How Progressives Love and Support Corporations

I don't like to label people. I don't like to speak in generalities. Unfortunately we live in a society where labels and generalities have become quite acceptable, particularly when talking in terms of politics and political beliefs. It is, in my opinion, because of this, at least partially, that we often forget we live in an individualist society. It is among the most unique societies in human history. As part of Westernized culture we have romanticized the idea of freedom, but as Americans we have squandered the ideals of the founding fathers and allowed a tyrannical centralized government and their corporate backers to gain too much power and influence over our personal lives. I believe this is because we as human beings seem to have this tendency toward wanting to collectivize. This likely has something to do with the human desire to be loved and accepted by others. We worry that if we don't share the same customs and beliefs as others that they will not accept us for loving, caring human beings.

Because we live in a world where generalizations are prevalent in the media, how we define the labels we use becomes distorted. For instance, progressives are supposed to hate corporations and love government regulations and intervention in the markets. Conservatives and libertarians, on the other hand, are supposed to love corporations by hating such government regulations and interventions and loving the idea of smaller government. But the opposite is true. While many progressives would be loathe to admit that they love and support huge corporate entities, in practice they do. In the real world it is actions that matter, not words. It is not so much what you say as what you do that really makes the difference.

Any so called progressive that is reading this is by now likely throwing a fit. Inside his head he is likely fuming as he thinks about how much he hates corporations. His sensibilities are likely quite insulted by my accusation that he loves and supports them. He may well wonder how it is that I can support such an accusation. Well, for one thing, in at least one way they are in complete agreement with one of the most infamous robber barons ever. Like John D. Rockefeller, they hate competition and love monopolies.

Why would I say this? Simple, they hate free markets and at the same time they support the most heinous monopoly of all, the government monopoly on legalized force. They are constantly bashing free market philosophies and blaming them for the economic problems we currently face, but the fact is that there has not been true free markets in this country for a very long time, if indeed there ever were. Government interventions in the markets have been going on since before the founding of the nation, but they've become more egregious in the past few decades with the most offensive intrusion being the introduction of the latest iteration of the central bank, the privately owned Federal Reserve System, a century ago. If anyone is to blame for our current financial fiasco it is big centralized government. They have proven they are either too incompetent, too inept, or too corrupt to trust when it comes to centralized planning of the economy.

Free markets are all about competition. They're all about a free flow of ideas to try to keep as many consumers as happy as possible by providing products and services that are demanded by the consuming public. John D. Rockefeller said that competition is a sin and apparently progressives agree for they seem to think that big government regulation is a better way than competition to keep corporations in check. They seem to think it's better to grant a monopoly on legitimized force to a small group of elites and then have them erect barriers that prevent competition from entering the market in an effort to contain corporate influence rather than eliminating barriers, letting competition bring choice to the marketplace and then letting the consumers decide which products and services they wish to purchase and which they wish to shun. In this manner, progressives and the robber barons are on the same page.

Let us not forget that corporations are government entities. The government defines what a corporation is and what the rules are to incorporate. Government allows for limitations to be placed on the liabilities corporations can be held accountable for, hence the LL in LLC. Big government decides the fate of these corporations, not the courts, not the consumers, and agents of big government are going to label their inept friends as "too big to fail" instead of letting the free marketplace do its job and force the inept to fail so that the competent can replace them.

What do the progressives do? Do they demand that incompetent, inept and corrupt government get out of the way so that competent, more innovative, more productive businesses can step in and replace corporations and give the consumer choice? Do they call for power to be removed from centralized federal government and placed in the hands of those who will compete for the trust of the common folk?

No. They call for more laws that increase the powers of the very people who caused the problem in the first place. They don't call for the break up of the cartels and monopolies that are labeled "too big to fail," they just call for better enforcement of regulations and more restrictions. They want to make it more difficult for competition to enter the marketplace. They don't call for the arrests of corrupt politicians who helped create policy that created this mess, they call for more taxation, as if throwing money at a problem involving people who create the money in the first place will do anything to solve the problem. In short, they want to give more money and more power to the elite who already have too much wealth and too much power. They want to grow the power of the central government which then grows the power of the mega corporations. It is a recipe that will lead to an even more spectacular failure than we saw in 2008.

Progressives like to think they're all about progress. It's just a trick of the language, at least when it comes to their policies on business and corporations. Their policies are really quite regressive, but not too many people would want to be labeled a regressive. If you really want to allow the people to have their say, then laws restricting choice need to be repealed. Laws making it difficult to enter the marketplace need to be repealed. The Affordable Healthcare Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, much lauded by so called progressives, needs to be repealed. A freer market where consumers can truly vote with their dollars needs to be established and then one day, hopefully, a truly free market which holds accountable the inept, incompetent and corrupt and exalts the competent and innovative will be allowed to flourish in our nation. Now that would be progress. When that happens we will all surely prosper as the high tide will raise all ships. When that happens the dream of freedom we keep in our hearts will be realized and we will understand why our forebears romanticized it so.

If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.

Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also find and enjoy them.

Caged in America: A Collection of Essays Celebrating Freedom. By Szandor Blestman

Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman

Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti

The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti

The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti

Innocents Suffer, the Powerful Profit

I have said this before and I will continue to say it, I do not condone violence. I particularly abhor random acts of violence such as the one that occurred in Boston on April 15th, 2013 during the Boston marathon. I say it was a random act of violence because as of this moment, as I write this, no one has taken responsibility for it and no suspects have been arrested nor any reason given for this act. This is only speculation, but I would bet that there's some political agenda or another behind it. For some reason those who seek power over others seem to think that the way to go about gaining such power is through force and coercion.

