constitution was meant as a blueprint for all Mankind, and all civil governments, and he thinks that Jefferson believed these Rights he reserved for men were Universal Natural Rights, and not just confined to those living on the American continent.

Where the President is wrong on Libya is simply that he did not go to Congress for a Declaration of War, and even if he had, there is no obvious way that Libya is a threat to the borders of the United States, or her sovereignty, and so, even if the President had gone to Congress for a Declaration, he should not in theory have been given it. Ron Paul is absolutely right when he says that the President should have gone to  Congress for a Declaration, and that he, Ron Paul,  would have voted against it. Britain, France and NATO, as well as the big commercial backers of Libya like Italy and Germany, along with the Arab League, were the ones who really had the immediate responsibility for the mess in the neighborhood, and they certainly have the financial resources to carry out an operation. They could also enlist and organize into a fighting force any Libertarian-inclined freedom fighters in the area who want to help liberate Libya from Qaddafi. This would have been much more practical than having America overthrow its Constitution yet once again with the unConstitutional “War Powers Act”. And the damage done to the principle of the President consulting with Congress for this most grave move is far greater than any kudos America might earn in the eyes of the North African Youth for joining in the coalition. Once again President Obama has punched the U.S. Constitution in the face.

So, in sum, we are glad that the international coalition has got the lead out of its elbow and acted to prevent mass murder, at least in Benghazi. But we are very disappointed, though not surprised, that the President has, once again, trashed the Constitution and the principle of American non-interventionism unless our borders are under immediate threat

Heap not a furnace for your foe so hot that it do singe yourself.

Hooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Libertarianism is Bustin’ Out Al-Egypt

January 29, 2011

It looks like the “happy disease” of Libertarianism is busting out in Egypt, and all over the Arab and North African world, as the youth of these countries finally get sick and tired of the corporatism and governmental corruption than has kept them down and impoverished for decades. The governments and Islamists can continue to blame Jews and Zionism for every single problem in the Arab and Islamic world, but the secular youth of these countries, and many of the educated middle class, know that the problem is corporatism or state socialism mixed and allied with the big private corporations and local wealthy magnates, and the perennial problems of government corruption and the arbitrary power of the “state”.

Over and against these tyrannies stands the old Jeffersonian Liberalism that motivated the writing of the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the beautiful Bill of Rights, one of the great documents of Mankind. These instinctively known values about the Rights of Man are surging up in the youth of North Africa, and they will overwhelm all resistance before them, whether the governmental Leviathan State, or the religious fanaticism and Jew-hatred of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group with long ties to the Nazi ideology since its inception.

Silverwolf finds it both singularly interesting and seminal that this whole revolt was sparked by one young man in Tunisia protesting against a Communist regulation: having to have a business license to sell vegetables. This  is a gross violation of the Capitalist Rights of the Individual to earn a living without the government interfering by either requiring a license to vend, or by looting part of the fruits of one’s labor through an individual income tax (a corporate income tax may or may not be allowable because a corporation is not an individual, but a notional, fictional entity and thus not subject to the Rights of Man).

And so this whole “revolution” began as one man’s capitalist protest against a communist system of regulation in Tunisia, and the extreme levels of unemployment which socialism, corporatism, and minimum-wage laws bring about,  and while Silverwolf does not approve of self-immolation as a form of protest, that extreme act of anti-Communist protest has sparked a revolution so furious and of such magnitude, of which that dead young man could never have dreamed a few weeks ago, that it shows us Libertarians the power and ability of One Individual to change the course of history.

Such is the Power of Freedom and the Thirst for Liberty in all sane men.

Of course, the battle will rage between this new secular, anti-government Libertarianism which unfortunately probably has little more than anger behind it (how many in the streets of Cairo have read their Jefferson, Madison and Murray Rothbard?), and the religious fanatics who would like to see a repeat of Carter’s Folly in Iran of backing a brutal torturing dictator. Already we hear bleatings from Ms. Rodham that Hosni Baby should be given just a little more time. I guess thirty years ain’t enough, is it, Madame Secretary of State, as long as you’re not the one being tortured or unemployed all through the years of your youth? Maybe when you have $70 million, it’s easy to wait? But believe me, Ms. Rodham, those young Capitalists in the Streets ain’t gonna wait.

Rolling the dice like this of course roils a readily rabid world. The excitement and uncertainty of seeing the cornerblock piece of land between Africa and the Middle East wracked by mayhem may seem like a one-off event, but it really fits in with a world pattern, from the American  Tea Party anger and reaction to the Obama extension of the Federal mandate by forcing Americans to pay a corporate insurance toll just to exist in America, and having themselves strip-searched if they must travel, to the growing unrest and malcontent manifest in Europe, and expressing itself in the Greek protests, the Paris and London Student protests,  and the whinings of the unions and the French pensioners who may have to wait to 62 instead of 60 for their lifetime dole.

