| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page: 1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Quoting | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Dec 5th, 2012 06:28 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"Responsibility must be individual, or there is no responsibility at all." Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, 1852 http://www.theyliewedie.org/ressources/biblio/en/Warren_Josiah_-_EQUITABLE_COMMERCE.html Rothbard page 215-216 The Spooner-Tucker Distortion It should be remembered by radicals that, if they wanted to, all workers could refuse to work for wages and instead form their own producer's cooperatives and wait for years for their pay until the products are sold to the consumers; the fact that they do not do so, shows the enormous advantage of the capital investment, wage-paying system as a means of allowing workers to earn money far in advance of the sale of their products. Far from being exploitation of the workers, capital investment and the interest-profit system is an enormous boon to them and to all of society. http://mises.org/etexts/menger/two.asp ____________________________________ Here human self-interest finds an incentive to make itself felt, and where the available quantity does not suffice for all, every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others. ______________________________________ AND _______________________________________ We saw that economic goods are goods whose available quantities are smaller than the requirements for them. Wealth can therefore also be defined as the entire sum of goods at an economizing individual’s command, the quantities of which are smaller than the requirements for them. Hence, if there were a society where all goods were available in amounts exceeding the requirements for them, there would be no economic goods nor any “wealth.” _________________________________________ Archive Book links George Washington Tax Collector Every time one commands one obeys and one will disobey each time. <-me http://www.usa-the-republic.com/items%20of%20interest/trial_by_jury/trial03b.html#p86 The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community." - 1 Hume, Appendix, l. Samuel Butler's (1612-1680) 17th-century poem Hudibras. Part III, Canto iii, lines 547-550 read thus: http://teacher.sduhsd.net/tpsocialsciences/american_govt/antipapers/msmith.htm FRIDAY, June 20, 1788 Melancton Smith _______________ He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists. _______________ http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws. Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed. But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them. That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object. "The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" - that is, by the people - as distinguished from a trial by the government. It was anciently called "trial per pais" - that is, "trial by the country." And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused "has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are." The object of this trial "by the country," or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are? Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other - or at least no more accurate - definition of a despotism than this. On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom. To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,} from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government. This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes. It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of "the country" at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor - that is, with the government. It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, "a trial by the country." In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And. as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, "the country," or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. But all this "trial by the country" would be no trial at all "by the country," but only a trial by the government, if the government 'could either declare who may, and who may not, be jurors, or could dictate to the jury anything whatever, either of law or evidence, that is of the essence of the trial. If the government may decide who may, and who may not, be jurors, it will of course select only its partisans, and those friendly to its measures. It may not only prescribe who may, and who may not, be eligible to be drawn as jurors; but it may also question each person drawn as a juror, as to his sentiments in regard to the particular law involved in each trial, before suffering him to be sworn on the panel; and exclude him if he be found unfavorable to the maintenance of such a law. So, also, if the government may dictate to the jury what laws they are to enforce, it is no longer a " trial by the country," but a trial by the government; because the jury then try the accused, not by any standard of their own - not by their own judgments of their rightful liberties - but by a standard. dictated to them by the government. And the standard, thus dictated by the government, becomes the measure of the people's liberties. If the government dictate the standard of trial, it of course dictates the results of the trial. And such a trial is no trial by the country, but only a trial by the government; and in it the government determines what are its own powers over the people, instead of the people's determining what are their own liberties against the government. In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law. The jury are also to judge whether the laws are rightly expounded to them by the court. Unless they judge on this point, they do nothing to protect their liberties against the oppressions that are capable of being practiced under cover of a corrupt exposition of the laws. If the judiciary can authoritatively dictate to a jury any exposition of the law, they can dictate to them the law itself, and such laws as they please; because laws are, in practice, one thing or another, according as they are expounded. The jury must also judge whether there really be any such law, (be it good or bad,) as the accused is charged with having transgressed. Unless they judge on this point, the people are liable to have their liberties taken from them by brute force, without any law at all. The jury must also judge of the laws of evidence. If the government can dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only shut out any evidence it pleases, tending to vindicate the accused, but it can require that any evidence whatever, that it pleases to offer, be held as conclusive proof of any offence whatever which the government chooses to allege. It is manifest, therefore, that the jury must judge of and try the whole case, and every part and parcel of the case, free of any dictation or authority on the part of the government. They must judge of the existence of the law; of the true exposition of the law; of the justice of the law; and of the admissibility and weight of all the evidence offered; otherwise the government will have everything its own way; the jury will be mere puppets in the hands of the government: and the trial will be, in reality, a trial by the government, and not a "trial by the country." By such trials the government will determine its own powers over the people, instead of the people's determining their own liberties against the government; and it will be an entire delusion to talk, as for centuries we have done, of the trial by jury, as a "palladium of liberty," or as any protection to the people against the oppression and tyranny of the government. The question, then, between trial by jury, as thus described, and trial by the government, is simply a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves - the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise. __________________________________________ "There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution. "These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people. "If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States - that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights - it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced." http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-an-essay-on-the-trial-by-jury-1852 http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial06.html#p142 "Not only the opinion of the greatest men, and the experience of mankind, are against the idea of an extensive republic, but a variety of reasons may be drawn from the reason and nature of things, against it. In every government, the will of the sovereign is the law. In despotic governments, the supreme authority being lodged in one, his will is law, and can be as easily expressed to a large extensive territory as to a small one. In a pure democracy the people are the sovereign, and their will is declared by themselves; for this purpose they must all come together to deliberate, and decide. This kind of government cannot be exercised, therefore, over a country of any considerable extent; it must be confined to a single city, or at least limited to such bounds as that the people can conveniently assemble, be able to debate, understand the subject submitted to them, and declare their opinion concerning it." Brutus, 18 October, 1787, To the Citizens of the State of New-York. "Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too; a king elected to command a standing army? Thus our laws are to be administered by this tyrant; for the whole, or at least the most important part of the executive department is put in his hands." Philadelphiensis IX February 06, 1788 http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/philadelphiensis-ix/ "The question, then, between trial by jury, as thus described, and trial by the government, is simply a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves - the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise." That is from an Essay on The Trial by Jury. Here too: "Congress have as much constitutional right to give over all the functions of the United States government into the hands of the state legislatures, to be exercised within each state in such manner as the legislature of such state shall please to exercise them, as they have to thus give up to these legislatures the selection of juries for the courts of the United States. There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution. "These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people. "If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States—that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights—it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced." Abigail Adams to John Adams Braintree, Mass., March 31, 1776 "I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow creatures of theirs. Of this I am certain that it is not founded upon that generous and Christian principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us. . . . " John Adams to James Sullivan Philadelphia, May 26, 1776 "Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level." Class warfare includes the employment of deception by individuals in the criminally aggressive class, targeting individuals in the targeted class. The targeted class are those who labor? Note the complete ignorance concerning the vote that matters out of the three boxes: Jury, ballot, cartridge. Notes of Major William Pierce (Georgia) in the Federal Convention of 1787 "As the word perpetual in the Articles of confederation gave occasion for several Members to insist upon the main principles of the confederacy, i e that the several States should meet in the general Council on a footing of compleat equality each claiming the right of sovereignty, Mr. Butler observed that the word perpetual in the confederation meant only the constant existence of our Union, and not the particular words which compose the Articles of the union." "Mr. Yates is said to be an able Judge. He is a Man of great legal abilities, but not distinguished as an Orator. Some of his Enemies say he is an anti- federal Man, but I discovered no such disposition in him. He is about 45 years old, and enjoys a great share of health." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pierce.asp Federal Farmer XV January 18, 1788 "It is an observation of an approved writer, that judicial power is of such a nature, that when we have ascertained and fixed its limits, with all the caution and precision we can, it will yet be formidable, somewhat arbitrary and despotic — that is, after all our cares, we must leave a vast deal to the discretion and interpretation — to the wisdom, integrity, and politics of the judges — These men, such is the state even of the best laws, may do wrong, perhaps, in a thousand cases, sometimes with, and sometimes without design, yet it may be impracticable to convict them of misconduct." "Add to these considerations, that particular circumstances exist at this time to increase our inattention to limiting properly the judicial powers, we may fairly conclude, we are more in danger of sowing the seeds of arbitrary government in this department than in any other." "By art. 3. sect. 1. the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, as congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish — the judges of them to hold their offices during good behaviour, and to receive, at stated times, a compensation for their services, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office; but which, I conceive, may be increased." "These clauses present to view the constitutional features of the federal judiciary: this has been called a monster by some of the opponents, and some, even of the able advocates, have confessed they do not comprehend it. " "The inferior federal courts are left by the constitution to be instituted and regulated altogether as the legislature shall judge best; and it is well provided, that the judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour." "This organization, so far as it would respect questions of law, inferior, superior, and a special supreme court, would resemble that of New-York in a considerable degree, and those of several other states. This, I imagine, we must adopt, or else the Massachusetts plan; that is, a number of inferior courts, and one superior or supreme court, consisting of three, or five, or seven judges, in which one supreme court all the business shall be immediately collected from the inferior ones. The decision of the inferior courts, on either plan, probably will not much be relied on; and on the latter plan, there must be a prodigious accumulation of powers and business in all cases touching law, equity and facts, and all kinds of causes in a few hands, for whose errors of ignorance or design, there will be no possible remedy. As the legislature may adopt either of these, or any other plan, I shall not dwell longer on this subject." Note in Federal Farmer 15 the lack of power (knowledge) of just how bad behavior (the opposite of good behavior) is remedied when summary justice judges are guilty in fact. Note also the feature of a federal system whereby systems of justice in each Nation State works as experiments in democracy. Note 2 the continued obfuscation of the meanings of words such as republic, democracy, federation, nation, justice, etc. And here is what I was looking for: "As the trial by jury is provided for in criminal causes, I shall confine my observations to civil causes — and in these, I hold it is the established right of the jury by the common law, and the fundamental laws of this country, to give a general verdict in all cases when they chuse to do it, to decide both as to law and fact, whenever blended together in the issue put to them. Their right to determine as to facts will not be disputed, and their right to give a general verdict has never been disputed, except by a few judges and lawyers, governed by despotic principles. Coke, Hale, Holt, Blackstone, De Lo[l]me, and almost every other legal or political writer, who has written on the subject, has uniformly asserted this essential and important right of the jury. Juries in Great-Britain and America have universally practised accordingly. Even Mansfield, with all his wishes about him, dare not directly avow the contrary. What fully confirms this point is, that there is no instance to be found, where a jury was ever punished for finding a general verdict, when a special one might, with propriety, have been found. The jury trial, especially politically considered, is by far the most important feature in the judicial department in a free country, and the right in question is far the most valuable part, and the last that ought to be yielded, of this trial. Juries are constantly and frequently drawn from the body of the people, and freemen of the country; and by holding the jury’s right to return a general verdict in all cases sacred, we secure to the people at large, their just and rightful controul in the judicial department. If the conduct of judges shall be severe and arbitrary, and tend to subvert the laws, and change the forms of government, the jury may check them, by deciding against their opinions and determinations, in similar cases. It is true, the freemen of a country are not always minutely skilled in the laws, but they have common sense in its purity, which seldom or never errs in making and applying laws to the condition of the people, or in determining judicial causes, when stated to them by the parties. The body of the people, principally, bear the burdens of the community; they of right ought to have a controul in its important concerns, both in making and executing the laws, otherwise they may, in a short time, be ruined. Nor is it merely this controul alone we are to attend to; the jury trial brings with it an open and public discussion of all causes, and excludes secret and arbitrary proceedings. This, and the democratic branch in the legislature, as was formerly observed, are the means by which the people are let into the knowledge of public affairs — are enabled to stand as the guardians of each others rights, and to restrain, by regular and legal measures, those who otherwise might infringe upon them. I am not unsupported in my opinion of the value of the trial by jury; not only British and American writers, but De Lo[l]me, and the most approved foreign writers, hold it to be the most valuable part of the British constitution, and indisputably the best mode of trial ever invented." "It was merely by the intrigues of the popish clergy, and of the Norman lawyers, that this mode of trial was not used in maritime, ecclesiastical, and military courts, and the civil law proceedings were introduced; and, I believe, it is more from custom and prejudice, than for any substantial reasons, that we do not in all the states establish the jury in our maritime as well as other courts. "In the civil law process the trial by jury is unknown; the consequence is, that a few judges and dependant officers, possess all the power in the judicial department. Instead of the open fair proceedings of the common law, where witnesses are examined in open court, and may be cross examined by the parties concerned — where council is allowed, &c. we see in the civil law process judges alone, who always, long previous to the trial, are known and often corrupted by ministerial influence, or by parties. Judges once influenced, soon become inclined to yield to temptations, and to decree for him who will pay the most for their partiality. It is, therefore, we find in the Roman, and almost all governments, where judges alone possess the judicial powers and try all cases, that bribery has prevailed. This, as well as the forms of the courts, naturally lead to secret and arbitrary proceedings — to taking evidence secretly– exparte, &c. to perplexing the cause — and to hasty decisions: — but, as to jurors, it is quite impracticable to bribe or influence them by any corrupt means; not only because they are untaught in such affairs, and possess the honest characters of the common freemen of a country; but because it is not, generally, known till the hour the cause comes on for trial, what persons are to form the jury." "But it is said, that no words could be found by which the states could agree to establish the jury-trial in civil causes. I can hardly believe men to be serious, who make observations to this effect. The states have all derived judicial proceedings principally from one source, the British system; from the same common source the American lawyers have almost universally drawn their legal information. All the states have agreed to establish the trial by jury, in civil as well as in criminal causes. The several states, in congress, found no difficulty in establishing it in the Western Territory, in the ordinance passed in July 1787. We find, that the several states in congress, in establishing government in that territory, agreed, that the inhabitants of it, should always be entitled to the benefit of the trial by jury. Thus, in a few words, the jury trial is established in its full extent; and the convention with as much ease, have established the jury trial in criminal cases. In making a constitution, we are substantially to fix principles. — If in one state, damages on default are assessed by a jury, and in another by the judges — if in one state jurors are drawn out of a box, and in another not — if there be other trifling variations, they can be of no importance in the great question. Further, when we examine the particular practices of the states, in little matters in judicial proceedings, I believe we shall find they differ near as much in criminal processes as in civil ones. Another thing worthy of notice in this place — the convention have used the word equity, and agreed to establish a chancery jurisdiction; about the meaning and extent of which, we all know, the several states disagree much more than about jury trials — in adopting the latter, they have very generally pursued the British plan; but as to the former, we see the states have varied, as their fears and opinions dictated." "By the common law, in Great Britain and America, there is no appeal from the verdict of the jury, as to facts, to any judges whatever — the jurisdiction of the jury is complete and final in