Since I don't trust what I hear in the mainstream media, I haven't in some time now, I listen a lot to the alternative media. I don't necessarily trust what they have to say either, but I think what they have to say makes a whole lot more sense most of the time than what you hear in the state run corporate media that is supposed to be a free press. But I like to keep an open mind. Right now there are many who are trying to figure out whether this is a false flag event or not. They are trying to examine the facts and see who will benefit from this and what the agenda will be. As of now, the answers are not forthcoming and there is much speculation going on. This has been an unusual situation in that there is no boogeyman to blame as of this moment, no clear agenda to point at.

Usually in these types of bombings, some group or terrorist organization is all too happy to take responsibility for such a heinous act. They want people to know why innocent blood has been shed and so many have to suffer. Not in this case. On that front, information is slow to be leaked to the public. If some terrorist group has taken responsibility, the authorities aren't telling the public.

One thing I can say for certain, politicians will use this event to push some agenda or another. If it's some foreign terrorist organization who has done this, they'll push for more war and aggression against whatever nation they feel needs to be suppressed. If it's a domestic terrorist organization, they'll use it as an excuse to ban or tax or otherwise restrict the sale of something, perhaps ammunition or something that can used to make explosives. If it was a lone nutjob, which would be the hardest scenario to figure out, they'll use it to try to take what's left of our privacy and to violate our rights even further than they've already done. They might even use it as an excuse to roll out some kind of new surveillance gizmo, or grid, or program. No matter what, they will try to grow their own power. That seems to be their answer to everything.

Another thing I know for certain, whoever did this harmed innocent people. Events like this never hurt those who might deserve it. Like the wars we wage, bombs don't just target bad people who have caused harm to others, they harm innocents. They cause collateral damage. They harm people who are just trying to go about their day to day business. They harm children who have not even learned to hate yet. They harm women and the elderly. They harm whoever happens to be in the blast zone, no matter how evil or how kind and gentle those people may have been during the course of their lives. Innocent people suffer because someone, somewhere has some agenda to push, some quest for power to pursue.

Initiating violence doesn't work. No matter who initiates it and for what purpose, violence only begets more violence. The innocent suffer while the powerful profit, which is another reason why I often feel events like this are initiated by the powerful. It is they who feel they can gain from such violence. Yet even they have to pay a price. The price they'll pay is their humanity. That is the price for anyone who uses or condones such violence, whether that violence happens in Boston or Damascus, in Europe or in Asia, on the East Coast or in the West Bank. It is the price one pays whether they are initiating such violence for personal reasons, under orders from some terrorist group, or under orders from some state run military. Unfortunately for us, there seems to be far too many people in this world who couldn't care less for their own humanity. Until we learn to put love in front of hate, until we learn to crave peace more than power, and until we learn to respect and honor the choices of others as we would want them to respect and honor the choices we make for ourselves, we will continue to see such tragedies as occurred in Boston on April 15th, 2013.

If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.

Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also find and enjoy them.

Caged in America: A Collection of Essays Celebrating Freedom. By Szandor Blestman

Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman

Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti

The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti

The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti

Justifying Unjustifiable Authoritarianism

So I just finished reading this op ed piece by one Sarah Conly who decided to step up to the plate and defend busybody mayor Bloomberg and his attempt to ban the sale of large size soft drinks in New York City. She is obviously a well educated person and makes a fairly well thought out argument over why certain freedoms should be curtailed. Well educated, however, does not necessarily mean free thinking, nor does it necessarily translate into wisdom. In fact, after reading Ms. Conly's op/ed piece I would say that she was decidedly against free thought, unless of course that free thought leads one into the arms of the ever coddling state.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Conly is a very loving soul who is quite concerned about her fellow human beings. Her op/ed piece shows that she is quite concerned with the well being of the rest of us who dwell upon the planet with her. Like most defenders of the nanny state she is quick to point out that government laws are there to protect you, and she does so in an eloquent and convincing manner. She also manages to verbally dance around one of the most important aspects of the debate, as do most apologists for government intrusion on your life, and that is the aspect of the morality of using force to change people's behavior.

Force and coercion are the tools government has to get people to comply with their mandates. With that in mind the claim can be made that all laws have the potential to carry with it the death penalty. It would work as an escalation. Man sells large sugary drink. Man is ticketed. Man refuses to pay ticket. A warrant is issued for the man's arrest. Man refuses to acknowledge the court's jurisdiction over him. Police try to force compliance. Man resists. Police kill the man. Whenever a law is passed the question should be asked, "Is this law worth killing people over?"

Some might say this is an extreme example, and they'd be right. Such people would find it very difficult to argue, however, that even though this scenario is extremely unlikely, it is not impossible. Because of its extreme nature, if such an event were to happen the man killed by the police would not be portrayed as someone trying to defend his right to engage in voluntary transactions between two consenting parties, he'd be portrayed as a crazy extremist. But perhaps they're right and I shouldn't use such extreme examples. Perhaps I should take a page from Ms. Conly's book and use examples like comparing banning certain sizes of sugary drinks with preventing someone from crossing a derelict bridge because, you know, those two situations are so similar.

In all fairness the example is not her own. Ms. Conly uses an example proffered by John Stuart Mill way back in 1859, then proceeds to disagree with him. I think the point that Ms. Conly was making, though in not so many words, is that the government creates law to keep you safe. They make laws to protect you from yourself. But this hardly works. One needs to ask the question, when does it become necessary for someone to protect us from the protectors? Let's examine the example of the bridge a little closer. She states earlier in the article that we need to be stopped from doing foolish stuff, and apparently she thinks the way to do this is to pass laws against doing foolish stuff. With this in mind I ask, what would be the purpose of passing a law making it illegal to cross the bridge?