And perhaps forshadowing this wave of Libertarianism, though not linked by any observers except Silverwolf here, was the unheard of reaction of a group of London protesters to the appearance of a Royal motorcade. The press reported that they chanted “Off with their heads”, and threw paint on the car, although when Silverwolf listened to the tape, it sounded like they what they were actually saying  was “Offer them beads”, and the paint on the car may have been an attempt to spruce up the appearance of the Royal conveyance, since the financial crisis has brought budgetary embarrassments to even the finest of British families. Knowing the British people’s love for their monarchy, it’s hard to imagine any other possible explanations.

However, he is willing to accept the official portrayal of the event, and, if it is true, it is a telling description of the disgust which youth, whether in Tunisia, London, Paris or Cairo, hold for the Establishment.

Yes, indeed. Libertarianism is bustin’ out all over the Arab world, and it ain’t even June.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Sharia Law vs. Capitalism and the Constitution: The Hizb Anti-Biz Conference in Chicagostan

July 25, 2009

Silverwolf noticed that about a week back, the Islamic organization, Hizb-ut-tahrir, held a conference in Chicago where they decried the supposed Capitalism of America as being the cause of the current financial crisis, and spoke instead for the adoption of Sharia Law in the U.S.A. It seems, under this wonderful system, that interest on loans would become illegal, Sharia would take precedence over the U.S. Constitution, and Christians and other religious minorities would become “dhimmi” or protected minorities who would only have to pay a 10% tax for the privilege of living in a society under Islamic Law.

Hizb-ut-tahrir is an Islamic organization that claims to be non-violent, and seeks to convert the world through intellectual discussions. Evidently, the long history of the misery caused in the world by religious fanatics, and religious governments, is to be cleared up and forgotten with a little intellectual “chewing the fat”. However, the Danish Government didn’t see anything intellectual about it when it arrested one of this group’s leaders six years ago for passing out literature calling on Muslims to carry out the Koranic exhortation to kill Jews wherever they see them, or when it indicted the group three years ago for calling for the murder of Danish government officials. Such “intellectual persuasion” was viewed by the Danes as it should be: inciting to riot and murder, and which should be punished as if it had been successful in its nefarious aims. Whoever incites others to murder based on race or religion should be tried and punished as if he had committed first-degree murder.

Interestingly enough, when the conference began, men and women were forced to sit in separate sections, and when someone challenged this set-up, they were told that it was to prevent men and women from “acting like animals”. Apparently, these objective Islamic intellectuals didn’t trust themselves enough to not turn into raving rapists if they happened to co-mingle the sexes. It’s good to know we’ll have such well-controlled people in charge of the Islamic Republic of America, when they take over.

Of course, the fundamental premise of the conference, that Capitalism has created the current crisis crimping cash-and-carry commercial custom,  is a humbug, because, on the contrary,  the current crisis has been caused by big-government Socialism reaching into, and destroying, almost every facet of Capitalism that used to exist in the late 19th century in America. Socialism,  based on the religious prescriptions of the three major Western religions, has been married to the falsities of Keynesian economics, to create a witches brew of FDR-LBJ Socialism that has finally poisoned the patient. America will never emerge from this depressionary inflation until it adopts the sane, sound, and true principles of Austrian economics and radical free-market Capitalism. And groups like Hizb-ut-tahrir, and its growing influence in American metropolises, are only further obstacles in American Capitalist’s and Libertarian’s attempt to retake America for the system it was before the FED, Wilson, and FDR-LBJ welfarism.

The horsescat that organized religion has piled into the world never seems to stop coming, and it’s a shame that so much human energy must be wasted in cleaning up the stink it creates. In America, thanks to Jefferson’s wisdom, and the Christian radicals who fled authoritarian England so they could worship in peace, and were even so radical as to tolerate and sometime even welcome Jews into their new lifestyle, a life-style so radical in its intellectual foundations that it had never been seen in Europe, though it was later to be stained by the contradictions of slavery and the treatment of the Indians in a land that purported to champion Individual Liberty and Rights — in America, such a piling finally came to a stop, with the effective separation of Church and State under Wisechief Jefferson’s Revolutionary Constitution. But groups like Hizb, and the Bush-Obama expansions of “faith-based initiatives” programs which should be repealed by Congress immediately, and for which both Bush and Obama should have been impeached, are the bane of true Capitalists and Libertarians both in America and the world over.

If you don’t like free-market Capitalism and the Constitution, there’s a vast Islamic world out there, where you won’t have to be paid interest on your savings, in which you can live. Enjoy it.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww! — Silverwolf