this; and only errors in law are carried up to the house of lords, the special supreme court in Great Britain; or to the special supreme courts in Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, &c. Thus the juries are left masters as to facts: but, by the proposed constitution, directly the opposite principles is established. An appeal will lay in all appellate causes from the verdict of the jury, even as to mere facts, to the judges of the supreme court. Thus, in effect, we establish the civil law in this point; for if the jurisdiction of the jury be not final, as to facts, it is of little or no importance." Federal Farmer 15 (Richard Henry Lee) http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/federal-farmer-xv/ Next is a description of the routine diversion of creating a Man of Straw, so as to then attack that fictional character, which is easy to accomplish since the fictional character created is weak, and this battle serves to distract from the facts that matter. Federal Farmer LETTER VI. DECEMBER 25, 1787. "Had the advocates left the constitution, as they ought to have done, to be adopted or rejected on account of its own merits or imperfections, I do not believe the gentlemen who framed it would ever have been even alluded to in the contest by the opposers. Instead of this, the ardent advocates begun by quoting names as incontestible authorities for the implicit adoption of the system, without any examination—treated all who opposed it as friends of anarchy; and with an indecent virulence addressed M—n G—y, L—e, and almost every man of weight they could find in the opposition by name. If they had been candid men they would have applauded the moderation of the opposers for not retaliating in this pointed manner, when so fair an opportunity was given them; but the opposers generally saw that it was no time to heat the passions; but, at the same time, they saw there was something more than mere zeal in many of their adversaries; they saw them attempting to mislead the people, and to precipitate their divisions, by the sound of names, and forced to do it, the opposers, in general terms, alledged those names were not of sufficient authority to justify the hasty adoption of the system contended for. The convention, as a body, was undoubtedly respectable; it was, generally, composed of members of the then and preceding Congresses: as a body of respectable men we ought to view it. To select individual names, is an invitation to personal attacks, and the advocates, for their own sake, ought to have known the abilities, politics, and situation of some of their favourite characters better, before they held them up to view in the manner they did, as men entitled to our implicit political belief: they ought to have known, whether all the men they so held up to view could, for their past conduct in public offices, be approved or not by the public records, and the honest part of the community. These ardent advocates seem now to be peevish and angry, because, by their own folly, they have led to an investigation of facts and of political characters, unfavourable to them, which they had not the discernment to foresee. They may well apprehend they have opened a door to some Junius, or to some man, after his manner, with his polite addresses to men by name, to state serious facts, and unfold the truth; but these advocates may rest assured, that cool men in the opposition, best acquainted with the affairs of the country, will not, in the critical passage of a people from one constitution to another, pursue inquiries, which, in other circumstances, will be deserving of the highest praise. I will say nothing further about political characters, but examine the constitution; and as a necessary and previous measure to a particular examination, I shall state a few general positions and principles, which receive a general assent, and briefly notice the leading features of the confederation, and several state conventions [i.e., constitutions], to which, through the whole investigation, we must frequently have recourse, to aid the mind in its determinations." Now another confusion concerning the meaning of the term national, as if the word was a synonym for federal, yet distinctions were elucidated in other works by this author, and others. National is explained as a connection to individuals, as exemplified by some form of tax upon individuals, while a federal tax is a demand for what amounts to an insurance policy premium, a payment to cover the costs of maintaining a voluntary mutual defense association. "Our territories are far too extensive for a limited monarchy, in which the representatives must frequently assemble, and the laws operate mildly and systematically. The most elligible system is a federal republic, that is, a system in which national concerns may be transacted in the centre, and local affairs in state or district governments." What exactly is meant in the following: "The people by Magna Charta, &c. did not acquire powers, or receive privileges from the king, they only ascertained and fixed those they were entitled to as Englishmen; the title used by the king “we grant,” was mere form. Representation, and the jury trial, are the best features of a free government ever as yet discovered, and the only means by which the body of the people can have their proper influence in the affairs of government." A confirmation of "equal protection," in other words: "Individual security consists in having free recourse to the laws—" Next are words describing the process often called "Mob Rule" or "democracy," and again this is a confounding of words, which causes confusion. Also on the following are words that describe the process known as "experiments in democracy," which can be described also as free market government services. "Popular instability" could mean an abuse of power accountable to any number of people having the power to abuse, but how can that happen more than once if those who are abusing power are held to account for that abuse of power? Only in despotic organizations, also known a involuntary associations, can any number of people gain enough power to abuse more than a few times. The check on abuse of power is supposed to be rule of law, or the capacity of any number of people to process anyone accused of wrongdoing (abuse of power), so that brings back the earlier quote concerning equal protection, or free access to rule of law. "Pennsylvania has lodged all her legislative powers in a single branch, and Georgia has done the same; the other eleven states have each in their legislatures a second or senatorial branch. In forming this they have combined various principles, and aimed at several checks and balances. It is amazing to see how ingenuity has worked in the several states to fix a barrier against popular instability." Next are references to something called "freehold," which could possibly mean allodial title. The following also lends more information to the concept of free market government (in a voluntary mutual defense association or federation), also known as "experiments in democracy." "In New-York the electors must each have a freehold worth 250 dollars, in North-Carolina a freehold of fifty acres of land; in the other states the electors of senators are qualified as electors of representatives are. In Massachusetts a senator must have a freehold in his own right worth 1000 dollars, or any estate worth 2000, in New Jersey any estate worth 2666, in South-Carolina worth 1300 dollars, in North-Carolina 300 acres of land in fee, &c. The numbers of senators in each state are from ten to thirty-one, about 160 in the eleven states, about one to 14000 inhabitants." Ending letter VI with another mention of trial by jury and the common law: "Each state has a judicial branch; each common law courts, superior and inferior; some chancery and admiralty courts: The courts in general sit in different places, in order to accommodate the citizens. The trial by jury is had in all the common law courts, and in some of the admiralty courts. The democratic freemen principally form the juries; men destitute of property, of character, or under age, are excluded as in elections. Some of the judges are during good behaviour, and some appointed for a year, and some for years; and all are dependant on the legislatures for their salaries-Particulars respecting this department are too many to be noticed here." LETTER VII. DECEMBER 31, 1787 In the words below there is missing the force of deception, which is odd because among the works of this Farmer are words eluding to the deceptions employed by the Nationalists to mislabel themselves as Federalists, and mislabel their opposition as Anti-Federalists. The power of deception includes the power to ignore that power. "Perhaps it is not possible for a government to be so despotic, as not to operate persuasively on some of its subjects; nor is it, in the nature of things, I conceive, for a government to be so free, or so supported by voluntary consent, as never to want force to compel obedience to the laws. In despotic governments one man, or a few men, independant of the people, generally make the laws, command obedience, and inforce it by the sword: one-fourth part of the people are armed, and obliged to endure the fatigues of soldiers, to oppress the others and keep them subject to the laws. In free governments the people, or their representatives, make the laws; their execution is principally the effect of voluntary consent and aid; the people respect the magistrate, follow their private pursuits, and enjoy the fruits of their labour with very small deductions for the public use." Next is a reference to confidence, and if deception is the rule, not the exception, then it is a confidence scheme: con job. "It being impracticable for the people to assemble to make laws, they must elect legislators, and assign men to the different departments of the government. In the representative branch we must expect chiefly to collect the confidence of the people, and in it to find almost entirely the force of persuasion. In forming this branch, therefore, several important considerations must be attended to. It must possess abilities to discern the situation of the people and of public affairs, a disposition to sympathize with the people, and a capacity and inclination to make laws congenial to their circumstances and condition: it must afford security against interested combinations, corruption and influence; it must possess the confidence, and have the voluntary support of the people." Next are words eluding to the Mob Rule (false democracy) scheme, having to do with the same process noted by the work on the Athenian Constitution, whereby electoral politics tends toward oligarchy. When, as stated earlier by Federal Farmer, the trial by jury (consent of the governed) process is in force, there is both determination to find the truth (a jury that is not criminally stacked toward falsehood), and there is a true representation of the country (nation?), as jurors are randomly selected as is done in science known as a "representative sample." So here, in fact (if facts matter), the proposed Mob Rule (so -called democracy) aspect of the Con Con Con Job is a representation of the oligarchy, not the "nation" (country: people as one), thereby a false "check" on the oligarchic Senate, and oligarchic King. "Where the people, or their representatives, make the laws, it is probable they will generally be fitted to the national character and circumstances, unless the representation be partial, and the imperfect substitute of the people." Further words on a the same Mob Rule (the people govern themselves) are again stated by Federal Farmer. Why is it assumed that a government will be corrupt, or involuntary? If trial by jury works, then there is no Mob Rule, no corruption (none that is out of the reach of the grand jurors, and trial jurors), and therefore whoever rules, no matter which portion of the whole people, a king, a senate, a mob, whatever, it is rule by voluntary association: consent. If it is assumed that it will be unconsentual rule, also known as crime, then why is it assumed, especially when it is at the same time assumed that trial by jury (common law) will be in force? The answer is obvious: trial by jury is thrown out, and replaced with summary justice. "However, the people may be electors, if the representation be so formed as to give one or more of the natural classes of men in the society an undue ascendency over the others, it is imperfect; the former will gradually become masters, and the latter slaves. It is the first of all among the political balances, to preserve in its proper station each of these classes." Naming "classes" rather than names, Federal Farmer explains who (which groups) are behind the corrupting of government, this is the same message offered in the Athenian Constitution work. If government is consensual (not corrupt), not slavery under the color of law (corrupt), it is maintained that way through trial by the country (nation? or the whole people as one: republic), as representation of the people is actual, not chimerical. "We talk of balances in the legislature, and among the departments of government; we ought to carry them to the body of the people. Since I advanced the idea of balancing the several orders of men in a community, in forming a genuine representation,s and seen that idea considered as chemerical, I have been sensibly struck with a sentence in the marquis Beccaria’,s treatise: this sentence was quoted by congress in 1774, and is as follows:—”In every society there is an effort continually tending to confer on one part the height of power and happiness, and to reduce the others to the extreme of weakness and misery; the intent of good laws is to oppose this effort, and to diffuse their influence universally and equally.” Add to this Montesquieu’s opinion, that “in a free state every man, who is supposed to be a free agent, ought to be concerned in his own government: therefore, the legislative should reside in the whole body of the people, or their representatives.” It is extremely clear that these writers had in view the several orders of men in society, which we call aristocratical, democratical, merchantile, mechanic, &c. and perceived the efforts they are constantly, from interested and ambitious views, disposed to make to elevate themselves and oppress others. Each order must have a share in the business of legislation actually and efficiently. It is deceiving a people to tell them they are electors, and can chuse their legislators, if they cannot, in the nature of things, chuse men from among themselves, and genuinely like themselves. " Next is a greater elaboration on the divisions between classes (in a voluntary association there is no corruption), with notations on who, and why, there are abuses, but if the government is voluntary (trial by jury), then abuses are not legal, and therefore abuses are a problem that can be solved by due process, which is the actual law, not statutes, whereby statutes are suggestions. "I wish you to take another idea along with you; we are not only to balance these natural efforts, but we are also to guard against accidental combinations; combinations founded in the connections of offices and private interests, both evils which are increased in proportion as the number of men, among which the elected must be, are decreased. To set this matter in a proper point of view, we must form some general ideas and descriptions of the different classes of men, as they may be divided by occupations and politically: the first class is the aristocratical. There are three kinds of aristocracy spoken of in this country—the first is a constitutional one, which does not exist in the United States in our common acceptation of the word. Montesquieu, it is true, observes, that where a part of the persons in a society, for want of property, age, or moral character, are excluded any share in the government, the others, who alone are the constitutional electors and elected, form this aristocracy; this according to him, exists in each of the United States, where a considerable number of persons, as all convicted of crimes, under age, or not possessed of certain property, are excluded any share in the government; the second is an aristocratic faction, a junto of unprincipled men, often distinguished for their wealth or abilities, who combine together and make their object their private interests and aggrandizement; the existence of this description is merely accidental, but particularly to be guarded against. The third is the natural aristocracy; this term we use to designate a respectable order of men, the line between whom and the natural democracy is in some degree arbitrary; we may place men on one side of this line, which others may place on the other, and in all disputes between the few and the many, a considerable number are wavering and uncertain themselves on which side they are, or ought to be. In my idea of our natural aristocracy in the United States, I include about four or five thousand men; and among these I reckon those who have been placed in the offices of governors, of members of Congress, and state senators generally, in the principal officers of Congress, of the army and militia, the superior judges, the most eminent professional men, &c. and men of large property—the other persons and orders in the community form the natural democracy; this includes in general the yeomanry, the subordinate officers, civil and military, the fishermen, mechanics and traders, many of the merchants and professional men. It is easy to perceive that men of these two classes, the aristocratical, and democratical, with views equally honest, have sentiments widely different, especially respecting public and private expences, salaries, taxes, &c. Men of the first class associate more extensively, have a high sense of honor, possess abilities, ambition, and general knowledge: men of the second class are not so much used to combining great objects; they possess less ambition, and a larger share of honesty: their dependence is principally on middling and small estates, industrious pursuits, and hard labour, while that of the former is principally on the emoluments of large estates, and of the chief offices of government. Not only the efforts of these two great parties are to be balanced, but other interests and parties also, which do not always oppress each other merely for want of power, and for fear of the consequences; though they, in fact, mutually depend on each other; yet such are their general views, that the merchants alone would never fail to make laws favourable to themselves and oppressive to the farmers, &c. the farmers alone would act on like principles; the former would tax the land, the latter the trade. The manufacturers are often disposed to contend for monopolies, buyers make every exertion to lower prices, and sellers to raise them; men who live by fees and salaries endeavour to raise them, and the part of the people who pay them, endeavour to lower them; the public creditors to augment the taxes, and the people at large to lessen them. Thus, in every period of society, and in all the transactions of men, we see parties verifying the observation made by the Marquis; and those classes which have not their centinels in the government, in proportion to what they have to gain or lose, must infallibly be ruined." Next is elaboration on the concept of "Mob Rule" as a creation of the enfranchised oligarchy (corrupt rulers) upon the disenfranchised slaves. "Efforts among parties are not merely confined to property; they contend for rank and distinctions; all their passions in turn are enlisted in political controversies—Men, elevated in society, are often disgusted with the changeableness of the democracy, and the latter are often agitated with the passions of jealousy and envy: the yeomanry possess a large share of property and strength, are nervous and firm in their opinions and habits—the mechanics of towns are ardent and changeable, honest and credulous, they are inconsiderable for numbers, weight and strength, not always sufficiently stable for the supporting free governments; the fishing interest partakes partly of the strength and stability of the landed, and partly of the changeableness of the mechanic interest. As to merchants and traders, they are our agents in almost all money transactions; give activity to government, and possess a considerable share of influence in it. It has been observed by an able writer, that frugal industrious merchants are generally advocates for liberty. It is an observation, I believe, well founded, that the schools produce but few advocates for republican forms of government; gentlemen of the law, divinity, physic, &c. probably form about a fourth part of the people; yet their political influence, perhaps, is equal to that of all the other descriptions of men; if we may judge from the appointments to Congress, the legal characters will often, in a small representation, be the majority; but the more the representatives are encreased, the more of the farmers, merchants, &c. will be found to be brought into the government." Again Federal Farmer elaborates on the scheme by which the angry mob is created by those against so-called democracy. "Could we get over all our difficulties respecting a balance of interests and party efforts, to raise some and oppress others, the want of sympathy, information and intercourse between the representatives and the people, an insuperable difficulty will still remain, I mean the constant liability of a small number of representatives to private combinations; the tyranny of the one, or the licentiousness of the multitude, are, in my mind, but small evils, compared with the factions of the few. It is a consideration well worth pursuing, how far this house of representatives will be liable to be formed into private juntos, how far influenced by expectations of appointments and offices, how far liable to be managed by the president and senate, and how far the people will have confidence in them. To obviate difficulties on this head, as well as objections to the representative branch, generally, several observations have been made—these I will now examine, and if they shall appear to be unfounded, the objections must stand unanswered." Next the Federal Farmer appears to have given license to the replacement of a Federal System of Independent Nations (states) joined voluntarily for mutual defense (which is in itself a benefit) - preplacing voluntary association - with involuntary association, or a Nation State (consolidating the states, which are then no longer experiments in democracy) with absolute power, since trial by jury is placed under the summary justice "Supreme" courts system of exortion. Note in the words following that had he been speaking about one Nation State (one of the states that constitute the federation), then any imperfections in that individual Nation State could be compared to imperfections in the other Nation States, as well as any perfections compared in those experiments in democracy. If one Nation State becomes mobbish, and another Nation State becomes tyrannical, which appears to be the opposite directions that Nation States may go when they become tyrannical, or involuntary, or criminal, and while seeing this in this light, would it also be noted that those states, having become tyrannical in either of those directions, would have had to usurp trial by jury? Note also the use of the "That..." beginning to each message. "That the state governments will form a part of, and a balance in the system. "That Congress will have only a few national objects to attend to, and the state governments many and local ones. That the new Congress will be more numerous than the present, and that any numerous body is unwieldy and mobbish. "That the states only are represented in the present Congress, and that the people will require a representation in the new one; that in fifty or an hundred years the representation will be numerous. "That congress will have no temptation to do wrong; and that no system to enslave the people is practicable. That as long as the people are free they will preserve free governments; and that when they shall become tired of freedom, arbitrary government must take place." LETTER VIII. JANUARY 3, 1788 "Before the Norman conquest the people of England enjoyed much of this liberty. The first of the Norman kings, aided by foreign mercenaries and foreign attendants, obnoxious to the English, immediately laid arbitrary taxes, and established arbitrary courts, and severely oppress[ed] all orders of people: The barons and people, who recollected their former liberties, were induced, by those oppressions, to unite their efforts in their common defence:" Note the routine of criminal gangs counterfeiting government by counterfeiting tax (real tax is voluntary: consented to by the taxed), counterfeiting courts, whereby the criminal gangs exist only so long as their slaves continue to fund the actions perpetrated by the criminal gangs. "It was in this united situation the people of England were for several centuries, enabled to combine their exertions, and by compacts, as Magna Charta, a bill of rights, &c. were able to limit, by degrees, the royal prerogatives, and establish their own liberties." A failure there is exposed in the contradiction of people having to "establish" something that already exists, something that existed before, and after, that something was established. I could be less contradictory, and less of a failure to explain that it was reestablished as a duty required of free people: to hold everyone, inlcuding governments, to account for their crimes: a deterent. That process of holding everyone, even government agents, to account is the work required by people to maintain liberty: due process of law, equal protection under the law, rule of law, trial by the country according to the common law, etc. In the work of Lysander Spooner, for example, the Saxons brought to England the concept of the people being the government with their trial by the country, that was done after the Roman Empire collapsed (all criminal organizations feed upon itself: consume itself) and could no longer afford to subject English people to Roman Extortion under the color of law. The English were thereby governing themselves as Anglo-Saxons, that was before the Norman Conquest. "In England, the people have been led uniformly, and systematically by their representatives to secure their rights by compact, and to abolish innovations upon the government: they successively obtained Magna Charta, the powers of taxation, the power to propose laws, the habeas corpus act, bill of rights, &c. they, in short, secured general and equal liberty, security to their persons and property; and, as an everlasting security and bulwark of their liberties, they fixed the democratic branch in the legislature, and jury trial in the execution of the laws, the freedom of the press, &c." There in those words are falsehoods, or half truths, as the English were, and still are, criminals who fund aggressive wars for profit, as exemplified in the aggressive attack upon America, so as to subsidize the enslavement of Americans, and any other slaves, such as the Irish, and Africans. And as to the English Magna Carta, that was a document that did not establish what already existed, which was trial by the country, or government by the people themselves, the document merely recorded a King's acknowlegment of that fact, and furthermore the same King rejected the document when he sold the English (and Americans) out to the Roman Pope. Look up The papal bull annulling Magna Carta, and the criminal in the case is ironically named Pope Innocent III. Next are words from Federal Farmer explaining more of the same half truth concerning how the people represent the government. In the following words he explains that the Con of 1789 will under-represent the people, and over-represent the aristocracy. Why is it that the aristocracy has any more say than the laborers, or the Indians, or the African slaves, or the Irish indentured servants? Why isn't Congress divided into all those parts, why is it that the aristocracy are somehow given (actually they take, by criminal means) special priviledges in government? The answer is clearly such that they buy (bribe) their way into power, after they steal their way into power, by fraud, threat of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence. " The whole community, probably, not more than two-fifths more numerous than we now are, were represented by seven or eight hundred men; the barons stipulated with the common people, and the king with the whole. Had the legal distinction between lords and commons been broken down, and the people of that island been called upon to elect forty-five senators, and one hundred and twenty representatives, about the proportion we propose to establish, their whole legislature evidently would have been of the natural aristocracy, and the body of the people would not have had scarcely a single sincere advocate; their interests would have been neglected, general and equal liberty forgot, and the balance lost; contests and conciliations, as in most other countries, would have been merely among the few, and as it might have been necessary to serve their purposes, the people at large would have been flattered or threatened, and probably not a single stipulation made in their favour." Next is a general contradiction that confesses something worth known: many seeking power during the power grab (filling a vacuum) after the Revolutionary War claimed that governments ought to be resisted from time to time (having just resisted the British Empire, to say otherwise would be contradictory), and yet the resistance in Massachusetts (so-called Shays's Rebellion) was claimed as the reason to get rid of the Federation, and turn the Federation (where resistance is legal) into a Nation State (where crushing resistance, and making the resistors pay for crushing the resistance, is "legal"). So there is the confession, those who may claim that resistance is necessary (when they do it, see Generalissimo Washington), are those who crush resistance when resistors refuse to pay for their own demise. "We are not like the people of England, one people compactly settled on a small island, with a great city filled with frugal merchants, serving as a common centre of liberty and union: we are dispersed, and it is impracticable for any but the few to assemble in one place: the few must be watched, checked, and often resisted—tyranny has ever shewn a prediliction to be in close amity with them, or the one man. Drive it from kings and it flies to senators, to dicemvirs, to dictators, to tribunes, to popular leaders, to military chiefs, &c." And finally in Letter 8: "De Lome well observes, that in societies, laws which were to be equal to all are soon warped to the private interests of the administrators, and made to defend the usurpations of a few. The English, who had tasted the sweets of equal laws, were aware of this, and though they restored their king, they carefully delegated to parliament the advocates of freedom. "I have often lately heard it observed, that it will do very well for a people to make a constitution, and ordain, that at stated periods they will chuse, in a certain manner, a first magistrate, a given number of senators and representatives, and let them have all power to do as they please. This doctrine, however it may do for a small republic, as Connecticut, for instance, where the people may chuse so many senators and representatives to assemble in the legislature, in an eminent degree, the interests, the views, feelings, and genuine sentiments of the people themselves, can never be admitted in an extensive country; and when this power is lodged in the hands of a few, not to limit the few, is but one step short of giving absolute power to one man—in a numerous representation the abuse of power is a common injury, and has no temptation—among the few, the abuse of power may often operate to the private emolument of those who abuse it." LETTER VIII. JANUARY 4, 1788 Continued: http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=1360&forum_id=2&jump_to=7864#p7864 "The true idea is, so to open and enlarge the representation as to let in a due proportion of the third class with those of the first." Above is a small portion of the effort to expose the anti-democratic (not Mob Rule democracy, but rule by the whole people, so anti-demoratic means rule by the few, which is absolute rule, which corrupts everyone as a rule) nature of the proposed "Constitution" intended to replace the existing Constitution. Note the reference to more democratic military government compared to a less democratic "Constitution," which is counterfeit as explained with the reference to aristocracy ruling the lower classes: without consent. Consent is facilitated with trial by jury. See the Athenian example of democracy, and see the work by Rothbard titled Generalissimo Washington on the differences between bottom up, democracy, or rule by the peole themselves, versus rule by a so-called "elite." Federal Farmer: An Additional Number of Letters to the Republican http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/federal-farmer-an-additional-number-of-letters-to-the-republican/ The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots Page 40 Private Prosecutors "For decades
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 11th, 2012 01:27 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Hamilton' s confessions quoted "But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program. "To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter." Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy by William Watkins https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037 From: Reclaiming Revolution Alexander Hamilton: The Worst of the Worst? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/10/alexander-hamilton-the-worst-of-the-worst/?fbclid=IwAR1ZbcwccsYNRogMskWspiLi-cMrHzvKmzw-F7__ktxWbpHTDbjx9R0C0k In Convention, Richmond, Monday, June 9, 1788 Patrick Henry "A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated." Look up Day by Day Virginia Ratification and the word ambuscade To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Morris, 26 May 1781 "The Capital proposed falls far Short of your Idea and indeed far Short of what it ought to be, but I am Confident if this is once Accomplished the Capital may afterward be encreased to almost any Amount, to propose a large Sum in the Outsett, and fail in the Attempt to Raise it might prove Fatal, to begin with what is Clearly in our power to accomplish, and on that beginning to establish the Credit that will Meritably Command the future encrease of Capital Seems the most Certain Road to Success. I have thought much about Interweaving a Land Security with the Capital of this Bank, but am apprehensive it would Convey to the Publick Mind an Idea of Paper being Circulated on that Credit and that the Bank of Consequence must fail in its Payments in Case of any Considerable Run on it; and we must expect, that its Ruin will be attempted by External and Internal Foes." https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-02-02-1176 PUBLIC LETTER TO J[OHN] BAUSKETT AND OTHERS, EDGEFIELD DISTRICT, S.C. John C. Calhoun, November 3, 1837 "Of all the interests in the community, the banking is by far the most influential and formidable—the most active; and the most concentrating and pervading; and of all the points, within the immense circle of this interest, there is none, in relation to which the banks[484] are more sensitive and tenacious, than their union with the political power of the country. This is the source of a vast amount of their profits, and of a still larger portion of their respectability and influence." https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/calhoun-union-and-liberty-the-political-philosophy-of-john-c-calhoun
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Mar 10th, 2013 12:54 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
True Civilization True Civilization Josiah Warren 123. Now are heard the wails of distress from all quarters. The papers are filled with accounts of brutal violence on both sides -- villages burning -- men hanging -- ferocity let loose in every horrid shape and form. The heated passions on both sides become more and more ferocious, -- a curious way to promote "Union"! A frenzy of rage sweeps over the land while I write. The last step of despotism has been taken by both governments. Freedom of action and speech are annihilated in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Even these written words may prove the death-warrant of the writer. Nothing but the clamor of war and the fear of prisons and violent deaths, smother, for the moment, the low moan from desolated hearths and broken hearts from the depths of the hell we are in! http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/warren/3.html The Science of Society, Stephen Pearl Andrews (1888) "Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual, - a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all." Protestants and Protestant churches may differ in relation to every other article of their creed, and do so differ, without ceasing to be Protestants, so long as they assert the paramount right of private or individual judgment in matters of conscience. It is that, and that only, which makes them Protestants, and distinguishes them from the Catholic world, which asserts, on the contrary, the supreme authority of the church, of the priesthood, or of some dignitary or institution other than the Individual whose judgment and whose conscience is in question. In like manner, Democrats and Democratic governments and institutions may differ from each other, and may very infinitely at different periods of time, and still remain Democratic, so long as they maintain the one essential principle and condition of Democracy, - namely, that all governmental powers reside in, are only delegated by, and can be, at any moment, resumed by the people, - that is, by the individuals, who are first Individuals, and who then, by virtue only of the act of delegating such powers, become a people, - that is, a combined mass of Individulas. It is this dogma, and this alone, which makes the Democrat, and which distinguishes him from Despotist, or defender of the divine right of kings. Again, Socialism assumes every shade and variety of opinion respecting the modes of realizing its own aspirations, and, indeed, upon every other point, except one, which, when investigated, will be found to be the paramount rights of the Individual over the social institutions, and the consequent demand that all existing social institutions shall be so modified that the Individual shall be in no manner subjected to them. This, then, is the identical principle of Protestantism and Democracy carried into its application in another sphere. The celebrated formula of Fourier that “destinies are proportioned to attractions,” means, when translated into less technical phraseology, that society must be so reorganized that every man may be a law unto himself, paramount to all other human laws, and the sole judge for himself of the divine law and of the requisitions of his own Individual nature and organization. This is equally the fundamental principle of all the social theories, except in the case of the Shakers, the Rappites, etc., which are based upon rlegiouis whims, demanding submission, as a matter of duty, to a despotic rule, and which embody, in another form the readoption of the pops or conservative principle. They, therefore, while they live in a form of society similar in some respects to those which have been proposed by the various schools of Socialists, are, in fact, neither Protestants nor Democrats, and consequently, not Socialists in the sense in which I am now defining Socialism. The forms of society proposed by Socialism are the mere shell of the Doctrine, - means to the end, - a platform upon which to place the Individual, in order that he may be enabled freely to exercise his own Individuality, which is the end and aim of all. We have seen that the shell is one which may be inhabited by despotism. Possibly it is unfit for the habitation of any thing else than despotism which the Socialist hopes, by ensconcing himself therein, to escape. It is possible, even, that Socialism may have mistaken its measures altogether, and that the whole system of Association and combined interests and combined responsibilities proposed by it may be essentially antagonistic to the very ends proposed. All this however, if it be so, is merely incidental. It belongs to the shell, and not the substance, - to the means, and not the end. The whole programme of Socialism may yet be abandoned or reversed, and yet Socialism remain in substance the same thing. What Socialism demands is the emancipation of the Individual from social bondage, by whatsoever means will effect that design, in the same manner as Protestantism demands the emancipation of the Individual from ecclesiastical bondage, and Democracy from political. Whosoever makes that demand, or labors to that end, is a Socialist. Any particular views he may entertain, distinguishing him from other Socialists, regarding practical measures, or the ultimate forms of society, are mere specific differences, like those which divide the Protestant sects of Christendom. "What Socialism demands is the emancipation of the Individual from social bondage, by whatsoever means will effect that design, in the same manner as Protestantism demands the emancipation of the Individual from ecclesiastical bondage, and Democracy from political. Whosoever makes that demand, or labors to that end, is a Socialist. Any particular views he may entertain, distinguishing him from other Socialists, regarding practical measures, or the ultimate forms of society, are the mere specific differences, like those which divide the Protestant sects of Christendom. The definition of Socialism may surprise some into the discover of the fact that they have been Socialists all along, unawares. Some, on the other hand, who have called themselves Socialist my not at once be inclined to accept the definition. They may not perceive clearly that it is the emancipation of the Individual for which they are laboring, and affirm that it is, on the other hand, the freedom and happiness of the race. They will not however, deny that it is both; and a very little reflection will show that the freedom and happiness of each individual will be the freedom and happiness of the race, and that is freedom and happiness of the race can not exist so long as there is any individual of the race who is not happy and free. So the Protestant and Democrat may not always have a clear intellectual perception of the distinctive principle of their creeds. He may be attached to it from an instinctive sentiment, which he has never thoroughly analyzed, or even from the mere accidents of education and birth. Protestantism proclaims that the individual has an inalienable right to judge for himself in all matters of conscience. Democracy proclaims that the Individual has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Socialism proclaims that the Individual has an inalienable right to that social position which his powers and natural organization qualify him, and which his tastes incline him to fill, and consequently, to that constitution or arrangement of the property relations, and other relations of society, whatsoever that may be, which will enable him to enjoy and exercise that right,- to adaptation of social conditions to the wants of each Individual, with all his peculiarities and fluctuations of taste, instead of the mounding of the Individual into conformity with the rigid requirements of a preconcerted social organization. If this be a correct statement of the essential nature of Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism, then Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are not actuated by three distinct principles at all. They are simply three partial announcements of one generic principle, which lies beneath all these movements, and of which they are the legitimate outgrowths or developments, modified only by the fact of different application of the same principle. This great generic principle, which underlies every manifestation of that universal unrest and revolution which is known technically in this age as "Progress," is nothing more nor less than "THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL." It is that which is the central idea and vital principle of Protestantism; it is that which is the central idea and vital principle of Democracy, and it is that which is the central idea nd vital principle of Socialism. This being so, it is high time that the mutual affinity of these movements should be intelligently perceived and recognized by both the friend and the enemies of the movements themselves. It is high time that the scene of the battle-field should be shifted from the right or wrong of any or all of the partial developments of the principle to the right or wrong of the principle itself. The true issue is not whether Protestantism be good or evil, whether Democracy be good or evil, nor whether Socialism be good or evil, but whether the naked, bald, unlimited principle of the Sovereignty of the Individual, in human government and the administration of human affairs, be essentially good and true or essentially pernicious and false. This is the issue now up for trial before the world, and the definitive decision of which must be had before the final destiny of mankind upon earth can be even rough-hewn by the most vivid imagination, and certainly before any thing approximating scientific deduction respecting in can be had. Break Finally, this indestructibe and all-pervading Individuality furnishes, itself, the law, and the only true law, of order and harmony. Governments have hitherto been established, and have apologized for the unseemly fact that their existence, from the necessity of establishing and maintaining order; but order has never yet been maintained, revolutions and violent outbreaks have never yet been ended, public peace and harmony have never yet been secured, for the precise reason that the organic, essential, and indestructible natures of the objects which it was attempted to reduce to order have always been constricted and infringed by every such attempt. Just in proportion as the effort is less and less made to reduce men to order, just in that proportion they become more orderly, as witness the difference in the state of society in Austria and the United States. Plant an army of one hundred thousand soldiers in New York, as at Paris, to preserve the peace, and we should have a bloody revolution in a week; and be assured that the only remedy for what little of turbulence remains among us, as compared with European societies, will be found to be more liberty. When there remain positively no external restrictions, there will be positively no disturbance, provided always certain regulating principles of justice, to which I shall advert presently, are accepted and enter into the public mind, serving as substitutes for every species of repressive laws. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/andrews/scienceofsociety.pdf
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Mar 29th, 2013 10:37 am |
|
4th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Con Con http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787, Page 13 Luther Martin One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 8th, 2013 12:51 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy by William Watkins "Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right. "Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely." http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/sim/1403963037/2?o=9 St. George Tucker on Confederation This idea of a confederate, or federal, republic, was probably borrowed from Montesquieu, who treats of it as an expedient for extending the sphere of popular government, and reconciling internal freedom with external security, as hath been mentioned elsewhere. The experience of the practicability and benefit of such a system, was recent in the memory of every American, from the success of the revolutionary war, concluded but a few years before; during the continuance of which the states entered into a perpetual alliance and confederacy with each other. Large concessions of the rights of sovereignty were thereby made to congress; but the system was defective in not providing adequate means, for a certain, and regular revenue; congress being altogether dependent upon the legislatures of the several states for supplies, although the latter, by the terms of compact, were bound to furnish, whatever the former should deem it necessary to require. At the close of the war, it was found that congress had contracted debts, without a revenue to discharge them; that they had entered into treaties, which they had not power to fulfil; that the several states possessed sources of an extensive commerce, for which they could not find any vent. These evils were ascribed to the defects of the existing confederation; and it was said that the principles of the proposed constitution were to be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of the principles contained in the articles of confederation: that in the latter those principles were so feeble and confined, as to justify all the charges of inefficiency which had been urged against it; that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited, and that the states, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdictions. This construction has since been fully confirmed by the twelfth article of amendments,3 which declares, “that the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This article was added “to prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the powers granted by the constitution,4 rather than supposed necessary to explain and secure the rights of the states, or of the people. The powers delegated to the federal government being all positive, and enumerated, according to the ordinary rules of construction, whatever is not enumerated is retained; for, expressum facit tacere tacitum is a maxim in all cases of construction: it is likewise a maxim of political law, that sovereign states cannot be deprived of any of their rights by implication; nor in any manner whatever by their own voluntary consent, or by submission to a conqueror. The Reconstruction Amendments Kurt Lash https://www.cato.org/events/reconstruction-amendments-essential-documents Page 4 Luther Martin "The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose. "But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system proposed, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention." https://archive.org/details/secretproceedin00convgoog/page/n38/mode/2up?view=theater https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutional-Convention/dp/1410203638 Con Con
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Apr 14th, 2013 08:43 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Menger on Capitalism: Carl Menger Here human self-interest finds an incentive to make itself felt, and where the available quantity does not suffice for all, every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others. We saw that economic goods are goods whose available quantities are smaller than the requirements for them. Wealth can therefore also be defined as the entire sum of goods at an economizing individual’s command, the quantities of which are smaller than the requirements for them. Hence, if there were a society where all goods were available in amounts exceeding the requirements for them, there would be no economic goods nor any “wealth.”
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Apr 20th, 2013 07:19 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
William Black Spells it Out Almost spells it out, so...what did he say when he said something that sounds like Agressums Dynamics? Time 12:55 The U.S. financial system is sick and we still have this fundamental dynamic, and the fundamental dynamic is the regulatory race to the bottom, and so this is the biggest banks put us in competition, particularity with the City of London, to who will have the weakest regulation, and then they move their operations to wherever they will have the weakest regulation, and the place that won the competition in laxity was the City of London. No obviously you can't win a competition that is a race to the bottom so "win" should be in quotation marks. If you get rid of the cops on the beat, then cheaters prosper, and we call it aggressums dynamic, in economics and criminology, and in regulation, in which bad ethics drives good ethics out of the market place. aggressums dynamic What is that, is it spelled right? It sounds a lot like Legal Crime to me.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 25th, 2013 11:04 am |
|
8th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Lost this one, found again. June 4th George Mason George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention June 04, 1788 Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Sep 9th, 2013 02:24 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sam Peace From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to lull us into security by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 18th, 2013 04:14 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
True Civilization. Warren, Josiah (1863) Boston, Mass. 496. Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/warren/conclusion.html
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 7th, 2013 04:25 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Ben Franklin: That, as we enjoy great advan-tages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. Auto Page 108
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Feb 1st, 2014 01:57 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Patrick Henry Transformed into Beasts Mr. President it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 22nd, 2014 04:53 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
From history after Wild Cat Banking and during The so called Civil War: "First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. "It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. "If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefore of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. "This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. "Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly. Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism: HOW FAR THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY DIFFER (1888) http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm Quote:_______________________________ A Parasite City. Suppose 5,000 men to own $30,000 each; suppose these men to move, with their families, to some desolate place in the state, where there is no opportunity for the profitable pursuit of the occupations either of commerce, agriculture, or manufacturing! The united capital of these 5,000 men would be $150,000,000. Suppose, now, this capital to be safely invested in different parts of the state; suppose these men to be, each of them, heads of families, comprising, on an average, five persons each this would give us, in all, 25,000 individuals. A servant to each family would give us 5,000 persons more, and these added to the above number would give us 30,000 in all. Suppose, now, that 5,000 mechanics—shoemakers, bakers, butchers, etc.—should settle with their families in the neighborhood of these capitalists, in order to avail themselves of their custom. Allowing five to a family, as before, we have 25,000 to add to the above number. We have, therefore, in all, a city of 55,000 individuals, established in the most desolate part of the state. The people in the rest of the state would have to pay to the capitalists of this city six per cent on $150,000,000 every year; for these capitalists have, by the supposition, this amount out at interest on bond and mortgage, or other wise. The yearly interest on $150,000,000, at six per cent, is- $9,000,000. These wealthy individuals may do no useful work whatever, and, nevertheless, they levy a tax of $9,000,000 per annum on the industry of the state. The tax would be paid in this way. Some money would be brought to the new city, and much produce; the produce would be sold for money to the capitalists, and with the money thus obtained, added to the other, the debtors would pay the interest due the capitalists would have their choice of the best the state produces, and the mechanics of the city, who receive money from the capitalists, the next choice. Now, how would all this be looked upon by the people of the commonwealth? There would be a general rejoicing over the excellent market for produce which had grown up in so unexpected a place, and the people would suppose the existence of this city of financial horse-leeches to be one of the main pillars of the prosperity of the state. Each of these capitalists would receive yearly $1,800, the interest on $ 30,000, on which to live. Suppose he lives on $900, the half of his income, and lays the other half by to portion off his children as they come to marriageable age, that they may start also with $30,000 capital, even as he did. This $900 which he lays by every year would have to be invested. The men of business, the men of talent, in the state, would see it well invested for him. Some intelligent man would discover that a new railroad, canal, or other public work was needed; he would survey the ground, draw a plan' of the work, and make an estimate of the expenses; then he would go to this new city and interest the capitalists in the matter. The capitalists would furnish money, the people of the state would furnish labor; the people would dig the dirt, hew the wood, and draw the water. The intelligent man who devised the plan would receive a salary for superintending the work, the people would receive day's wages, and the capitalists would own the whole; for did they not furnish the money that paid for the construction? Taking a scientific view of the matter, we may suppose the capitalists not to work at all; for the mere fact of their controlling the money would insure all the results. We suppose them, therefore, not to work at all; we suppose them to receive, each of them, $1,800 a year; we suppose them to live on one-half of this, or $900, and to lay up the other half for their children. We suppose new-married couples to spring up, in their proper season, out of these families, and that these new couples start, also, each with a capital of $30,000. We ask now, is there no danger of this new city's absorbing unto itself the greater portion of the wealth of the state? There is no city in this commonwealth that comes fully up to this ideal of a fainéant and parasite city; but there is no city in the state in which this ideal is not more or less completely embodied. Greene, William Batchelder, l8l9-l878. Mutual banking. _____________________________________ http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm#4
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 17th, 2014 03:02 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Tinyurl version: https://tinyurl.com/mqmp66k Broken one following: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/andrews/1876-tucker-andrews.pdf Proudhon and his Translator The Index July 23, 1876, Steven Pearl Andrews "Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter. Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix an has meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it."
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2014 06:38 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The Heart of Darkness http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/526/pg526.html You know I hate, detest, and can't bear a lie, not because I am straighter than the rest of us, but simply because it appalls me. There is a taint of death, a flavor of mortality in lies,—which is exactly what I hate and detest in the world—what I want to forget. It makes me miserable and sick, like biting something rotten would do. Temperament, I suppose. It occurs to me to write a comment finding its way to me while reading Heart of Darkness, and glancing back over to one of the 13 original American Constitutions. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nc07.asp "VIII. That no freeman shall be put to answer any criminal charge, but by indictment, presentment, or impeachment" How does one tell another one is a freeman? My thought was: The freeman will defend the innocent.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 26th, 2014 11:38 pm |
|
16th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Worthy of something http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/reply/321443#comment-form 1. Stop being a judgmental creep and try being nice to people.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2014 04:57 pm |
|
17th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Josiah Warren and True Civilization http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/warren/truecivtoc.html 24. Theorize as we may about the interpretation of "the Constitution," every individual does unavoidably measure it and all other words by his own peculiar understanding or conceits, whether he understands himself or not, and should, like General Jackson, recognize the fact, "take the responsibility of it," and qualify himself to meet its consequences. The full appreciation of this simple but almost unknown fact will neutralize the war element in all verbal controversies, and the binding power of all indefinite words, and place conformity thereto on the voluntary basis! Did any institution-makers (except the signers of the "Declaration") ever think of this?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2014 11:54 am |
|
18th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"I was a gangbanger my whole life until i joined the military, then i became the President's gangbanger." Anonymous
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Aug 31st, 2015 03:02 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Age of Reason, Thomas Paine All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2015 01:57 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature, are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question `What further is to be done with them?' join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture." http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/JEFFERSON/ch14.html The above is offered to a candid world. If there is no such thing as a candid world, then who is to blame for that error in judgment? There was an effort to end slavery, to say otherwise is to speak falsely. It is as accurate to acknowledge that there was - uncontroversial - an effort to gain at the expense of slaves, and to institutionalize that type of heinous criminality. From Facebook Topic on 5G my comments All polluters allowed to continue indicates the absence of due process of law, not credit accrediting the willfully fraudulent, such as evidence proving culpability beyond reasonable doubt, refusing to even acknowledge that the matter even exists, or ever has existed, or ever will exist, accurate efforts to determine the precise line between fact and fiction. I just discovered, by routine accident seeking, a very interesting old English word: Outlawry Here is my find: “outlawry, act of putting a person beyond the protection of the law for his refusal to become amenable to the court having legal jurisdiction. ... Under English law outlawry can now be invoked only for one accused of criminal charges.” Google Search result for: outlawry Polluting the body known as The people with a false narrative as to what is or is not the law, as those making that claim are busy disregarding the rules that they say are their rules giving them authority to do precisely opposite what they are in fact doing – polluting society – so often proving the self-evident fact of a Treasonous Fraud Guilty of Polluting the very source of the Treasonous Frauds Counterfeit Authority, which irrefutably is: Treasonous Fraud. Do you see it? In common law an out-law is someone volunteering to step outside the natural laws governing human beings. If any one of The People are deceiving so as to profit from other people, that one proves his guilt in the act of performing the crime known as fraud, which would be that guilty one doing to another that which he himself would defend against were others to dare to do the same to them. We, in common law, are on the Golden Rule, or Natural Law, path to defend each other from frauds. The Golden Rule side, or The Natural Law side, is the moral side as tested with a moral experiment such as an attempt to deceive someone else for the purposes of disarming someone else for the purpose of consuming someone else, by some accurate measure, including the burning of calories. That may sound absurd to those preferring not to look, but to those who are looking the next layer up the Treasonous Fraud Pyramid is more hidden and more evil. That fact that matters ought to suggest a need to at least look for possible existence of an evil, cooperative, force larger than one individual alone in the deepest, darkest, web of deception, seeking that muffled warning shot, the enemies of life are near and approaching. One might be deceived into mistaking Conspiracy Theory with Reasonable Doubt. IDW response on Polish House of Representatives v Mr. Global presented by Reiner Füllmich, my comments follow: Looking good so far, which is far from actual law as proven by delays put in place for the purpose of delaying due process of law, which is itself a confession if actual law is moral, to delay the process merely for the purpose of delaying it, and despite evidence suggesting that further delay - as a rule - constitutes injustice by default. Self-evidently, one imposing rules that one does not himself follow, is a confession of distrust, found in the disagreement between law and un-law, or between law and outlawry, one is based upon facts and the other counterfeits facts with false narratives. Not yet knowing what exactly is behind the Curtain hiding the Wizard of Oz, the closer it is to the Top of either Law or Outlawry, is either much better or much worse for the divisions caused by those choosing self-evident deception. Reiner dares to move one more level above the lower level in The Pyramid Scheme, the self-confessing deceivers employing Treasonous Fraud in fact. Rule by deception is not a new thing for those who know it for what it is in fact.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 05:01 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Quoting | Top |