Ah, this would be an easy question to answer. The purpose would be to prevent people from trying to cross the bridge so that they don't fall into the river and perhaps injure or kill themselves. How do we make certain people adhere to this law? Well, let's hire men to guard or patrol the bridge and if someone tries to cross they'll tell them, "No, you can't cross this bridge." We can even arm these men so they look official and intimidating. What if, for some strange reason, the people don't want listen and decide to cross anyway? Perhaps its the best way to get to the other side despite the danger. Then those people will get citations with court dates and fines. What if they throw the citations away and still decide to try to cross despite all that? Even though it remains dangerous to do so? Well, then the guards can shoot them. After all, we have to keep people safe from their own foolish actions.

Did this law accomplish its purpose? Was its purpose truly to stop the people from crossing, or was something else at work here? Were those passing the laws maybe more interested in collecting money? Were they more interested in controlling people's behavior? Is there a better way to stop people from crossing dangerous bridges than using the force and coercion of the state?

I didn't even bother to talk about how that law doesn't prevent people from going down the embankment and trying to ford the river, even though that might be more dangerous due to strong currents, nor did I examine the various reasons one might want to cross the river. The point I'm trying to make is that force and coercion aren't always the best ways to prevent people from doing something they might want to do. In the case of crossing the bridge a sign making people aware of the danger and pointing out safer areas to cross should be sufficient. In the case of large servings of soda, perhaps some kind of public service announcement or education effort paid for by concerned citizens, such as Ms. Conly, could be a better solution than an outright ban on certain sizes of soft drinks. Perhaps the mayor himself could afford to pay for such a campaign, I understand he is quite wealthy. If he is so concerned, perhaps he should show it by voluntarily contributing his own money to such a worthy cause rather than using tax dollars to enforce a law. In either case, I do believe the individual should be left to determine for himself the level of risk he wants to take.

Ms. Conly goes on to cite studies on cognitive bias and then seems to fail to understand that she suffers from the same malady as the rest of us. I understand that my cognitive bias causes me to believe that freedom is the answer no matter the question. It seems to me that Ms. Conly has a cognitive bias that favors one size fits all state solutions known as laws. She mentions the status quo bias and then supports the status quo of political power. It also seems to me that perhaps she suffers from something I would call a propaganda bias in that she accepts the statist propaganda (i.e. for the greater good, majority rules, for the public welfare) without question. She cites cost/benefit analyses and the fact that government has the resources to use such methods as a justification for using force to get us to behave in certain manners. I say such methods have been abused in the past, are being abused in the present and will continue to be abused into the future so long as people in power can benefit from such abuse.

Going back to the beginning of her article, Ms. Conly asks "So, why is this (the ban on large sized "sugary drinks") such a big deal?" Because it should be a big deal. There needs to be a line drawn where people start to say that we need to be protected against those who wish to be the protectors. Apparently this is that line. A more appropriate question in my mind is "Why are people like Ms. Conly making such a big deal about the blowback this has caused?" Also, why is it that collectivists will happily use the ideas of democracy and majority rule when most everyone agrees with their policy proposals, but will suddenly balk at those concepts and claim to know better than the rest of us when their policy proposals are challenged by the majority or sometimes even a significant minority?

Ms. Conly is an associate professor of philosophy at Bowdoin College, a prestigious private college located in Maine. She wrote a book entitled "Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism." She is not only for the daddy state, she wrote a book on it. I don't know why so many academics seem to favor state solutions to societal problems, solutions that have so often failed throughout all of history. I can only put forth conjecture. Perhaps they've lost faith in humanity. Perhaps they honestly believe that an academic, scientific elite should make the decisions for everyone. Perhaps they see themselves as part of this ruling elite class and don't want to lose the power and privileges they perceive they have. Perhaps they don't see their education as just a higher level of training, but believe that because they are so educated they are indeed more intelligent and better than the rest of us. Perhaps it has something to do with how the institutions that pay their salaries are funded. I'm really not sure. I'm just kind of thinking out loud and giving anyone who cares to chew on it food for thought.

Ms. Conly does have one thing right, this is not about soda. And it's not about health. It's not even about public welfare or the greater good. It's about control. It always has been. It's about freedom versus tyranny. It's about a small cadre of elitists pushing the envelope and always trying to see just how far they can go, just how much they can micromanage our lives. It's my hope that not only did they find that limit, but that common folk realize this is what the elitists have been doing all along and begin to take back their freedoms by forcing the repeal of other prohibitions and restrictions that have stifled our ability to produce for ourselves and enjoy the fruits of our labor.

There's an even larger question at stake here. Mostly, this is about who owns whom. Do I own my own body, or does the state? Do I have the right to do with my body as I please, or does the state have some claim on it as if I'm their property? It's ironic that Ms. Conly is associated with an historical college that has a reputation for its anti slavery past and yet writes opinions in favor of a more subtle form of slavery to the state. When I speak of freedom, I am being an abolitionist. When she speaks about coercive paternalism she is being an enslaving authoritarian, no matter how eloquently she might make her arguments and how reasonable they may sound.

If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation. While Ms. Conly has an institution to support her and her work, I do not. I can only humbly ask for your voluntary donations as I try to respond to statist propaganda.

Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also find and enjoy them.

Caged in America: A Collection of Essays Celebrating Freedom. By Szandor Blestman

Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman

Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti

The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti

The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti

How Free Market Competition Presents a More Cooperative System

The image of the robber baron has been burned into the psyche of the American consciousness. When one thinks about capitalism or free markets, this is the image that comes to the forefront of most people's minds. This image has helped create the misconception that capitalism and free markets have come to create the financial mess that the world finds itself in. The truth is that government and their attempts to regulate markets is what created the robber baron in the first place. They would have never been able to reach the pinnacles they reached without the levers of power that government provides.

There's a difference between a good businessman and an elitist "capitalist" robber baron who claims to be a businessman. A good businessman will provide an excellent product or service which he will constantly be trying to improve upon in order to keep his customers happy and satisfied. An elitist "capitalist" robber baron will try to eliminate all competition so that anyone wanting the product or service he provides (usually through the form of some soulless corporation) will have to be forced to purchase it through his corporation no matter how poor the quality. He is not interested in keeping his customers happy or satisfied because his goal is to create a system where they have no alternative vendors to buy from. He is only interested in keeping his "shareholders" happy and satisfied as an excuse to implement anti humanitarian policies and not be held responsible either in the marketplace or in his own conscience, if he has one.

I put the word capitalist above in quotes because that's what most schools would teach, that these robber barons of the past were capitalists. A capitalist is someone who invests his own capital (money or wealth) in some venture or business in order to make a profit. The robber barons of old, the Rockefellers for instance, didn't get their monopolies through investing their own capital in business per se, however, they invested in government and government power so that laws and regulations could be created that would help eliminate competition. This is done by creating regulations that only the very wealthy corporations can afford to pay for hence preventing most competition from even entering the market in the first place, thus limiting consumer choice.

I think there's a bigger problem in that in a free market the consumer needs to be well informed. This is a problem because it seems to me that most people don't care to be informed about the most basic things regarding consumption and the economy, let alone being well informed about the things he's consuming and how the economy he takes part in works. It seems to me that too many modern day common folk just want the politicians to make the economic decisions for them which gives away their power to someone else. They shouldn't be surprised when such people do a poor job or abuse that power or make decisions based on what benefits them personally rather than what benefits the public at large.

It would seem counter intuitive that a free market based on competition would result in a more cooperative system, but that is because most people don't stop to consider that they are part of the system, along with all other consumers who wish to partake in the modern marketplace. The need for them to become well informed translates into an ability to judge a product based on more than just its price. Unfortunately most do not seem willing or able to judge past price and perhaps quality and to seek out information on things like the conditions the production workers endure to make the product, the environmental effects the product might create, the contribution to community the producer makes, long term health effects the product might have, and other more ethereal details on how a certain product might be good or bad for humanity in general. People only seem worried about whether they want something or not and how much it will cost. Corporations love a less educated consumer because then all they have to worry about is cost, more or less.

A free market, when operating properly, would let the world of ideas come to fruition and elevate humanity to its highest potential. This would work by allowing the consumer the ability to chose with his money which competitor is the best. For instance, let's take the idea of a widget. In the marketplace, company A claims to have the best widgets at the cheapest cost on the planet. Just about anyone who uses widgets wants to buy their widgets from company A. But Joe Public has what he considers a better idea on how to produce widgets and bring them to market. He goes about using his own capital and perhaps borrowing from some friends and family to create company B and begins competing with company A in the widget industry.

Perhaps the widgets company B produces are equal in quality, but they cost a little more. They are made, however, in a way that has much less impact on the environment in a facility that treats workers with fairness and respect. It would be up to company B and the consumers who felt these were important issues to get the word out. It would be up to the consumers to decide what was more important and how much they were willing to support company B's principles. In this way, everyone has their say in the marketplace. In this way, everyone decides which ideas prosper and flourish and which ones wither on the vine and die. In this way, everyone's vote counts.

There are those who would argue with these ideas. They would claim that people are too stupid, or lazy, or apathetic to make such decisions. To these people I have a couple of things to say. First, do you really have such disdain for your fellow human beings that you would judge them so harshly? On what basis? Are you prepared to be so judged yourself? Perhaps you're making this judgment about people you don't even know not based on reason, or even emotion, but based on what you know about yourself.

The second thing I'd like to say is perhaps that's because of the government owned education system. We are all imperfect human beings and have a tendency to behave in ways we've been trained to behave in. Unfortunately many of us seem to think that once our formal education has ended we are no longer learning. Perhaps if we wish to build a freer society where people take more responsibility for themselves and for their community, we should start by training the children to be free thinking individuals rather than mindless consumers. Perhaps we should all realize that we should spend our entire life learning, whether we're attending school or not, and strive to become free thinking individuals rather than mindless consumers. It's a shame that we have little choice in how our children are educated because so much of our income is taken through property taxes that hardly anyone has the means to send their children to any school other than public school. Are you truly surprised when public schools indoctrinate children to empower the system rather than training them to empower themselves? It is this government system where the training to compete truly begins, and often children are trained that competing against authority is futile.

The alternative to free markets is what we have today. It is less choice for the individual. It is the individual having less to say about what is important. It is those in charge having more power to make decisions for you instead of you having the power to decide for yourself what's important and what isn't. It is a seepage from the marketplace of products and services into one's personal life and the marketplace of ideas. It is a growing tyranny that starts in a seemingly benign manner and quickly mutates into horrors we as human beings seem to have to keep revisiting from time to time for some strange reason. It is, as always, the empowerment of a wealthy elite who seem to harbor dangerous world domination fantasies. Do you truly wish to see these people continue to steer us all down the path they've chosen? If so, then just go along with the status quo, put your head down and continue to go along to get along.

Remember, change begins within. If you wish to see change in the world, it is important to first create that change in yourself. As a consumer, you have a great deal of power. Do not allow that power to be taken from you. Insist that you be allowed to make your own choices. And when the powers that be become determined to make laws limiting your choice and therefore your power, insist upon denying consent. We are many and they are few. Don't be afraid to stand up and be counted. Let them know that you know. Just as they need your cooperation in order to rule over you, the free market needs your cooperation in order for you to rule over yourself.

