Liberty Forged

the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. ` Nock

Posts Tagged ‘social security’

World Reserve Currency – China says yes.

Posted by Jesse on March 23, 2009

Bernanke: Oh no, no, no. No ones talking about a World Reserve Currency. We can print our way out of this mess.

Barack Obama: Geez, ya know. We’d be taking a stronger lead towards achieveing the goals I set forth during the campaign, but all these setbacks….this crisis, you know, we couldn’t have anticipated it.

Ron Paul: We are going to have a dollar crisis. I ran for Congress in the 70’s because Nixon removed the last remnants of the gold standard and I knew that would lead to disaster. We need to have sound money, move towards a new gold standard and abolish the Federal Reserve. (Also see: The Case for  a Genuine Gold Dollar)

Financial Times: China’s central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.

Posted in Mine | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

whatever neffs

Posted by Jesse on March 14, 2009

if business owners expected “customers” to steal and murder, who would ever open a business?

if i pay for a service i expect what i paid for. if i don’t receive good service, why would i want to continue paying for it?

are you looking forward to your social security check in how ever many decades? i know i’m not. where’s the measure of success? i want to see some competition!

if the government is going to give my money to failed banks, “defense” contractors, jail people who smoke pot and try to prop up economic policies that don’t work, or even “invest” in some broad long-term Obama-vision that no one can seem to explain or agree on, why would i want to pay or invest in such an idea? the problem is, unlike in a free market, what choice do i have? they just take the money. and that’s supposed to be a good example of good government?

and then on top of that we have an organization that tries to rule the market too!

Unnatural Disaster by Thomas Woods

“As with all goods, the supply and demand for lending capital determines the price. If more families are saving or more banks are lending, borrowers don’t have to pay as much to borrow, and interest rates go down. If there’s a rush to borrow or a dearth of lending capital, interest rates go up.”

“Thus the interest rate coordinates production across time. It ensures a compatible mix of market forces: if people want to consume now, businesses respond accordingly; if people want to consume in the future, businesses allocate resources to satisfy that desire. The interest rate can perform this coordinating function only if it is allowed to move freely in response to changes in supply and demand. If the Fed manipulates the interest rate, we should not be surprised by discoordination on a massive scale.”

“The more the Fed inflates, the worse the reckoning will be. Every new wave of artificial credit deforms the capital structure further, making the inevitable bust more severe because so much more capital will have been squandered and so many more resources misallocated.”

Also see:

What is the Free Market by Murray Rothbard

The House Poor by Karen de Coster

And it’s this type of analysis I equate with law and rulers. If a dictator ignores the people’s cries [consumer demand] and continues to press on and oppress, eventually there will be all out war. Dictatorial rule is known for ignoring what people need and want. It destroys prosperity and trust. the ruler is acting in self-interest and is only concerned with the general welfare in so far as it affects self-interest. and the general welfare is defined by whatever the laws are, not what you or I think it may be.

i don’t expect you to agree with me, i don’t expect to change your mind, but if you claim to be able to empathize with “poor” people, or “minorities”, then i expect that one should be able to understand a very simple principle as letting people keep what is rightfully theirs, and not simply say “we’re taking from you for your own good”. you have to be able to convince those people and not just oppress them with your political programs. that’s not a very good long-term strategy to say the least.

Posted in Mine | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Political Independence and Inevitability

Posted by Jesse on January 10, 2009

The Moral Promise of Political Independence {MP3}

@ College of Charleston in South Carolina [April 1995]

··················································

This list of open letters may provide some answers to the questions people have about Ron Paul and how his platform should be applied and interpreted.

Open Letters on Behalf of Ron Paul

·················································

Middle of the Road Policy Leads to Socialism {Mp3}

·················································

Rothbard As Historian : Liberty vs Power

“My own basic perspective on the history of man ….is to place central importance on the great conflict which is eternally waged between Liberty and Power …. I see the liberty of the individual not only as a great moral good in itself … but also as the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other goods that mankind cherishes: moral virtue, civilization, the arts and sciences, economic prosperity. But liberty has always been threatened by the encroachments of power,power which seeks to suppress, control, cripple, tax, and exploit the fruits of liberty and production. And power is almost always centered in and focused on that central repository of power and violence: the state.
… I see history as centrally a race and conflict between “social power”, the productive consequences of voluntary interactions among men, and state power. In those eras of history when liberty, social power, has managed to race ahead of state power and control, the country and even mankind have flourished. In those eras when state power has managed to catch up with or surpass social power, mankind suffers or declines.”

··················································

From Antiwar.com/radio:

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) discusses the expansion of the American empire after the collapse of the Soviet Union, how empires lead to the loss of liberty, security and wealth, and long term prospects of the current financial downturn.

MP3 here. (23:43)

··················································

·


Posted in america, anarcho capitalism, antiwar, barack obama, business, campaignforliberty, capitalism, central banking, collectivism, congress, Constitution, culture, Current Events, democrat, economy, federal reserve, free market, Gold, government, history, international, lew rockwell, Libertarian, life, limited government, LvMInstitute, media, Mises, news | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Government IDs and Identity Theft

Posted by Jesse on March 12, 2008

Before the US House of Representatives International Relations Committee
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient, and the Social Security administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to Social Security administration. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient administration of the Social Security system.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem because it was Congress that transformed the Social Security number into a national identifier. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a driver’s license without presenting his Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license!

One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim the children as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the state is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic that inspired this nation’s founders.

Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft. Yet the federal government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!

