Democracy; Only Good When it Serves the Elite?

“The American republic; it's not your founding forefathers' representative democracy anymore”
Szandor Blestman

I'm not a huge fan of democracy. I think it's over rated and that the propaganda espousing its greatness has indoctrinated many people into believing that mob rule is the best political system ever created. My favorite description of a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Early on in the history of the American federal government certain changes were made to the Constitution to help establish more of a democracy type government that certain influential founders had warned against. The corruptible influences of such disregard for the original intentions and spirit that our forefathers wanted to impart upon our nation is now obvious for all to see. Democratic rule is well intentioned, however, even if it is true the a majority of people can at times be wrong about a given issue. It is the system we as Americans must deal with in our everyday lives, so we may as well make the best of it as often as possible.

Lately, however, it has become more than evident that those in power care nothing for the tenets of democracy they so publicly embrace. While they dutifully sit behind television cameras and explain the need to send soldiers to every corner of the world in order to bring the benefits of democracy to oppressed peoples, they ignore the concerns coming from the majority of their own constituents. This is in no way a new phenomenon, but it is one that has become more blatant in recent years.

I suppose the easiest place to start is to look at the bailouts of the past year. Certainly, I can point out many other past instances where the principles of democracy were ignored by our elected officials. When the big bank bailout was approved it wasn't the first time Congress decided to act against the will of the American people, but it was perhaps one of the most egregious. One only needs to rewind to some of the comments made by certain congress critters to understand this. When congressmen are getting 300 emails against a bill to every email for the same bill and they still vote for it, what could be more undemocratic? When the sitting Speaker of the House makes the claim that she knows better than her constituents what's good for them and how to best spend their money, could she make a statement that shows more disdain and disregard for the people she is supposed to serve?

In the case of the bailouts, the benefit to the ruling elite is obvious to some. The banks, with their trillions, can afford to donate quite a bit of money to campaigns of politicians. They can afford to pay for lobbyists and (dare I say it?) bribe elected officials. When they got into trouble because they had decided to loan money to people who eventually couldn't pay it back, they did not take responsibility for their mistakes, they chose to use the force of government to rectify their misguided decisions and to ensure that their wealth would not be lost. The people instantly understood that this meant they and their progeny would be paying for the mistakes of a few through taxation, and the vast majority of the populace used the system of representative democracy to voice their opposition to such an action. The people could not have been any clearer that they did not want these bailouts to take place. Still, that kind of democracy was not recognized by the political elite and they went ahead with their plans, using the claim of trying to prevent economic collapse to excuse their inexcusable ignorance.

It seems to me that perhaps this disregard for the will of the people was at least partially responsible for the election wins of many of the Democrats in the 2008 federal elections. Let us not forget that Mr. Bush's administration was responsible for starting what would become a very unpopular war and for bullying the congress into passing some extremely unconstitutional legislation. The Democrats took power at least in part as a protest to unpopular policies such as the Iraq war, torture and secret prisons, and support for laws like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions act. People have shown that they would prefer to keep their freedoms rather than give in to allow government to run roughshod over their rights for the illusion of security. But it doesn't matter whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power. The government doesn't listen to the people. It would not serve the interests of the political elite to do so. Instead, they do what they want and as they feel they must in order to control the masses and keep their secrets hidden.

The Obama administration is not going to reverse any of the harm done by the Bush administration. That would mean relinquishing some of their power. Instead of bowing to the will of the majority and focusing on dismantling the mechanisms that have made the executive branch of the federal government far too powerful, and that power far too easy to abuse, the Obama administration has decided to focus on centralizing power even more, putting real power into the hands of fewer and fewer people. This will certainly make it easier for the powerful who pay for the federal government to control it.

Bailing out the banks wasn't enough. With the blessings of this new administration and despite popular opposition, the few who make the laws decided to bail out the auto industry. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say they purchased as much of the industry as they could so that its loses would be shouldered by this nation's common folks rather than the wealthy elite who would have otherwise bore that burden. Unlike the majority who seem to understand that a private business succeeds or fails as dictated by the market and the will of the people to purchase the goods or services offered, the wealthy elite believes itself to be too big to fail and uses the force of government and stolen tax money that should not be available to them to ensure that competitive entrepreneurs will not be able to bring their innovations to market. This is how the economy stagnates.

The most recent folly of the undemocratic government we have been saddled with is the “Cap and Trade” regulation recently passed in the House of Representatives, albeit by a razor thin margin. Again, an unpopular piece of legislation has been passed because a working democratic process would not be good for the interests of the ruling elite. The people of this nation, for the most part, understand that this legislation is nothing more than a tax increase disguised as an ecological “feel good” measure. The trust in the federal government is quickly disappearing as more and more of these tomes of laws are imposed upon the American people. One can only hope that somehow the Senate shows some sign of sanity as the people continue to bombard their “representatives” with their opposition and concerns. There is still some hope as some senators are becoming nervous and beginning to realize that they cannot keep denying the people's will forever.

In the near future there will be a vote on health care reform. The people of this nation, in my opinion, have made it clear that they do not wish the government to be involved in health care. While the media and the political elite that use it for their propaganda rant and rail about how unaffordable health care is and how many people are without insurance, they do not discuss the positives of our health care system (such as choice and quality) nor do I hear much discussion about the true causes of the failings of this nation's health care system which have nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with the already heavily socialized institutions that have grown like cancers in this field of human endeavor. As I write this there is much debate in the halls of federal politics about another mega page piece of legislation involving health care and it looks as if it will have problems passing. Perhaps there is hope yet for the democratic process if the congress critters can finally decide to do the people's will in this matter and get out of health care altogether rather than doing what would be good for the political elite and passing legislation that would completely socialize medicine.