If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.

Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also find and enjoy them.

Caged in America: A Collection of Essays Celebrating Freedom. By Szandor Blestman

Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman

Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti

The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti

The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti

Freedom and Private Property Versus Criminal Government and Banks

There's a meme in the world of debate that once you start to compare the politics of today to the politics of Germany during Hitler's reign the debate is over and you've lost. So, I'm going to start this article by comparing modern American politics to Hitler's Germany and other 20th century collectivist political schemes. The point of this beginning is to do so. If you don't want to read further, than don't. You see, I don't buy the meme. Such a meme is developed, in my humble opinion, simply because some people don't want to face the growing evil and choose instead to remain willfully ignorant as to what has been happening in the land that was supposed to be a beacon of individual freedom shining to the world.

The first thing I'm going to do is take the holocaust thing right out of the picture. Many people conflate fascism with murdering innocent people due to their religion or some other innocent aspect of their character perceived as a flaw by those in power. That really has nothing to do with the philosophy of fascism. That has to do with scapegoating. That has to do with a divide and conquer mentality. The state doesn't have to be murdering innocent people in death camps to be a fascist state. It doesn't have to murder in order to be criminal.

That said, don't think that just because such things haven't happened yet they won't happen in the future. It's just that murder and putting people in prison (FEMA) camps isn't what makes a nation a fascist nation, fascism is merely the unholy marriage of centralized (federal) government power and corporate power. This is tantamount to a marriage between organizations with a monopoly on legalized force and organizations with virtual monopolies on wealth. It is a very dangerous partnership for those of us who wish to remain free peoples.

The reason these two entities would want to unite is so they can steal your birthright. They actually want to get you to believe that they have your best interests at heart so that they can deceive you into giving over all your real wealth to them. The real wealth I speak of comes in the form of private property. It seems they believe that, as long as they own all the property, they own you. This is the very thing the founders of the United States were trying to alleviate when they came over here in the first place. They wanted to establish a nation where government could not dictate what you could and could not do on your own private property. That's why the wrote the Bill of Rights, to codify the limits of power that agents of the government could exercise over individuals and their property.

Private property is freedom. Without it one is basically a serf to the landlord. One is more or less indebted to whoever owns the land one lives upon. One must follow the rules and regulations that landlord lays down or one risks being evicted from one's residence and thrown unceremoniously into the street. As long as one owes a mortgage, one does not own one's private property, the bank does and one is their serf. As long as one pays taxes on one's property, one does not own one's private property, the government does and one is their serf. One is only truly free when one has bought one's property outright or paid off any loans one might have on it and no one else can make any claim that they can legitimately steal it for any reason.

At one time, owning your own property was known as the American dream, and many people were living it. Now it has become a nightmare. Now most are mortgaged to the hilt. Most are in debt to the point where if they lose their job they won't be able to make all their payments and in a matter of weeks might lose everything they supposedly own. Everyone has to pay taxes. Taxes have gone up for everyone, even the working poor. No one owns their own private property anymore, no one except the government, the banks, and the financial corporations. This is why they are becoming richer while you become poorer. This is why you're having problems paying for your lifestyle, why your quality of living goes down while theirs goes up. They have monopolies on the things that matter and you're going to have to pay through the nose in order to get the crumbs that fall from their table.

The ruling elite have all the real wealth, and they've gained it through illegal means. They've bamboozled us all by issuing debt based fiat paper currency instead of honest commodity based money. It is a scheme that's been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Those who perpetrate it know very well that their system will eventually collapse. How could they not know? Historically, it has happened time and time again. They understand the harm such a system will do to the middle classes. They also understand that those who perpetrate the crime will end up with unfathomable wealth while the huge majority of humanity will be wallowing in poverty. The potential for reward is great and the risk low, for historically they have not been held accountable and after a financial collapse it will be they who, like the royalty of the middle ages, will be able to dictate how the wealth will flow, and they will be very stingy indeed when it comes to the lot of the serfs they will own.

When it comes down to it, I believe that all most people want is a nice place to call their own, a place where they can raise a family, a place where they make the decisions that will affect their lives, a place where they are sovereign. This is something that people have been striving for since time immemorial, to get the tyrants who tend to gravitate to the halls of power, the halls of government, out of their lives. This is something that the ruling elite have been striving to deny the people for just as long. This is what freedom boils down to, the individual's ability to make the choices, good or bad, that will determine that individual's destiny. That freedom starts with the ability to own private property. This is what America was supposed to be about. It is why the Bill of Rights was incorporated into the highest law of the land. It is the foundation of the American dream.

The dream has been stolen by criminal banks and their government accomplices, for they have acted in a criminal manner by ignoring the highest law in the land. It has been stolen by promises broken, promises of a better, fairer way, promises that could not be kept for they were based on lies, deception, theft, coercion and force. We have been conned, folks. It's time to look in the mirror and admit that. We have been conned and those doing the conning continue to try to get you to blame anyone but them for the financial downturn we continue to suffer through. Those who continue to believe that the central banks are not at fault and that fractional reserve, fiat systems are legitimate continue to empower the criminality. Those government officials who continue to work to protect the central banking systems continue to deny you your birthright, the freedom you deserve.

The criminality and fraud need to be exposed. The spotlight needs to shine on those who have perpetrated it. Iceland has done so. They have arrested high level bankers and politicians. Now they are well on their way to fiscal recovery. The people of the United States still seem to want to remain frightened and willfully ignorant. They don't seem to want to admit that they've been played. They don't want to admit that we've become a fascist nation. They're frightened of what could happen should they attempt to tear down the collectivist system that the establishment has become.