This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions among American citizens. At the very end of the 108th Congress, this body established a de facto national ID card with a provisions buried in the “intelligence” reform bill mandating federal standards for drivers’ licenses, and mandating that federal agents only accept a license that conforms to these standards as a valid ID.

Nationalizing standards for driver’s licenses and birth certificates creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so proponents attempt to claim they are merely creating new standards for existing state IDs. However, the “intelligence” reform legislation imposed federal standards in a federal bill, thus creating a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state. It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane. Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free republics.

The national ID will be used to track the movements of American citizens, not just terrorists. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance diverts resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists in favor of needless snooping on innocent Americans. This is what happened with “suspicious activity reports” required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Thanks to BSA mandates, federal officials are forced to waste countless hours snooping through the private financial transactions of innocent Americans merely because those transactions exceeded $10,000.

The Identity Theft Prevention Act repeals those sections of federal law creating the national ID, as well as those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier – an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctors will be placed in a government-accessible database?

By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property, and privacy violated by private and public sector criminals.

In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.

Some members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.

First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputations as a result of identity theft.

Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but these laws have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations.

In one of the most infamous cases of identity theft, thousands of active-duty soldiers and veterans had their personal information stolen, putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the universal identifier, and other personal information, of millions of Americans simply by breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one government database?

Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy’” regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information.

Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

Mr. Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the American people’s opposition to national identifiers. The numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that Americans want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

January 6, 2005

Posted in congress, Constitution, Current Events, democrat, economy, election 2008, free market, government, international, personal, Politics, republican, Ron Paul, senate, technology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

I feel ya bro.

Posted by Jesse on February 14, 2008

 Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal

by Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard77.html 

“Twenty years ago I was an extreme right-wing Republican, a young and lone “Neanderthal” (as the liberals used to call us) who believed, as one friend pungently put it, that “Senator Taft had sold out to the socialists.” Today, I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist, since I favor immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, denounce U.S. imperialism, advocate Black Power and have just joined the new Peace and Freedom Party. And yet my basic political views have not changed by a single iota in these two decades!

It is obvious that something is very wrong with the old labels, with the categories of “left” and “right,” and with the ways in which we customarily apply these categories to American political life. My personal odyssey is unimportant; the important point is that if I can move from “extreme right” to “extreme left” merely by standing in one place, drastic though unrecognized changes must have taken place throughout the American political spectrum over the last generation.”

“………All of our political positions, from the free market in economics to opposing war and militarism, stemmed from our root belief in individual liberty and our opposition to the state. Simplistically, we adopted the standard view of the political spectrum: “left” meant socialism, or total power of the state; the further “right” one went the less government one favored. Hence, we called ourselves “extreme rightists.”

Originally, our historical heroes were such men as Jefferson, Paine, Cobden, Bright and Spencer; but as our views became purer and more consistent, we eagerly embraced such near-anarchists as the voluntarist, Auberon Herbert, and the American individualist-anarchists, Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker. One of our great intellectual heroes was Henry David Thoreau, and his essay, “Civil Disobedience,” was one of our guiding stars. Right-wing theorist Frank Chodorov devoted an entire issue of his monthly, Analysis, to an appreciation of Thoreau.”

“The main catalyst for transforming the mass base of the right wing from an isolationist and quasi-libertarian movement to an anti-communist one was probably “McCarthyism.” Before Senator Joe McCarthy launched his anti-communist crusade in February 1950, he had not been particularly associated with the right wing of the Republican Party; on the contrary, his record was liberal and centrist, statist rather than libertarian.” 

Furthermore, Red-baiting and anti-communist witch-hunting were originally launched by liberals, and even after McCarthy the liberals were the most effective at this game. It was, after all, the liberal Roosevelt Administration which passed the Smith Act, first used against Trotskyites and isolationists during World War II and then against communists after the war; it was the liberal Truman Administration that instituted loyalty checks; it was the eminently liberal Hubert Humphrey who was a sponsor of the clause in the McCarran Act of 1950 threatening concentration camps for “subversives.”

“…….n the early days, young Bill Buckley often liked to refer to himself as an “individualist,” sometimes even as an “anarchist.” But all these libertarian ideals, he maintained, had to remain in total abeyance, fit only for parlor discussion, until the great crusade against the “international communist conspiracy” had been driven to a successful conclusion. Thus, as early as January 1952, I noted with disquiet an article that Buckley wrote for Commonweal, “A Young Republican’s View.”

He began the article in a splendid libertarian manner: our enemy, he affirmed, was the state, which, he quoted Spencer, was “begotten of aggression and by aggression.” But then came the worm in the apple: the anti-communist crusade had to be waged. Buckley went on to endorse “the extensive and productive tax laws that are needed to support a vigorous anti-communist foreign policy”; he declared that the “thus far invincible aggressiveness of the Soviet Union” imminently threatened American security, and that therefore “we have to accept Big Government for the duration – for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged . . . except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.” Therefore, he concluded – in the midst of the Korean War – we must all support “large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington.”

The right wing, never articulate, has not had many organs of opinion. Therefore, when Buckley foundedNational Review in late 1955, its erudite, witty and glib editorials and articles swiftly made it the only politically relevant journal for the American right. Immediately, the ideological line of the right began to change sharply.”

 

Read the rest……

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard77.html 

 

  

Posted in abortion, antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, economy, Education, free market, healthcare, lew rockwell, Libertarian, old right, Politics, republican, Rights, Ron Paul, Rothbard | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »