Where I'm Coming From

[A continuation of a discussion on government, war, &c]

I think the main problem here is that it's difficult to communicate through the barrier of such vastly different premises. Your premise, apparently, is trust in "leaders" or "the authorities" or some such thing, and my premise is that they're lying so the truth must be something other than whatever it is they've said. That difference is simple enough to understand. Truth is not subjective, and morals are not situational. So where do we get truth and morals? Some people get the truth from Fox News (they report, we decide, because they're fair and balanced), some from CNN, some from the Pope, some from a psychic, etc. Some people get their morals from national pride or from whatever they think their best interest is. Some people get their morals from religion. I decided to base my opinions on actual truth, from sources that have proven to be worthy, so when, just for example, D&C says—as I quoted above—that we shouldn't go to war unless directed by the Lord, and then we should follow specific steps to ensure the validity of our cause, I take that very literally. That's really what I believe, so why shouldn't I follow it? At that point I don't care what Ahmadinawhat says, or Limbaugh, or Beck, or Bush, Cheney, Obama, or whoever. I'm looking for the one trustable source to give the say-so.

On that note, the same source of truth tells me that the constitution was established for our benefit, and so no matter what the circumstance—the expediency of instantaneous bombings sans legitimate declaration of war, capturing terrible terrorists and giving them the whatfor, fast highways, "safe" food—I look for government to follow what I believe is the established and proper law. And even though the Rockwell anarcho-capitalists have extremely convincing arguments, I can't give in to that argument either, because the ultimate trump card is right there in the scriptures. The truth. When government doesn't follow that established law, I see it as a rejection not only of individual liberty but of the Lord's will as well. Because it is, isn't it? No argument from the previously stated list of pundits and charlatans can convince me otherwise, because their arguments can't compete with the truth. Why would I give up my agency—the use of which is the very purpose of mortal life—to follow a government that is clearly violating every tenet in what should be the established law? There is no logic in doing that.

Another big piece of the puzzle also comes from the scriptures (I remind you that this is an explanation of how and why I think what I think about things—the basis of my opinions). We are warned many times of secret combinations. In fact, the entire Book of Mormon was meant as a warning to those who read it. You can look that one up, it's in the front. Moroni tells us that secret combinations destroy societies when the people tolerate and eventually support and embrace them. Uphold is the word Moroni uses. And what are these secret combinations? "That I may murder and get gain," Cain said. It's a very simple formula. When you see the exchange of life for property, that's a big clue that something has gone wrong. One of the most important things a person can realize is that their government is conspiratorial. There is a conspiracy against freedom. If you don't believe that then you don't believe the correctness of the Book of Mormon (the reference is Ether 8:25 if you want to check). Do politicians not conspire to legislate themselves and their benefactors the property of the rest of us? When a priesthood holder attempts to exercise unrighteous dominion, his priesthood is lost until he repents. When a government violates every principle of it's founding does it not also lose legitimacy? Any more or less than the constitution comes from evil. Evil can't be good. We shouldn't follow evil.

For a lengthy exposition on the exchange of life and liberty for property and power, read this article, not from Lew Rockwell. Start at the subheading "Empire and Economics" if you want to skip ahead.

As far as Bush meaning well, so what? The guy in the Old Testament who tried to right the ark also meant well, but he still died. Don't touch the ark. He touched the ark. He died. Intentions don't matter, right and wrong matter. I don't think they had good intentions, but my opinion doesn't matter. They were horribly wrong at the expense of millions of lives. Intentions don't matter. If you read that article, you'll see what I mean. The Federal Reserve controls the interest rate and supply of the default world currency, and has extreme influence on world economies. The IMF/World Bank come to a country to help save it by loaning it billions of dollars (yours, by the way) for infrastructure improvements, but the contracts go to companies like Bechtel and CH2M-Hill. The money flows out of the country, but the country is left to repay the loan. When the loan comes due and it can't be paid, favors are demanded. Who controls the IMF and World Bank? They're both headquartered in DC. The president of the World Bank is appointed by the president of the United States. Lives are destroyed, resources exploited, money is made, and power is retained. It's a great system if you're in the loop.

So now you know where I'm coming from. Ayn Rand said in one of her books, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." You should try it sometime.

A Conversation Stemming From Gold and Freedom

I recommended this article about the relationship between gold and freedom to my in-laws in general. The good sister-in-law responded. "This was an excellent article, easy to understand and informative. So is there any of the "gold standard" left in our country to any degree today? and if not, why is it important to buy gold for saving if it doesn't have any set money value, or does it? Why not stock up on food or other precious commodities instead? And the most important question, when and how fast do you think that inflation is going to start rising again?" My way-too-long answer:

Short answer at the bottom.

Nixon officially ended any link to gold in 1971. Foreign countries were allowed to redeem US dollars for gold although American citizens (or individuals of any nationality) weren't. To keep the dollar from falling straight to zero (which it did for a few weeks anyway) he and whoever was actually in charge made a deal with oil producing countries that oil would trade exclusively in dollars, making dollars unofficially backed by oil. This has been the case until the last few years, when some countries decided not to accept dollars for their oil. The list of countries that have made their intentions public might be of interest. Iraq was one of the first, probably because Saddam Hussein was so belligerent and thought he was untouchable. Everyone knows what happened there. Iran is one of the most vocal about ditching the dollar. I don't recall much concern for the rights and freedoms of the terribly oppressed Iranian people until the matter of dollars and oil came up. Venezuela is also on the list, and the US happens to be building seven military bases in Columbia right now. Columbia is next to Venezuela. I probably don't need to fill in many blanks. A short and informative article about the whole mess.

As far as buying gold, I have no idea. It would have been nice to have bought some ten years ago. It doesn't have a set dollar value because the dollar doesn't have a set value. As soon as the oil countries stop using the dollar it will go straight down to zero. It has no actual, inherent value, except the value a piece of paper that size generally has. You can ponder what that value is next time you visit the restroom or need to light a fire. And hopefully those two things aren't going on at the same time. So, if all of your savings are in dollars, someday you will have literally no money. I don't know when that day is. Gary North (I like Gary North) doesn't know either, but he does have some indicators and potential scenarios.

We've been told it's a good idea to have a lot of food stored. We haven't been instructed to buy as much gold as possible. Food and other useful commodities are better than gold in a Mad Max situation, but if there is some remnant of normal economic activity then garbage cans full of wheat are extremely inconvenient to use if you want to buy gas or shoe laces. 9mm or .45 rounds are better, but gold and silver are even better than that, and the market will determine prices and values in the absence of a functioning dollar. I guess it just depends on what you expect to happen. In the short term, if everything chugs along like it has, then at the very least you can beat inflation with gold. Gold has increased almost 50% in the last year, and over 250% over the last ten years. Beat that with the stock market Dave Ramsey! Silver is up 60% from a year ago, and just under 250% over the last ten.

The Fed has been quietly monetizing chunks of debt since the first bailouts. That just means they're printing more money (or just creating it on computers), which means more dollars chasing goods, which means prices go up. Inflation! How fast inflation rises depends on how much they print and how long it takes people to catch on. They'll have to print at least several tens of trillions over the next few years to pay off Congress' handouts because China, Japan, and Russia are not buying our debt anymore. They figured out we have too much of it and we don't make anything to sell to pay off our debt. All we can do is start a war with them to try to force them to use our (non)money. That is not very near the top of my list of good reasons to start a war. You can probably guess the likelihood of me encouraging any of my six sons to sign up for killing Chinese, Japanese, or Russian people (or Iranians. I didn't forget you Iranians!) in order to force them to use worthless dollars. No fighting for The Fed at my house.

Short answer: The dollar is absolutely unbacked by anything other than the good faith and credit of the United States, which is the same thing as nothing. I don't know when and how fast inflation takes off. Sooner than anyone is ready for, and faster than we think.

Letters to the Whitehouse

When a white house flunky requested we citizen-soldiers report any "fishy misinformation" we heard about health care reform, I couldn't help but do my patriotic duty. I hope I made an impact and was of some help in getting people straightened out about this whole thing. Unfortunately, so many patriots reported things that the mini-program had to be discontinued. Here are my reports.

Aug 5
Hey Macon Phillips,
I found some fishy stuff. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/31690.html This guy over at lewrockwell.com seems to think that the health care plan is an evil plot covered up by some sort of Soviet-style Stalinist propaganda. Ha! We all know that the propaganda leans to the Maoist style. Anyway, you might want to check it out. Also, I've been hearing some fishy misinformation on AM radio. You know the guys, I'm sure. Anyway, good luck correcting all of this fishy misinformation.

Isaac

Aug 5
Are you a czar? That would be cool if you were a czar. Which spelling do you prefer, czar or tsar?

Thanks,
Isaac

Aug 6
Did you see that video of everyone yelling at Arlen Specter? You should be able to identify at least some of them and track them down, then you could give them a good talking to about the real health care truth. Give that a shot and let me know how it goes.

Isaac

Aug 7
You know who's been saying fishy stuff lately? My wife. It is so fishy what she says. Things like, "They already regulate the medical field almost to death anyway, why do they need to completely take it over?" Please! As if the federal government (or do you guys prefer "national" now? Federal has such a 10th amendment ring to it) regulating something would be motivated by anything but altruism. Ha! We know you're just trying to help, especially children. But you know, my wife just isn't getting it. She thinks rich doctors will be able to figure out what patients need and not be driven by sheer greed and lust for money. Without the government involved, rich doctors and insurance companies would be running this country like warlords by now. Maybe you can talk some sense into her. She lives at **** Butternut in Richland, Washington (not DC). But you probably already know that since the census people have been getting GPS coordinates and stuff. She can be reached at 509-***-**** if you don't have time to make a personal visit.

Isaac

Aug 7
Hey,
I know I already wrote today, but I figure the more the merrier, right? Am I right? So I found another fishy naysayer. Tom DiLorenzo, another guy who writes for lewrockwell.com. He has the audacity to compare health care reform to food rationing. Does he think he's some kind of genius economist or something? The problem with people like this is that they're too educated. Or at least they think they're educated. Maybe you could suggest to the president, or some other person in charge, a new program that would help people become educated about important things. You could even call it the Re-Learning program. It could be like rehab where people go to a special resort or camp and relearn important facts about government and government programs like health care reform. Re-Learning isn't a very catchy name, I know. There's probably a better name for it, but I know you guys can come up with something. But doesn't a Re-Learning camp sound like fun?

Til next time,
Isaac

Aug10
Hey Macon,
Long time no email! I went camping this weekend, which I think is a Green activity, but on the way up there I hit a deer, which I'm guessing is not Green at all. But one thing I did do was pick up a bunch of junk from the stream near the camp site, like cups and cans and things like that. Even though it is good to pick up litter, I regret that I didn't do it under the direction of a government sponsored program like Americorps or whatever else you have like that. It would have been way better if an official group was down at the stream officially picking up trash and creating jobs for Americans! Like House Speaker Pelosi said recently, Green bills like the cap and trade bill are all about jobs, jobs, jobs, and more jobs! Green = jobs. Yes.

Speaking of House Speaker Pelosi, did you catch what Ron Paul is doing right in Congress? He's trying to get some bills going that will hinder health care reform as envisioned by President Obama and others. For instance, HR 3394, The Health Information Protection Act, inhibits the FTC from acting against any entity for communicating the health benefits of its products unless the FTC presents "clear and convincing" evidence that those statements are false. Talk about fishy, right? So if the FTC can't protect people from misleading information, they might take a bunch of non-FDA approved stuff, and then when they got sick they would cost the health care system billions or trillions of dollars. Ron Paul is costing the government trillions of dollars! This is fishy misinformation! Someone get a handle on this guy before people start listening to him. That's the idea, right? Am I right?