There's really nothing to be afraid of, but the first step is to admit that there is a debt problem, then the common folk need to divorce themselves from those who have caused this problem. We need to insist that the thieves can no longer steal from us. We need to tell the so called "too big to fail" and their government agents that we are not afraid of what will happen should they fail. In fact, we should help to peacefully bring about a failure through criminal prosecution of those who have, in the past, threatened the masses with violence should they not get their way.

There are many ways to help restore the American dream. It begins by realizing we are no longer free and we are no longer represented by government, but that fascism has imposed itself in our government system. We must strive to divorce corporate power from government power. We must then strive to deny our consent to those who would try to impose their rule upon us. We must remove the levers of power they have constructed to impose their will upon society, levers that cannot be accessed by the common folk. These levers include the ability to create currency out of thin air (central banks) and the ability to impose taxes on private property and then claim that property, by force if necessary, should the so called owners refuse to pay (government).

We must strive to allow everyone to be free. We must strive to create a voluntary society based on love and trust that individuals will make good decisions for themselves rather than trying to regulate everyone through restrictive law which creates a society based on fear that individuals will make bad decisions for themselves. All these can be accomplished by civil disobedience. All these can be accomplished when enough of us simply say "No, I will not obey" to the powers that be.

There is no doubt the criminality must be dealt with and cleansed from the system. Most people realize that something is wrong, but they don't know what. They find it difficult to do something about it. There are several movements that are striving to deal with the problem and bring freedom back to the masses. There is the movement to audit and then abolish the Fed. There is the Tea Party movement. There is the Occupy movement. There is a movement away from the mainstream media and toward alternative sources of information. All these are valid ways to bring about positive change, but one must be wary of the tendency for the powers that be to infiltrate these movements in an attempt to neutralize them. When the message morphs into something other than peace and freedom, than one knows the mechanisms of co-opting are at work.

If you belong to a movement then it is important that you remember to stay on message. This is perhaps the most difficult thing of all to accomplish. Lasting change seldom happens overnight. Sudden change is usually violent. A peaceful world can hardly be achieved through violent means, as the violent means becomes the violence in the world. Freedom can hardly be achieved through tyrannical means, as the tyranny becomes the established method. An honest system can hardly be achieved through corrupt methods as the corruption rots away the system to its core. Adhere to your principles and you will lead be example. You will become the reminder to all of how things should be, how they should operate. You will become the change you wish to see and the world will be better for it.

If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.

Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also find and enjoy them.

Caged in America: A Collection of Essays Celebrating Freedom. By Szandor Blestman

Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman

Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti

The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti

The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti

Confessions of a Serial Conspiracy Theorist

I think that perhaps I've always been a conspiracy theorist. Now, that statement needs a little clarification. Always is a long time, so perhaps it would be better to say I've been a conspiracy theorist in this lifetime. Ah, but even that is a long time and can be a little unclear, so perhaps it is a little more accurate to say I've been a conspiracy theorist for as long as I can remember. Hmm, even that's a little incorrect because I can remember pretty far back to times when I didn't have a realistic idea of how the world works. Perhaps if I claim I've been a conspiracy theorist for as long as I've been able to think about such things and use reason to come to logical conclusions. Yeah, that's the ticket.

But now there's something else missing. These two words, "conspiracy theorist," when used together, what exactly do they mean? You see, in recent times, in my opinion, these two words have been convoluted on purpose by certain interests in order to obfuscate truth. They've done this so that those who dig for the truth will be made irrelevant. Hmm, that's a bit of a conspiracy theory in and of itself.

A conspiracy is simply two or more people plotting something evil, unlawful or just plain wrong. A theory is simply a proposed explanation or conjecture as to why something is the way it is or happened the way it happened. So a conspiracy theorist is merely someone who conjectures that something happened as it did because two or more people carried out a plot to make it so. Yet somehow the words "conspiracy theorist" have come to mean "some crazy loon with a wild imagination who makes things up" in the minds of many people.

Most recently many so called conspiracy debunkers have concentrated on conspiracy theories that involve government personnel. They will then declare the conspiracy theorists crazy as there are so many good people in government, too many people would know and it would be too hard to keep it secret, or someone would blow the whistle, or some such thing. These arguments are easily picked apart for the most part and are just as emotionally based, in my opinion, as some of the conspiracy theories they are trying to debunk. This observation makes me wonder if some hidden power isn't trying to make the masses believe that government is a most innocuous and beneficial organization so that they don't want to believe that it in fact creates an environment for the most destructive and malevolent forces of humankind to operate from. There I go again, spouting my conspiratorial thinking.

Yet believing the debunkers closes the mind. If one listens to them one may never clearly understand all the evidence of conspiracy. One might never ask the right questions. One might never question the right authorities. One might even go as far as to twist the laws of physics so that this religion of government, this belief that government is nothing but loving, caring, and beneficial to the masses, isn't shattered. Like a wife who refuses to break free of an abusive husband, (or a husband who refuses to acknowledge a wife's infidelity) the true believers debunk any evidence of unfaithfulness. Instead, they make excuses that hold no water and point to the occasions where their spouse expressed their loving and caring nature. It is the same with government. A true believer might say something like "How can our leaders who protect us from evil foreigners, provide us with retirement funding, care about the welfare of our poor, regulate the soulless businessmen, and give us education and roads do anything evil?"

I grew up on the heels of the Kennedy assassinations. I remember the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination and the riots it caused. There really isn't that much question that these conspiratorial events involved some very powerful government entities and yet the guilty parties were never held accountable. In fact those involved or their families or agents still have a hold on power today. Their agenda includes a determination to gain power across Western civilization and to never relinquish that power. After all, should they lose that power there's a chance that they may have to account for their past evils perpetrated against humanity. They can't let that happen.