It is not enough to point out just the unpopular legislation that has been passed by congress. There is popular legislation out there that congress will not even consider. One of my personal favorite pieces of legislation is DownsizeDC.org's “Read the Bills Act.” This is a piece of legislation that would require congress to read all their bills aloud to a quorum and allow seven days where the law would be posted online to be reviewed by anyone interested and to allow time for those parties to contact their representatives to support or oppose the bill. In addition, the bill makes provisions that if a law is altered than the altered bill must again be read and posted with another seven day waiting period. What person could possibly find fault with such a bill? What are we paying these lawmakers for anyway, if they don't read and understand the bills they pass? I believe if a poll was conducted we would find that such a bill would be supported by a super majority of the common folk. Had such a law been the law of the land back in 2001 the tomes known as “The Patriot Act” and “The Military Commissions Act” would have never gotten to the floor. We would no longer have to worry about laws being so long and complicated and perhaps even contradicting themselves. Unfortunately, this law has yet to find a congressional representative brave enough to introduce it and it likely wouldn't pass because it is a law that constricts the power of the ruling elite instead of increasing it.

The last example I would like to discuss truly illustrates the total breakdown of our democratic system when it comes to the will of the people versus the will of the elite and just how powerful the ruling class really is. I am talking about Ron Paul's bill HR 1207, the “Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.” This is a simple bill that would not take long to read aloud in congress and would simply allow the GAO to completely audit the Fed. The last I heard there were 275 cosponsors to this bill. This means that not only would a majority of us common folk be in favor of such a bill, but so would a majority of our representatives. There is, however, one person that can prevent this bill from coming to the floor of the House for a vote. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has the power to do this. Since this bill will adversely effect some very powerful people, she has been hesitant to allow it to be voted on. This does not seem very democratic to me. One can only hope that the common folk can continue to exert enough political pressure on the powerful to get them to reconsider their positions.

I'm fairly certain that if this bill was thousands of pages long, a benefit to the powerful and detrimental to the common folk or their rights than the lawmakers would have voted it into law moments after it had been written. That seems to be the way modern democracy works. Its good to those who can afford to pay for it and their opinion is well represented, but if you are among the lower, middle or even some of the upper middle classes than your opinion matters little. This is not freedom, but a way of making sure that everyone knows their proper place in society. Bring Ron Paul's HR 1207 to vote and then audit the Fed. Perhaps then we will realize the depth of the corruption and do something to correct it. Perhaps then we will create a system where even the most common of the common can use the money he has as a vote by deciding for himself what services to pay for rather than being forced to pay for services provided by the federal government monopoly. Now that would be a democratic system I could get behind.

Spilling the Blood of the Peaceful

I’ve recently moved. As a result, I’ve been meeting new and interesting people. The more neighbors I meet, the more common folk I speak with, the more I realize that the vast majority of people realize and understand the principles upon which this country was built and that our government and governments around the world have subverted these principles. As a society, we have entrusted groups of people to uphold the values that made this a great and prosperous nation and slowly over the decades those values have been degraded. We have problems even defining what it means to be principled anymore. If we wish to live as peaceful and prosperous freemen, we should try to understand the motivations and mechanisms of those who wish to prevent us from realizing such a society.

A couple nights ago I got into a discussion with Kamyar, one of my new neighbors. I got to know him a little better. He explained to me that he was Persian (from Iran) and that he was a member of the Baha’i faith. I know next to nothing of the Baha’i faith, so I was curious about it. He told me it was a religion based on peace, much like many religions have claimed to be. He also explained to me that he had come to the United States of America back in the late seventies and that he was unable at the time to return to Iran for fear that he would be persecuted there because of his religion. At the time of the revolution in Iran, Baha’ists were being jailed and killed.

I, in turn, told Kamyar some of the things I have heard about the persecution of such groups as the Buddhists, the Falun Gong, and the Quakers back in colonial times. This conversation started me pondering, “Why is it that those in power have a tendency to crack down hard and bring violence upon otherwise peaceful people?”

It occurs to me that throughout history the human race has experienced this scenario time and again. It is particularly well documented in modern times, but persecutions of peaceful peoples have been occurring for millennia. Why should this be? I suppose it’s not so hard to understand when considering a warlike people attacking another people to steal their lands and natural resources and to enslave them. This is particularly true of ancient times when perhaps the natural world, and life itself, was a little harsher on mankind and survival a bit more uncertain and dependent upon forces outside man’s control. It is perhaps a little more complicated or difficult to understand when the peaceful elements inside a given society are violently targeted.

One explanation that certainly seems reasonable is that the peaceful people present an easy target for those in power. Indeed, when considering the similarities between the techniques of coercive authoritarians and schoolyard bullies, one can easily note that both have a tendency to pick on the weakest element they can find. They seemingly wish to bring harm to another, either to exercise some inhuman sadistic drive or to feed their own overbearing egos and solidify some needy superiority complex they may be feeling, while minimizing the risk that they may actually be harmed.

As intriguing and complete as the above explanation is, would it not be wise and prudent for one pondering these issues to consider other possible explanations? Perhaps there is more to these peaceful philosophies than meets the eye. Perhaps there is more to this esoteric practice of bringing violence upon the peaceful then fulfilling the psychological needs and the self gratification of a few powerful psychopaths. Perhaps these peaceful philosophies are a greater threat to the established powers than many may realize.

If one looks at philosophies revolving around the concept of peace, one might come to the conclusion that these philosophies are diametrically opposed to governing philosophies. Peaceful people, for the most part, just want to be left alone. While they might espouse their philosophy rather fervently, they can really only try to persuade others to embrace it. There is no threat they can carry out that would cause undo stress upon an individual to coerce them to follow a truly peaceful philosophy. If there were, or if the group tried to implement such actions, then the peaceful philosophy they espouse would not be a truly peaceful philosophy, at least not in practice.

Peaceful people, following peaceful principles, do not wish to exercise power over others. They do wish to make their own decisions about their own lives and how to go about living it, however. Governing philosophies, however, are quite a bit different. As George Washington so succinctly put it, “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.” Those who would govern others believe in the use of force to do so. They believe that they must use force to cause others to embrace their philosophy. They do not wish to leave others alone to make their own decisions, but wish to control everyone’s life as much as possible and are forever trying to expand their influence and purview. Of course, the fact that by doing this those at the top of the heap can often enrich themselves serves as quite an incentive to those who wish to play with the fire that is government.

And so it is that these divergent philosophies often collide in a given society. A philosophy of peace will begin to gain support and recognition amongst the populace and the authoritarians in control become nervous or frightened as their legitimacy comes into question. Those in power know that their power comes from the bottom and works its way up. They know that if the base erodes their ability to threaten, coerce and use physical force against those they rule is weakened. They don’t wish for these ideas to spread amongst the masses and so they strike viciously at those who threatened not their physical form, but their perceived privileges. Those who would rule and praise the ideals of exercising power over others care nothing for equality, or laws, or justice, or righteousness, or principles when it comes to their own actions, they care only for the seductive high produced by the process of controlling one’s fellow human beings and by the privileges and benefits gained by such practices. They care so much for such things that they have no qualms in seducing others with lies and propaganda and then carrying out state sanctioned pogroms of imprisonment, torture and even murder of those who simply wish to be left alone. And so the blood of the peaceful is spilled while the violent authoritarians are protected not only by the state, but by the beliefs and principles of their victims, by the very philosophies they seek to destroy.

It is in this way those in power seek to influence the masses. Should those who espouse a philosophy of peace try to defend themselves, then it is likely they will be quickly portrayed as violent militants who are a threat not only to those in power, but to the peace loving society underneath them. The masses of the populace may see the carnage taking place and so become fearful of following such a peaceful philosophy. They may even take up arms against such a resistance in an effort to gain a portion of the benefits and privileges they see those in power enjoying. On the other hand, if those espousing a philosophy of peace refuse to become violent and stick to their principles even in the face of unjust state power levied against them, they will likely experience great suffering at the hands of the powerful, but the populace might just begin to recognize the inherent corruptibility of such power and turn away in disgust from those wielding it. They may even flock to the aid of those practicing such peaceful philosophies out of human decency and despite the dangers.

The philosophies of freedom and individual liberty are peaceful philosophies. Those who practice them wish only to be left alone. They do not wish to force their will upon others, but they do desire the freedom to be able to express themselves to those who would listen. They wish only to be able to practice personal responsibility for themselves and their families. They wish only to keep that which they have earned, to decide for themselves how to best spend their money or where it would be best to apply their efforts and wealth for the betterment of their community and the world. They seek only voluntary interactions between themselves, their friends and anyone they might do business with.

This is, of course, a threat to those who wish to maintain power over the populace. It is even more of a threat to those who wish to try to centralize power and keep it in the hands of the few. While self defense remains a human right, it should be used judiciously and it would be prudent to remember that those in power at the moment can easily twist the words and motives of those who defend themselves with violence and make them seem to be the aggressor. It is my hope that as this peaceful freedom movement grows those involved remain brave in the face of state violence and adhere to their principles without resorting to the cruel and inhumane methods used by the powerful. It is my hope that, especially in these modern times with all our video and communication technology, those who espouse the philosophies of freedom and individualism and practice peaceful civil disobedience will be able to finally show even the most indoctrinated statist the violence and inhumanity of the organization he supports and worships.

More American Injustice, the Ed and Elaine Brown Deception

I had the pleasure of being a guest on a radio show hosted in part by Elaine Brown. I found her to be intelligent and engaging. This was, of course, a couple of years ago, just before federal agents arrested the Browns for pointing out to all of us the inherent immorality of extorting money from honest folk.., I mean for tax evasion. In addition to being quite a gracious host, she struck me as being extremely intelligent, principled and peaceful. I very much enjoyed speaking with her.

Ms. Brown articulated quite well that she believed herself to be a free person and that she wanted to rid herself of the ties that bind us all to the behemoth known as the federal government. It is well known that she was protesting the way the federal government goes about its business and how their actions demonstrate that those in power have been elevated to the status of masters of the populace. Indeed, if people are not allowed to peacefully withhold their funding and withdraw their consent without fear of retribution, how are they supposed to voice their grievances and concerns in a meaningful way? From election fraud and improprieties, to wars and foreign entanglements, to using the money of the middle classes to bail out the elite and the unwillingness of the Senate to audit the Federal Reserve, time and again the voices of the people have been ignored when they have used the prescribed system set up by the governing bodies and the grievances expressed have not been redressed as supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

In October of 2007 the Browns were kidnapped from their home by federal agents. They then began serving their sentences in federal prisons for crimes they had been convicted of in absentia. These were victimless crimes as no fellow human was physically harmed and nobody’s property was stolen or damaged. Whether or not these so called crimes should even be considered crimes is the subject of much debate, although those in power would like us all to believe that this is not so. The Browns were sentenced to five years in prison because they had the audacity to question the system and attempt to do something about it. But this was not enough for the feds. They had to break the Browns’ spirits and try to squelch the message that the Browns were attempting to send to the masses.

Originally, Ed and Elaine Brown had planned on seeing their trial through. They had planned on using several different arguments in their defense. They had prepared many arguments meant to explain why they were doing what they were doing and why they had the right to take such actions. The judge in the case denied the Browns the ability to use any such defenses in their case. It was at this point that the Browns decided the system was rigged and that they had no other option but to step outside of the system and to withdraw their consent if their message was to be heard. Their crime wasn’t so much that they didn’t pay their taxes and that they didn’t show up to their appointed court date, it was that they dared to disobey, to question authority, and to stand up for their individual rights and to claim their freedom. This type of behavior very much frightens the federal authorities and when it occurs they feel the necessity to crack down exceptionally hard.

Last week the Browns were once again dragged into court and tried on different charges related more to the standoff that happened as a result of the government’s actions than to the original charges the Browns were arrested for. These charges were for such things as weapons violations and threatening or trying to intimidate federal agents. I’m not sure about anyone else, but to me federal agents, especially when gathered in large groups, are far more intimidating than an old retired gentleman holed up in his house. Yet the federal government felt they had to make an example of the Browns. They had to show the people who is in charge. They want you to know without a shadow of a doubt that if you disobey their dictates and refuse to go along with their demands, no matter your reasoning, no matter how much support you’ve garnered, no matter the constitutionality of your argument, you will be harshly punished. They are big, strong and possess the guns and power and you are weak, puny and insignificant. The most heinous of crimes in the eyes of those in power are the crimes of disobedience to the state and questioning their authority.

While it may be true that Ed Brown may have made some statements and accusations that seem a bit outlandish and threatening to some, it seems to me that he was only trying to express his desire to defend himself, his loved ones and his property. He did not actually harm anyone. He did not initiate any violence against any person or group of persons. He did not go out looking for trouble but merely stayed on his property and challenged the feds to come after him. Unfortunately, federal agents don’t take kindly to having their authority challenged and would rather risk their lives, the lives of their men and the lives of innocent people apprehending someone who has merely brought into question their legitimacy rather than just leaving well enough alone and allowing people to live as freemen and keep the fruits of their labor.

This latest trial was nothing but a show trial, an effort to show those who would try to protest taxes and their enslavement to the federal government that those in power mean business. The same kind of thing was happening in the eighteenth century when the British would arrest American colonists for similar victimless crimes and protests. The Browns were assigned lawyers that are beholden to the system, as all lawyers are. They have no money to hire their own because the government took it all. Even if they did, how can anyone expect to get a fair trial challenging the authority of the government when everyone involved with the justice system has a vested interest in making certain the government’s veneer of legitimacy is maintained?

Those involved with prosecuting the Browns have tried to paint them as dangerous. I don’t believe that Elaine Brown was a danger to anyone and the only people who Ed Brown may have been dangerous to are the ones who threatened him in the first place. The federal government’s legitimacy is crumbling. They have stepped far outside their mandates and pried themselves into the business of the people where they don’t belong. They have stepped outside the bounds of their constitutional authority, to the point which some have even started to question the legitimacy of that document in terms of human freedom. The courts may be able to bully individuals like the Browns and silence them, but there are many questions left unanswered and many grievances that have yet to be redressed. Sooner or later, these concerns must be addressed by those who wish to exert control over the masses as the inherent intrusions upon our freedoms created by these issues become more obvious for any thoughtful human to see. Throwing people in prison for tax violations is not a proper reaction to a request for clarification.

The courts in this nation were supposed to be set up to protect the individual from the powerful. It has not worked out that way. It seems to me that the courts have become more interested in supporting the state than defending individuals against it. Cases like this one where the Browns question the legitimacy of the income tax should be seen as an opportunity to forge new frontiers into issues concerning individual freedom. Instead they uphold practices that laud state power over the individual and a system that reflects more a collectivist mindset than that of an individualist, or a voluntary type society envisioned by this nation’s founding fathers. One can only hope that such cases help bring these issues to light regardless of how the state would like to keep us in the dark over such matters.

A Slave By Any Other Name Would Still Be Owned

Do you believe you own yourself? If so, you may come to believe differently by the time you’re done reading this article. If not, do you believe you ought to own yourself? These are fundamental questions that many have pondered over the millennia. They are basic to the principles of liberty.

I happen to believe I own my own body. I happen to believe that my thoughts are mine to contain, conceal, express or disseminate as I see fit. I believe that the knowledge I’ve obtained through my life’s experiences, education and observations is mine to apply in any way that benefits myself or others and that any compensation others may give me for such an application of knowledge is well earned and mine to keep. I believe that the labor capabilities of my body are mine to sell to others as I see fit and that any compensation freely given or previously agreed upon for the products and/or services produced by said labor is also well earned and mine to keep. I believe that anything I pay for in full with compensation that has been well earned is mine to keep and any successful attempt to forcefully or stealthily remove it from my possession should be considered theft. I believe that the concepts outlined above should be considered basic private property rights that all humans should enjoy and everyone should give respect to others in regards to those rights as they would expect others to do for them.

If you happen to believe the above statements as I do, then it will probably come as no surprise that there are many who don’t believe as we do. Indeed, there are many who believe that they own us. There are many who believe they own the things we may consider are rightfully ours. Not only do they feel this way, but they have created a reality that better reflects their point of view than ours. These people are best known as government officials and bureaucrats, but some would argue that there are secret and not so secret moneyed and special interests that will also make the claim of their ownership of humanity. These people will likely do anything to make certain that their belief system is upheld and strengthened and make sure ours is never realized.

It could be and has been argued that these people do, in fact, own you. If you don’t believe that, just try not paying your taxes and see what happens. They will eventually send men with guns to your door and throw you in a prison cell if you try to exert your freedom and make the claim that you have the right to keep the fruits of your own labor. They will prove that they own you. They will claim that you owe them a portion of your labor for services they provide, even if you don’t use their services, even though they hold a monopoly on certain services, and even if you might find some services offered abhorrent. This happens because most people allow it to happen. Most people just grumble as they accept their fate and pay to keep the wolves from the door. They suffer in silence and do nothing because they have the perception that nothing can be done.

Not only do these people own you, they own your progeny. They have taken money they do not have and given it to their elite friends with the promise that future generations will pay with their taxes. They use the promise of easy money to enslave and they use fear of the mindless enforcers and obedient courts to prevent the masses from so much as questioning their legitimacy. They have used the media to build an illusion that they are invulnerable and so the individual’s spirit gives up. They use public schools to indoctrinate the youth so the system perpetuates itself. They own you, and your children, body, mind and soul; lock, stock and barrel.

At one time, perhaps this wasn’t so bad. At one time, perhaps when I was younger, perhaps before I was born, government was at least responsive to the people. We were prospering and so it seemed to many that giving a small portion of our wealth to Washington DC and the rich political elite wasn’t such a bad thing. Oh, there were things going on that people didn’t like, there were protests and the like, but those in charge seemed to pay attention to the people. At least there was still some amount of freedom in this country. At least there was representation of the common folk. At least there were free markets and the government stayed out of our business for the most part. Well, maybe not, but it seems to me that government has gotten a hell of a lot more blatant about the fact that they own you lately and have been turning a deaf ear to the demands of the people more than ever over the past couple of decades.

Now government and their corporate cronies wish to put the final screws to you. Now they want to remove what little semblance of freedom you may perceive you have left. They moved quickly to bailout the banking elite despite more calls and emails from their constituents against such measures than any other bill has ever generated. They moved just as quickly to bailout and in essence take over auto manufacturers over the objections of the tax payers whose money they were spending. They use the excuse that they are trying to save the economy, but the common folk are the economy. They have proven their disdain for the ordinary citizen. They don’t care what you have to say or what you think because they consider you a slave. They are not saving the economy, they are saving their ability to control it, and their positions as masters.

Still, this is not enough for them. Still, the power brokers in congress wish to extend their reach into every man’s life. Last Friday the congress voted to impose a huge cap and trade bill upon the populace of these United States of America despite popular opposition to the bill. This is yet another massive bill that has not been read by the majority of congress members, if indeed it was read in its entirety by any of them. This bill is yet another government intrusion into the free market. It’s just another tax scheme passed under the guise of trying to “save” the environment. It’s funny how congress is forever trying to “save” something by spending our money. It will increase energy prices. It will increase the amount of taxes you pay, albeit in a less obvious way than increasing your income taxes. The common man, as always, will pay for this legislation, not the wealthy elite who can afford to pay off congressional members. Once again, the political elites manage to solidify their positions as masters.

Do not think for a moment that this government apparatus will stop there. For some time now there has been chatter prevalent amongst the political class that will increase the servitude quotient of significant segments of the population. With the new regulations that are being suggested in health care, doctors will quickly become some of the most slavish people in our society. They will not be able to charge (or not charge) for their services as they see fit, but will be paid as mandated by government decree. As a result, the consumer will lose options he currently has. Doctors will not be allowed to offer certain medical services unless those services are okayed by a governmental medical bureaucracy. Doctors will be under the watchful eye of Big Brother and will have to document all procedures carefully and be sure to remain within bureaucratic guidelines or they may lose their ability to legally practice medicine. They will be forced to service even those who may not require medical services and they will be forced to accept whatever compensation the government deems appropriate, not what the law of supply and demand, nor even the individual doctor’s capacity for human compassion, determines is appropriate.

Doctors are already over regulated. They already have too much oversight by the few health insurance companies that remain in business. Many doctors have been retiring early because of these conditions. In many places there is a shortage of doctors and those who remain in business are overworked. Further government regulation will only make the problems worse. Who would want to be a doctor if it means you become enslaved to government mandates?

Those in favor of more government regulation in health care seem to believe they should be able to determine compensation for the application of the doctor’s knowledge. They think they should be able to determine how to apply that knowledge to best benefit others. They seem to believe that they are best able to determine the labor capabilities of doctors. They will argue that everyone has the “right” to health care without realizing that saying such is tantamount to claiming someone has the “right” to force another human to provide services simply because that other human obtained a bit of knowledge. If they can do this to doctors, it won’t be long until they will try to force everyone to provide labor at compensation levels determined by government mandate.

Indeed, further down the road we can see what is being called “national service” coming into vogue. For now such a system is being set up to be voluntary, but one can imagine that making it mandatory is just around the corner. Already there is talk of creating such coercive measures as not allowing children to graduate high school unless they “volunteer.” It has also been suggested that the carrot of money for college be offered to those who take part in this system. It is not volunteering if you are compensated. Mandatory service of any kind, national or otherwise, for any period of time, is just indentured servitude. I would have thought that by the twenty first century mankind would have gotten past such measures.

It is time we started living once again as freemen. It is time we started calling a spade a spade and to stop pretending that we own our bodies, out labor or our knowledge when in fact we don’t. In order to live as freemen, we need to act like freemen. We need to show that we are not afraid of the whip. The political elite in this country has shown that they don’t care what we think. They have shown they will spend our money as they see fit, so why should we continue to pay taxes and why do we continue to let them print money and keep us indebted? As long as we pay and allow them to print money, they will remain our masters.

Dissidents, Hate Speech, Free Speech and Propaganda

I saw Glenn Beck the other day talking about the shooting at the holocaust memorial. On this particular program he wasn’t so much reporting the facts of the case as he was regaling us with his opinion. It appears as if this man James von Brunn has set a tempest upon us with his despicable action. One man kills another and mainstream media personalities are suddenly condemning entire groups of people numbering in the hundreds of thousands if not the millions. One crazy, paranoid, violent old man, perhaps suffering from who knows what kind of brain disorder, takes it upon himself to murder someone in cold blood and suddenly he is not responsible, but shadowy groups of hate mongers must have been pulling his strings? One tragic incident and suddenly I’m hearing rumblings that one of humankind’s most cherished birthrights needs to be monitored by those in power, thus tarnishing the memory of thousands who died in defense of such rights.

Mr. Beck made a statement something to the effect that he felt “9/11 truthers” were dangerous, potentially violent people. He’s been saying things like that for some time. James von Brunn is a racist, angry, violent man whose actions may be judged as that of a madman. Mr. Beck used that man’s individual actions as an excuse to condemn many who are nothing more than peaceful activists or those trying to express a point of view that may seem unacceptable to the majority. Any affiliations James von Brunn may have had, be they with the 9/11 truth movement or with some kind of white supremacist organization, are incidental. Just because he went out and decided to initiate violence against others doesn’t mean that everyone else in all the organizations he was affiliated with are going to go out and start doing the same.

Glenn Beck isn’t the only voice raised against so called hate groups after this incident. I’ve read many a commentary calling for laws making hate speech illegal. All these commentators seem to believe that if people spewing forth hateful rhetoric were forced to remain silent by threat of fines, imprisonment and even violence then hate crimes would no longer occur. They seem to want to put the blame not on the individual who carried out a despicable action, but on people he never met who he happens to agree with on certain issues. These people who want to subvert the right to free speech by outlawing hate speech have missed the point on why the right to free speech needs to be honored and preserved no matter how hateful, vile or disgusting that speech may be.

On the surface, hate speech laws might seem like a good idea to many, maybe even to a majority of people. In fact, I would say the vast majority of people don’t want to hear someone spewing hatred and would disagree with what was being said. There are, however, some things many people might not have considered. First, unpopular speech is the very speech that needs protecting, for speech that most people agree with is in no danger of being censored. Second, who is going to decide what constitutes hate speech? I can tell you this, it doubt very much it will be you or me.

People in power would be the ones determining what constitutes hate speech. People in power are people with agendas. People in power are people who have a tendency to want to take care of their own interests and the interests of their friends and supporters first and consider what’s best for the general populace second. There is often found, on close examination, conflicts of interest between legislation being considered and the interests of those who would vote on that legislation. People in power are people who have biases. In short, people in power are fallible human beings who can make mistakes and do the wrong thing, knowingly or unknowingly, just like anybody else. Perhaps more importantly, people in power today may not be in power tomorrow. The best policy, in my humble opinion, would be the policy of I won’t censor what you have to say and you don’t censor what I have to say.

I suspect that if a hate speech law were to go into effect, it would not be long until dissenters would be imprisoned for speaking out against government policy. In fact, it seems to me this is already happening. The recent articles I’ve written about imprisoning journalists are examples of government curtailing free speech. A law prohibiting hate speech, or any kind of speech for that matter, is just another step toward legitimizing the attempts to silence criticism of government, for it is government personnel who would be determining what hate speech was and it is not hard to imagine that they would soon consider legitimate criticism as hate speech.

One does not even have to dig very deep or look very hard to see how easily such a law could be abused. A good example would be the disturbing thoughts and words of Glenn Beck. He has not hidden his hatred for the 9/11 truth movement. He has made accusations against them that in my opinion are unfair and unfounded. He has called them crazy and dangerous and yet I have never heard these groups officially advocate violence, nor have a seen it reported that they have. Perhaps some individuals who claim affiliation with these groups may have made some questionable comments or threats, I don’t know. If so, then those particular individuals should be chastised, exposed and held responsible for their words and actions. I am fairly certain, however, judging from comments he’s made, that if Glenn Beck could have his way he’d throw anyone that questions the official story of 9/11 in prison just for their beliefs.

It seems to me that many of the people involved with the 9/11 truth movement simply want a valid investigation into the incident. I don’t blame them considering the make up of the 9/11 commission that undertook that investigation nearly a year after the incident. They seem to me to simply want unbiased answers to questions that fester to this day. It seems to me that they are only asking for justice concerning a crime for which perhaps the wrong people were punished. It’s too bad that Mr. Beck seems to have developed a personal grudge against this group of people, which includes a large swath of the population, but he should know better than to condemn an entire group because of his perception of a few of them.

Mr. Beck has accused “9/11 truthers,” along with white supremacists, of wanting to destroy the country. He has unfairly equated in a very subtle way people questioning the official 9/11 explanation with racists. This is a card that has been overused and abused by far too many powerful people in the media. In the same breath he condemns people who may want to see certain elements in the government prosecuted for crimes they may have committed with wanting to destroy the country. It seems to me that Mr. Beck is far too caught up in group think to be considered libertarian, as he likes to call himself.

The last thing that perhaps Mr. Beck hasn’t considered is that he himself may be engaging in hate speech, or that at least his words could be construed as hate speech. Other media personalities calling for the enactment of hate speech laws are just as guilty of not considering this. If the “9/11 truthers,” or the white supremacists, or some group sympathetic to them were to gain power, they could conceivably use these same hate speech laws so many are clamoring for against the very people who want them enacted. Can you see how slippery the slope is here? Can you tell how easily laws such as this can be abused? One need look no farther back in history than the last election to see how power changes hands and laws abused by one group of people can be quickly used against that same group when the tables are turned. The real purpose of hate speech laws would not be to stop hate crimes from occurring, it would be to stifle dissent.

Finally, Mr. Beck expressed his fear that he felt there was going to be a witch hunt. I agree with him on that point, but unlike him I don’t think the witch hunters are going to go after Jews and conservatives. Witch hunts are started by people in power with an agenda, not by marginalized individuals spewing hatred. I think that perhaps he is trying to start and spur on a witch hunt of his own against people in the 9/11 truth movement and perhaps other dissenters who may have differing ideas than his of what is truth, how to try to make people aware of their point of view, and how to go about trying to bring change to our broken system. If history is any indication, then if ever a real witch hunt does take place in this nation, it will likely be one launched by the government, it will likely be used to snuff out those trying to expose a truth that some power does not want known, and likely powerful media outlets will help it along by spreading misinformation and propaganda.

Free speech is an ideal that should not be compromised. Do not let those who oppose it fool you into believing that they are trying to produce a more secure society. A government that can imprison people with impunity for one form of speech, can imprison people with impunity for any form of speech.

Journalists, Political Intrigue and Controlling Your Thoughts

Once again imprisoned journalists have made the news. This time two lovely women have suffered a fate I would not wish upon my worst enemy. I am talking about the two American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who were sentenced to twelve years hard labor for the crime of supposedly entering North Korea. It is more than obvious, in my opinion, that these women are simply pawns in a dangerous game of international politics. They were guilty of nothing more than simply doing their job and attempting to provide unbiased, factual information to the masses of humanity. Unfortunately, their jobs brought them just a bit too close to a volatile border and they were quickly caught up in a situation they certainly did not want to create. These women were no spies and I wouldn’t be surprised if their capture was deliberate and it was actually the North Koreans that had encroached upon China’s domain, but to them these women were too much an opportunity for political bargaining leverage to pass up.

It is likely the North Korean government saw what was going on in Iran, the attention that state was getting, and like a jealous child they wanted to gain attention also. Unfortunately, when dealing with such an isolated country and such a psychologically unpredictable leader one never knows what demands will be made. It is difficult to guess exactly what Kim Jong-il is thinking. With the provocative nuclear tests North Korea has engaged in recently and the lives of perhaps millions hanging in the balance, the fate of these two young ladies becomes all the more uncertain. One can only hope that worldwide concern, condemnation and pressure on Kim Jong-il’s regime will secure the release of these two innocent journalists.

Using journalists as pawns is not a new phenomenon. It seems, however, that is has gotten a lot more press recently. People seeking power have always strived to control the thought processes of the masses. They’ve always sought to promote not only their point of view, but their way of thinking, no matter how convoluted. They discovered long ago that one of the best ways to do this is to control journalists and media outlets. Sometimes this can be achieved as easily as a couple of payoffs. Similar methods may include a rich and powerful elite buying up major media outlets and hiring performers instead of principled journalists who will shill for their point of view. Of course in societies ruled by authoritarian regimes, the media is owned by the state and obviously biased toward the leadership of the nation. These practices may appear innocuous, yet they may create a misinformed populace and problems for anyone who tries to inject an objective point of view into the public sphere.

In some areas, however, it becomes quite a bit more complicated. I was recently made aware, for instance, of a tragedy that took place in Nepal in January of this year. This was the sad case of Ms. Uma Singh, a radio journalist who was brutally murdered. According to witnesses she was stabbed to death by ten to fifteen men who barged into her residence. One would be justified in wondering what on Earth could be so frightening about one little woman to warrant having to send so many strong, burly men to see to her demise. Furthermore, one might wonder if this woman posed any threat at all to these men. I suppose it is possible, if this woman was about to expose some truth that these men didn’t want to be known. Truth is often a very frightening thing to some people as they know they’ve done wrong and they are afraid of what might happen should they be discovered. A more likely explanation is that these men were paid killers hired by someone who wanted Ms. Singh silenced and wanted to send a message to other journalists. For those who seek power, often times honest reporting is the last thing they want the people to hear.

Admittedly, I don’t know that much about Nepal or the Nepalese people. I have never traveled there nor have I personally met anyone from there. I do believe, however, that people everywhere are quite similar. People in all corners of the world want to be free to live their own lives as they see fit. They want to be free from intrusive government regulations and restrictions. They want to be free to speak their minds. They want to be informed in an honest, objective fashion. They want to be able to believe with relative certainty that they are being told fact and not being fed propaganda. According to what I’ve read coming out of Nepal, particularly in the Tarai region, the ordinary people there have no faith in their media because journalists there are more or less nothing but mouth pieces for various political parties.

It is my understanding that this region, the Tarai region, is rife with dozens of political parties vying for power and control over not only the people of the region, but its natural resources. As usual, everything revolves around money. As usual, the easiest way to grab the money is through politics. As usual, the common man gets the shaft and is not represented in the halls of power. But in Nepal, as evidenced by Uma Singh’s murder, being honest and expressing one’s true feelings, at least in a public way such as by reporting news over the radio, can be deadly.

The people that killed Ms. Singh, or the ones that ordered her death, are likely under the misconception that they can actually control the way people think by violence and fear. They don’t understand that they don’t control people’s innermost thoughts with such actions, they can only control their outward behavior. Even less, they can only control the public behavior of people when they are in the vicinity. The moment they turn their backs, or that no one feels threatened, people will discuss with each other their true thoughts and feelings. Perhaps they don’t care what people do when they’re not watching or perhaps they do, but in the long run I’m really not sure if that will matter. Sooner or later the resentment will build and those who exercise power will one day have to pay the piper once that resentment becomes too much for ordinary humans to contain.

Ms. Singh’s murderers have to this date not been arrested. No one has been charged. There is not even an ongoing investigation that I am aware of. I am aware that some Nepalese government agency has declared Ms. Singh a martyr and has compensated her family. That seems to me to be woefully inadequate. I know there are cultural differences at work here and I can’t speak for Ms. Singh’s family, but as for myself I would feel angered and perhaps insulted by such an action. I would want justice if my daughter had been killed in such a manner, not compensation, and especially not money from the state which simply steals the money it has from its citizens in the form of taxes. If I were to receive compensation it had better be from the men who carried out such a heinous crime or those who hired them. I would want to be able to rest knowing that these men would no longer be able to cause so much grief to another. It seems to me that when the authorities simply try to pay off the victim’s family and refuse to investigate further and bring the perpetrators to justice, that perhaps they are trying to cover up their own complicity in this convoluted matter.

Incidents like this continue to occur throughout the world. I’m certain there are many occurrences that go unreported, many journalists who are threatened on a daily basis. It is my hope that more light is shed upon these incidents as time goes by, whether caused by governments in power, both large and small, or by some other political force. It is my hope that such happenings spur journalists to dig deeper, investigate more fully, and expose those who engage in such devious activities rather than cause journalists to cower and hide in fear. Only in this way can the people come to understand who is trying to control the way they think and why. Only in this way can the public come to know who should be shunned and who should be praised.

Journalism is a powerful force. It should not be controlled by those with an interest in hiding the truth. Any attempt to hide or obfuscate facts, whether from a political party trying to gain power or from those who already operate the levers of the state, should be exposed and reported on. It is up to those in the media to use the power afforded to them to make certain that anyone trying to manipulate them is exposed for what they are. It is up to them to stick to their principles. Truth is a powerful tool and I believe the vast majority of people can differentiate between truth and propaganda when they see it. The importance of press freedom and the ability for journalists to operate without fear cannot be overemphasized and in my opinion it is prudent to question the motivations of anyone who would feel or state differently.

Talking to Demons, Living With Humans

Throughout history there have been occasions where one group of humans would demonize another group of humans. This happens most prevalently during times of war. It is, after all, easier for most to kill a foul beast than it is to kill a fellow human being. It is also easier to justify inhumane treatment of people using the same criteria. If a certain group of people are just beasts, or partial beasts, or demons, or some other lower form of life, or are in any way not as “good” or as “human” as the group of people you are affiliated with, it becomes easier for an individual to justify killing, or imprisoning, or torturing, or enslaving, or otherwise denying those people of their freedom and their ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

In order to help gain the support of the common people, the backbone of society, governments throughout the ages have employed propagandists. These men have been only too happy to paint their enemies as demons or monsters in order to line their pockets with a few pieces of gold. They find it easy to obfuscate, misrepresent or even outright lie in order to present the most inhuman face of the enemy possible. They would say things like “those guys eat babies,” or “they enslave their women,” or “they spread disease,” or some other nonsense that may have a grain of truth but is not totally honest. Politicians would then use these propagandists’ statements as talking points to whip the populace into a nationalist frenzy and promote the promulgation of war and the oppression of entire races of people.

You would think that by the first decade of the twenty first century, mankind would have learned to ignore this kind of propaganda. You would think that by this point in our evolution we would have come to the understanding that people are people and that within every group there are good people, there are bad people, and that there are mostly average people. Perhaps inside most of us do realize this, yet we are loath to admit it. Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising. There is a perception issue here, and the perception is usually that if the group doing the oppressing doesn’t continue to oppress than bad things will happen to them. The perception is that the “demons” will be unleashed upon the world. The perception is that the very fabric of society will be shredded and woe be unto those who were the oppressors. It usually proves out, however, that reality is quite a bit different than perception.

Now, I’ve never personally met a demon that I know of, but I have read about them and I believe I have a basic understanding of their psychology and what they are all about. It seems to me that demons are all about control. They covet human souls. Apparently, by capturing the human soul, they gain power. Often times they appear to be purely human. They use charm and promises to achieve their goals and their victims don’t realize they are dealing with an unspeakable evil until it is too late. Often times the victim of a demon will come to the frightening understanding that he has been ensnared in a web of deceit only when there is absolutely nothing that can be done to escape. Sometimes, however, an intelligent victim is able to discover the demon’s weakness or a loophole and free himself from the demon’s grasp.

Politicians are usually charming. They use promises to get votes. They have a tendency to promise things they cannot deliver. They promise to give people entitlements that were not earned. They use other people’s money to buy the allegiance of the souls who end up voting for them. They deceive many into believing they will be represented and then they represent no one save themselves and those special interests and lobbyists who provide more money to buy the allegiance of more souls. These men and women seeking power and positions in government may not exactly be demons, but they certainly seem to have learned from demons. They seem to employ the same methods to gain power. And so it is that these power lusting zealots manage to impose themselves upon a people, call themselves government, and authorize themselves to speak to other power lusting zealots in the name of large swaths of ordinary human beings and claim to represent them all or their interests. It’s as if one group of demons were talking to another group of demons.

These men and women, acting in the way many demons do, often times make decisions that, like it or not, we all have to live with. They may even make some outrageous decisions, depending on their wants and needs or those of their friends, like the decision to start killing others in an aggressive war or to try to oppress others simply because they live on a plot of land coveted but not controlled by those seeking power. They force, coerce or seek to convince those who they already exercise power over to go along with the plan. Those who believe they will profit or benefit in some way from such a venture will agree to go along even if they see the inherent wrong of such an action.

I believe that the vast majority of people just want to be left alone to live their lives as best they can. Most people are quite satisfied living a peaceful life. Most simply want the ability to work for themselves and their family and to trade with others on a voluntary basis without government bureaucrats, agencies and regulations getting in the way. I would venture a guess that most people understand that most regulations are put in place just to create revenue, a sort of legalized extortion to support the privileged political class and keep them in power. Still, most remain silent on such issues simply because most people don’t want to create waves. They are peaceful and so they are willing to go along to get along. They are willing to tolerate such theft in order to keep the men with guns from coming to their door, arresting them, dragging them in front of an imposing man in black robes, and perhaps imprisoning them or worse. Yet these peaceful, ordinary people have shown that they are willing to pick up a gun, go to a foreign land and kill people they have never met if these same extortionists tell them that those people are different, that they are demons in human guise.

I would hope that the time has come for ordinary, average people would begin to think about such things. I would like to think that more and more people are beginning to see through the propaganda. I would like to believe that the common folk of this world have become smart enough to realize that in order to live with each other we need to stop believing that whole groups of people are demons and start recognizing each individual’s humanity and respecting it. We may have to deal with the demons in government on occasion, but I would have hoped that by now we would have stopped believing in all their lies. It seems as if, worldwide, too many of the common folk still accept the prejudice they were indoctrinated with and the propaganda they hear as fact. It seems that perhaps too many people believe the powerful elite and will still march off to war against a much weaker foe who poses less of a threat than their leaders would have them believe. Or, just perhaps, many of the common folk do know better and simply keep quiet out of fear of ostracism and retribution.

The time has come to speak up. Silence will no longer protect anyone. In fact, I would venture a guess that the silence of so many has contributed to the state of affairs the world finds itself in. Those in power, the same ones using the tactics of demons to enrich themselves and their friends, depend on your silence. To them, your silence is equivalent to passive acceptance of their rule. The political elite everywhere will continue to represent the rich and powerful until enough of the common folk raise their voices and demand the freedom they deserve. Let those in power know we no longer simply accept the premises they use to launch wars of aggression, pass laws creating victimless crimes and trample upon the natural rights we are born with. Let them know we wish to live together in peace and prosperity, not struggle together in war and poverty. To borrow and paraphrase an often misquoted statement attributed to Edmund Burke, all it takes for the demons to triumph is for good people to remain silent.

It doesn’t matter who one is dealing with or what opinion one may have of a certain group of people, the moment the doors of communication close disaster is inevitable. Talking leads to understanding. Understanding leads to solutions. If we are to ever realize a world where peace and prosperity is the norm, then it will be necessary to talk to the perceived demons of our minds and to understand that in reality we are living only with other genuine humans not much different than you and I.