Can't wait to hear from you,
Isaac

Aug 12
Macon,
Did you catch Laura Ingraham's show yesterday? Whoa. Super fishy. She even got angry at her guest and started almost yelling. As we have seen, those kinds of words and that kind of behavior can be a stepping stone to maybe possibly starting to think about pondering some violent actions, or inciting others to possibly start pondering them. This has gone too far, do you not think so? Anyway, she asked the expert guest if the democratically-minded health care reform bill would allow you to keep your own plan or your own doctor under various circumstances. He said that yes, of course, as long as it was government approved, and then she flew off the handle. As if we don't need the federal (or is it national? You haven't answered that one yet) government to help us sift bad plans from good ones. The guest even compared it to the auto industry—and you guys know a thing or two about that now, don't you? Am I right?—by saying that the government wouldn't allow people to buy cars that were dangerous, so obviously dangerous insurance plans were out of the question also. I think that was a good point. I mean, if no federal regulation existed, I would almost for sure be dead from driving a car with no windshield, no brakes, and an inefficient NASA surplus rocket engine. I would not be able to tell the difference between safe and dangerous. Air bags are another good example. People are safer now, lives have been saved because of the air bag requirement. Except those kids who were sitting in the front seat and were killed from the airbag deployment. An insincere person could argue that a case could be made that government policy and regulation actually caused those deaths, and that if car buyers had an opportunity to choose whether or not their car had an airbag then some children would still be alive. What they aren't taking into account is collective safety. Collectively, we are safer now because of mandatory airbags, and that's really what matters, right? The collective.

So you might want to put Laura Ingraham on the list. I mean, I know there is no list, but you know what I mean. Maybe you could also sign her up for one of the re-learning camps when you get those going.

Talk to you later,
Isaac

PS Write back soon!

Butler Shaffer on Monopoly

"Police officers killing innocent persons with impunity (and immunity) is essential to the nature of the state. Given that the state is an institution with a monopoly on the use of violence, to make functionaries of the state responsible for their wrongs is to erode that monopoly; to impose upon the state some standard higher than its own will. Such behavior is but an extension of the logic that underlies every state system, a truth the founders understood quite well when they created the Second Amendment as a partial check on that monopoly."

Butler Shaffer

Three Related Essays

Pep Rallies and Public Schools: How the State Programs Us for War
Why Do They Just Giggle?
Question Authority: Always and Forever Hereafter

There is a common thread running through these essays. If you find it, you get a prize. The prize is a free trip to an undisclosed detention camp for an indeterminate period of time, or one .22LR bullet. Your choice.

Ultrasound

Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.

Taxpayers in Revolt, Chapter 4

Taxpayers in Revolt, David T Beito
Blog: Chapter 4, part 3

In further attempts to destroy resistance and prevent the "overthrow of government," the county/city contingent threatened to cut the strikers off from government services. Fred Sargent, chairman of the Committee on Public Expenditures, proposed strategic elimination of water, police protection (how that would be accomplished I don't know), and even legal standing in court. Sargent insisted the strikers should pay their taxes "if they are to claim the rights of American citizenship," which is an interesting concept, but one that doesn't have much backing. A quick perusal of the Declaration of Independence reveals that all men are created equal (which is a self-evident truth), and are endowed by their creator with certain* unalienable rights. So was Fred Sargent claiming the government of the city of Chicago to be the creator of the people who lived there? Or was he claiming that paying taxes gave these people life? Maybe he was stating his belief that the ambiguous and officious entity of bureaucratic government in general provided the validation people needed for existing. I can't say for sure what he was thinking (if he was at all, but I think he and his ilk were just getting desperate), but I do know that any one or any thing that claims to be the source of freedom has appointed themselves in the place of God. A government that claims to provide people with rights that come from God is committing blasphemy.

So after a few measly and cowardly attempts at making an example of high profile ARET members by revoking their government-provided privileges, the executive arm of government turned to the judicial arm for support. Judge Edmund Jarecki dismissed ARET's objections and entered a judgment for the sale of the tax strikers' properties. In a moment of graciousness and charity, he "announced a tempting 50 percent reduction in accumulated penalties for all taxpayers who came into court (bowed before the throne), received judgment (threw themselves at the mercy of the agent of the omnipotent state), and made partial payments (repented of their grievous sins)." I added the parenthetical statements, but is it really that much of a stretch? Is it really so ridiculous to say that government has appropriated God's right to bestow and revoke liberty? Government also attempts to make itself the granter of life, allowing and disallowing as it's mediums see fit, so how far does it have to go before we recognize it as blasphemy?

"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil."

*in this context, does the word "certain" mean a few specific rights, or does it mean rights that are certain, as in secured and unassailable?