Yeah, I confess, I do believe that there are powerful men hidden inside the complex that is the modern corporate structure directing events that will shape our future. I do believe they plot to create events that will benefit their interests. I do believe they use their wealth and power to buy high level politicians to make sure their interests are represented first and foremost when it comes to making national policies. I do believe they place their friends and even their family members into positions of high power so that they can continue to cover up past misdeeds and move forward an agenda. I do believe these people would do anything to hold onto power, anything. Anything. And everything. I don't believe they care one whit for the common folk. In fact, I think they're frightened of us, for they worry that if enough of us find out and decide to do something about it they may lose more than just their positions of privilege. They are frightened at what we may do should we decide to direct our ire at the true power behind their puppet politicians.

Do you mean to tell me you don't believe that? You don't believe that men of wealth and influence would use that wealth and influence to guide humanity along a path that would benefit their agenda? Do you think that all these events that have taken place that just happen to benefit the already too wealthy and too powerful are simple coincidences? Do you believe laws created that are beneficial to large corporations but make it difficult to create competing smaller businesses happen by accident? Do you think events that generate terror, change the direction of nations and usher in new paradigms happen on the whim of small minded people acting alone or in small and otherwise insignificant groups? Really? Well if we have that much power why can't we use it to build a more voluntary, peaceful society where the use of force, even government force, is no longer tolerated? Why must change be so violent? Why can't we have what 90 percent or more of us seem to want?

Yes, I am a conspiracy theorist. I think that all major changes in this world have happened due to some conspiracy or another. I think there are events that have taken place that have caused major paradigm shifts and that other events have happened of a similar nature that have not caused major paradigm shifts. I do believe that the difference is in who has planned such events and what the common folks' reaction to these events have been. I do think that such things are studied by the powers that be, the wealthy privileged elite who want to remain in power. I do think they use this knowledge to plot a path for humanity to take into the future. I do think they have used this knowledge to plot events that show complete disregard for the humanity and they will continue to do so as long as they feel they can get away with it.

I also think that more and more people are beginning to come around to my way of thinking. For instance, in a recent facebook discussion about aspartame one gentleman called those who claim aspartame to be dangerous conspiracy theorists and claimed that aspartame was one of the most studied and safe food additives ever. Most just laughed at that claim. The next post pointed out that the studies he referred to were those of the original patent holder (Searle) and that independent studies had found multiple dangers. I think people are catching on more than most realize. Conspiracies happen especially in certain government agencies where power is brokered and corruption is incentivised. Whistle blowers are punished now more than ever and secrecy is ubiquitous. Principle is greatly discouraged in government circles and anyone caught exercising it is as quickly as possible ushered out of any position of power he may occupy.

I think it's time we started our own little conspiracy. I think we should show those in power that they aren't the only ones who can conspire to create a vision of the world as it should be. Let us all conspire to take back the power to determine for our own selves what our own destinies should hold for us. Let us conspire to take back the personal responsibilities we should have for our own lives. Let us conspire to honor individual freedom. Let us conspire to honor the choices our neighbors make rather than coercing them into government mandated choices. Let us conspire to bring down government monopolies and provide competitive customer service for the one size fits all government solutions we are now forced to use.

Let us conspire to question authority. Let us conspire to say "No!" to unjust laws, police state brutality and surveillance state intrusion. Let us conspire to scale back federal government to constitutional size. Let us conspire to be peacefully disobedient. Let us conspire to deny consent. Let us conspire to do so without violence and to show that human beings can bring about lasting change in a peaceful manner. Let us conspire to show the world that the only tool government can use to make us compliant is force, and that, like bullies, they will use it if they think they must or they will have to back down. It might not be easy, but it starts with admitting that conspiracies exist and realizing that in order to take back power, even personal power, you must be among those conspiring to do so.

If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.

Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also find and enjoy them.

Caged in America: A Collection of Essays Celebrating Freedom. By Szandor Blestman

Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman

Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti

The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti

The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti

The Obvious Hypocrisy of Tyranny

If tyranny was a living being, it would be a strange and marvelous creature. By that I don't mean it would be a good thing, I mean it would be something to gaze upon and marvel at, much like a dangerous or poisonous animal. One could appreciate its qualities, but one wouldn't want to get too close for fear of being attacked or bitten. In many ways, tyranny engrosses the human mind, hypnotizing the observer with its brilliance and power. At the same time the observer knows he should back off and carefully put some distance between himself and the creature, yet he is enticed to creep just a little closer, to see just how close he can get to test his mettle. This is a dangerous practice which we know can end up in disaster.

But tyranny is a clever predator indeed. It likes to hypnotize its victims. It likes to entice them closer. It's much like a Venus flytrap, sending out an enticing scent to attract the fly and then closing around it when it enters. It operates much like humans did when they first learned to domesticate animals. It sets out food inside a pen for the victim and then once that animal comes to eat closes the pen and then the animal is trapped and has to count on something other than itself for its survival. Ah, but there's something even more insidious to tyranny than that. Tyranny has to deceive to survive, but it also wants those who serve it to participate. It wants to change the moral into the immoral. It wants to make its victims into small versions of itself as it feeds upon the innocent who blindly follow like sheep to the slaughter.

That's why hypocrisy is such a hallmark of tyranny. It has to be, otherwise human morality would not allow it to survive. No one, or almost no one, would want to admit that they were evil. Even Lucifer himself makes the claim that he is "the light" and is working toward the "greater good." When talking about intention, which I believe should be considered, it is notable to understand that often times good intentions can result in horrendous consequences. It is not just the intentions that matter, but the means by which one attempts to bring about those intentions. It is, for instance, hypocritical to tell others that they can't video supposedly public servants doing their job in public and then to use video cameras to spy on everyone else without warrant supposedly in an attempt to provide security. Yet it seems to be quite important to tyranny that those subjected to it believe it is necessary in order to achieve some kind of good intention.

This helps explain why politicians are able to promise one thing while delivering another. It helps explain why they can tell bald faced lies and still get re-elected. It helps explain why George W. Bush could make the promise of smaller government, a humble foreign policy and no nation (empire) building while campaigning and yet proceed to grow the federal government by leaps and bounds, dictate to other nations, start wars and expand the empire after he gets elected. It helps explain why Barack Obama can promise a roll back of the Bush administration's policies, a foreign policy of tolerance and peace, and government transparency while campaigning and yet proceed to strengthen Bush era unconstitutional legislation, continue allowing human rights violations by US military and intelligence organizations, and crackdown on more whistleblowers than proceeding administrations while becoming one of the most secretive administrations ever after being elected.

The biggest hypocrisies take place when these people take their oaths of office. They vow to uphold and defend the constitutions (of the US and, at a more local level, of their states) against all enemies, foreign and domestic, then they turn around and become the very enemies they just vowed to defend against by creating laws that violate the individual rights of the people, which these constitutions explicitly forbid. They more or less have to do this if they want to increase their power, and most politicians do want to increase their power, because these constitutions are written to limit their power. Politicians, then, are making an oath to obey the law and not become tyrants, and then turning around and doing the very things that tyranny demands.

What we seem to have forgotten is that constitutions are not laws that apply to the populace, they are laws that apply only to politicians. They are the highest laws of the land because they are meant to regulate those with the ability to cause the greatest harm. Constitutions also, unfortunately, do not carry with them any recommendations for discouraging the breaking of the law. In the meantime those who would profit from using those in power to create a restrictive society can provide an incentive for them to do so. Politicians who dishonor their oaths and break the highest law of the land do so with impunity while those who protest prohibitions and break bad laws have to worry about government retribution and the wrath of the tyrants. The administration and the critters inhabiting the halls of congress should have to worry about the people, we should not have to worry about them and their enforcers.

Hypocrisy is the way of the collectivist. It is not the way of the individualist. Even though they may wish to become tyrannical, those in power still seem to want your consent to do so. They want you to participate in your slavery. The way out of this is to choose to not give your consent. The way out is to insist on freedom. It is to realize that in order to be free, you must allow others to be free. It is to realize that when one person is tyrannized, we are all tyrannized. Understand that just because someone speaks out for something you might disagree with, or against something you might agree with, that you must allow him to so that you might also be able to do so. Understand that that same someone should be allowed to speak his mind to those in power, especially at a public venue, and not be limited to some "free speech zone" where those in power will not hear him. Respect his right to do so and your right to do so will also be respected should a time arise when you feel it is necessary to express your views to those in power.

Understand that people own their own bodies and should be allowed to determine for themselves what they want to put into them. No one should ever be forced to put something in their body that they don't want to put in their body either. By allowing others to consume what they wish to consume, you help create a precedent that will make it far less likely that anything you wish to consume will ever be prohibited. By standing up for another's right to refuse to be forcefully medicated you help create a precedent that will make it far less likely that you will ever be forcefully inoculated.

Understand that by owning their own bodies, people also own the fruits of their labor. If that fruit comes in the form of fiat currency, they should be able to decide what they want to do with that currency, whether they want to spend it or save it, who they want to do business with and what products and services they wish to prioritize in their lives and voluntarily purchase. No one should be forced to give a portion of the product of their labor to any other individual or group of individuals, no matter how important those others might believe their service is. The immorality of this type of system should be obvious to all. Anything important enough to be worth doing should be worth doing on a voluntary basis. Anything that needs to use force and coercion to fund itself is not a legitimate endeavor.

The individualist is not hypocritical. To him, freedom is the answer no matter the question. As long as no harm is being done to another and no one else's property is being damaged or stolen, then people should be allowed to do as they please. The collectivist will claim the same morals, but with exceptions. I can own a gun, but she can't because, blah, blah, blah. I can express my opinion, but he can't because, blah, blah, blah. We can print money out of nothing, but they can't because, blah, blah, blah. I can take certain substances into my body, but you can't because, blah, blah, blah,. You can't run a ponzi scheme, but we can because, blah, blah, blah. You can't forcefully take money from others to provide protection, but be can because, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Those who would impose a tyrannical collectivist system on you understand that most people don't want such a system. That's why they need you to believe you are free. That's why they want you to believe that you need them. That's why they are forced into hypocrisy, for if they kept their promises they'd make themselves irrelevant, and if those who wish to truly make us free were allowed to run fair political campaigns against the collectivists the tyrants would lose and become irrelevant. By merely having a centralized authority with the ability to force their will upon the populace tyranny exists. Until we all learn to stop co-operating with such powers, the tyranny will grow until it metastasizes. Until we stand up and refuse to accept the excuses for the hypocrisy, we will be subject to the tyrannical whims of those who rule.

I am proud to announce that my latest book "Caged in America: A Collection of Essays Celebrating Freedom." by Szandor Blestman is now available at smashwords.com. Also available exclusively at smashwords is the latest installment of my next book "The Blessings of Freedom; Creating Prosperity in the 21st Century." Chapter 5 of the serialized version is available here.

If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.

Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also enjoy them.

Caged in America: A Collection of Essays Celebrating Freedom. By Szandor Blestman

Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman

Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti

The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti

The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti

The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti