The strength of the Constitution (sic) lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are [...]]]> I saw a very revealing quote that someone posted recently. It was an Albert Einstein quote about the United States constitution.

The strength of the Constitution (sic) lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.

Can anyone imagine saying something like that about any sector of society other than government?

The strength of the movie industry is in every submitizen’s determination to support it. Only if every single person feels duty bound to support the movie industry can we expect to get the products we want and the entertainment it promises.

Of course not. If we didn’t like their products we wouldn’t give them business. More than anything, it just goes to show how ineffective government is at protecting liberties and how silly the idea of a constitution is if the very organization it is meant to restrain is given a monopoly on interpreting it and discretion when enforcing it. From personal experience, I have observed that many in the liberty movement are pro-market and believe government as it now exists (individually nonconsensual and territorially monopolistic) is necessary for the free market to function. What does that say about the market if that were true? Government “asks” that we surrender fundamental liberties for the common good. The police, military, and judicial system are all run by the government. I wondered if it has ever crossed their minds why a socialist-like organization is needed to defend the free market.

Since the founding of the current constitution, it was believed that private interests in each of the branches of the government would keep any one branch from becoming too powerful. Instead, what has happened is that each branch has coordinated together to seize more and more power simultaneously. It must be frustrating that the government designed to be the most protective of individual rights has become the most dangerous threat to those rights in the history of civilization, a government powerful enough to destroy the world many times over with its thermonuclear weapons. George Washington probably owes George III a belated apology.

Now, I would be thrilled to return to constitutional government (my interpretation of constitutional government), and someday we might. I’d insist on going further and remove the parasite entirely. That will take changing people’s ideas of how society might function in a stateless society. That can be achieved simultaneously with the shrinkage of the state by undermining its legitimacy so that people no longer believe it is necessary. That is as simple as mocking it when people in government make some boneheaded mistake (When aren’t they?), offering better competing products and services, and educating others of the value of liberty and peace.

That’s all. I assure you that it will be worth the effort.

An Illegitimate Republic: The Moral Case Against a Republic

I have questioned if a republic is the best political form to protect individual rights. Some have stated they are confused by what I mean, so I have asked to speak before [...]]]> I originally intended this as a speech to the Educators of Liberty this weekend.

An Illegitimate Republic: The Moral Case Against a Republic

I have questioned if a republic is the best political form to protect individual rights. Some have stated they are confused by what I mean, so I have asked to speak before the body to clear up the matter. I want to take this opportunity, on the record, to explain why I believe any state-imposed government is antithetical of liberty and, therefore, illegitimate. Now when I said “the state,” I mean any political entity that claims the monopoly on the initiation of force within a geographic area. Or as Frederic Bastiat put it, “The state is the great fictitious entity in which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.”

Morally, I oppose any initiation of force or coercion. As Ron Paul said, “The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.” That is not such a radical claim, is it, that we should restrain from initiating force against out neighbors and that force should only be used in self-defense against such hostility? Yet, it is self-evident that the state constantly initiates force to impose its will. It is institutionalized violence.

But wait, a republic is different, you say. In its proper form, supposedly, it defends individuals against this abuse. But I disagree. Its most fundamental method of initiating force, the one on which its other powers rest, is the claim to have governing authority over all people within a geographic area regardless of a peaceful individual’s objection to do so. Even competing governmental services (such as for defense, law enforcement, judicial arbitration, and law making) must submit to and comply with these higher authorities or face violent retribution.

Rightly, most people would oppose an individual using force to be the monopoly supplier of a product or service. Yet, too often, most people accept the state’s aggression against every entity that threatens its monopoly. The most common method of initiating this force is taxation, allegedly the price you pay to live in civil society. How can a group of people that enforces its will at the end of gun be called civilized? How can a mob be called civilized?

The abolitionist Lysander Spooner summed it up: The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man:

“Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. … Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so.

As Bastiat pointed out: If every person has the right to defend even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. … Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Since no individual may justly use force to seize the justly acquired property of others, then no group—for the same reason—may justly use force to seize the justly acquired property of others. The state violates it’s own laws, and therefore, is neither a legitimate lawmaker nor law enforcer. Just and proper laws would be those that impose a “a mere negation. They oblige [an individual] only to abstain from harming others.” As Bastiat said time and again, “Law is force.” He added: But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed—then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

Then I must be some kind of radical for questioning this. Quoting Bastiat again, “If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that ‘You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests.’ ” He then continued, “Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.”

Well, I confess. I am a radical. As Barry Goldwater claimed, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. … Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

So, if I don’t like the state, why not just leave? After all, am I not granting consent by staying put? Well, no. It is no more consensual than preferring to live in a neighborhood prone to burglary because I don’t want to live in a neighborhood prone to murder. The burglar is still immoral and a criminal. As Bastiat reminded us, “It was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” The question pre-supposes that the state and the burglar have some higher claim to my property than I do, but the state and the burglar have only come to power because of their past successful conquest and plunder.

I could more rightly ask, and I do, why doesn’t the state just leave? The state doesn’t own my property. The state doesn’t own my labor. The state doesn’t own my mind. I do. Then if I oppose the state, what am I in favor of and how do we achieve it? My ideal world is one in which human interaction is voluntary. That means individuals should be free to do as they consent so long as they do not violate the rights of another. That includes what competing governments, if any, they choose to be subject to and financially support, what they produce, what they consume, and how they live your life. Bastiat said, “If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people … whatever its political form may be” [emphasis mine].

Again from Bastiat, “It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” Just because I do not want a state-imposed government, that does not mean I am blind to the value of voluntarily organizing a common defense and consolidating the rule of natural law, such has been the case for common-law judiciaries and the admiralty law at sea. Just because I don’t want the state to provide my education, that does not mean I want to be ignorant.
< br />Luckily, these ideas are not that foreign to us, not yet. Most governmental entities are voluntary, such as in business, non-profit organizations, and activists organizations such as this one. The people who are governed by them have consented voluntarily, and both parties have an opportunity to peacefully dissolve their relationship. And I support using the political process to work within the system, as one of many strategies. Until the time comes when the state’s coercive powers can be peacefully abolished, one of those temporary stepping stones could be a republican form of government, which I consider to be the least worst forms of statism, that is, the belief that sovereignty rests with the state.

But that is not the finish line. Liberty is the ultimate political means and the ultimate political ends. A limited constitutional republic, fundamentally, suffers from the inherent contradictions of violating individual rights in an effort to protect them. As Maximilian Robespierre, the French republican responsible for the “Reign of Terror” in revolutionary France said openly, “The principle of the republican government is virtue, and the means required to establish virtue is terror.” Deep down, we all understand this. If the state provided exactly what each individual wanted from it, as the market does best, there would be no need for its coercion.

Those governmental services would be available in the market because it is dynamic and responsive, while the state is slow and inefficient. It is because the state uses coercion to transfer wealth from one individual to another that slave masters were so receptive to forming its first primitive models. Inevitably, that contradiction of attempting to uphold liberty by initiating force will be exploited, just as every republic in all of history has been. Lest we forget, power corrupts, Lord Acton said.

Thus, a true republican government can only exist for a brief moment in time until its coercive powers are used to expand its reach. I believe an alternative approach that does not employ coercion provides for the greatest possibility of justice and liberty. Bastiat said, “Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.” So I ask of you, is it not utopian to believe in a hypothetical republican form that has never truly existed, that will not exists because it cannot exist, that is contradictory to its purpose, and that would require a shift in the fundamental nature of human beings? Is that not madness?

Or is it more reasonable to believe that some individuals are good, some aren’t, and we should not entrust our lives and liberty to a structure that has violated them at every moment since its inception? Even still, some wonder if order and society would break down without this sweeping threat of force to keep others submissive. From that rationale, a world government is needed because every nation-state also exists in a state of anarchy with one another. It is easy to understand why some believe there must be a supreme international governing body to keep each national government in check. Paraphrasing Benjamin Tucker, just as it has been said there is no stop between Rome and Reason, so it can be said there is no logically consistent third way between international state socialism and liberty.

Thank you for hearing me out. If anyone has questions for me or would like to discuss what I have said, I will gladly give you my e-mail. The reason I wanted to write this is because I believe our philosophy guides our actions; however, there is no purpose in requiring that each and every person in the liberty movement agree point by point. What is important is that we can defend our means and motives as just. The economic and pragmatic cases for liberty are compelling and need to be told. Too often, though, I fail to acknowledge our most potent and successful principle, the moral case for liberty. I hope this does a little bit to make up for that. In the end, my belief in the perseverance of life convinces me that someday we will truthfully say “with liberty and justice for all.”

For the uninitiated, the Campaign for Liberty is the outcome of the meteoric Ron Paul presidential run this last election cycle. The idea is to harness the grassroots momentum of the Texas Republican into a sustainable political force. Paul’s [...]]]> This Saturday was a mix of clarity and confusion, hope and despair, and fun and agony.

For the uninitiated, the Campaign for Liberty is the outcome of the meteoric Ron Paul presidential run this last election cycle. The idea is to harness the grassroots momentum of the Texas Republican into a sustainable political force. Paul’s supporters met in Minnesota during the Republican National Convention to devise this plan and agreed to hold conventions in each of the 50 states in early 2009 to decide what to do next. [Edit: Only Texas supporters are holding a convention.]

Each of the 31 Texas senatorial districts is holding meetings to elect delegates for the Texas CFL convention in late February. The Metroplex was first, and as a consequence there was confusion not only among the attendees but the organizers as well. This was my first real political toe-dipping, so I am significantly behind most others when it comes to the business of politics. And I am definitely humbled by the experience.

Everything is up for grabs right now. The CFL made it official that it has no intention of chartering state organizations, but rather liaison with quasi-independent state organizations to varying degrees. That range of cooperation itself is still being debated. An organization could, with approval, borrow the CFL name and likeness, or it could have little or no connection to the CFL. For me, that is the major question to be answered at the Texas convention in the next six weeks or so.

Approximately 140 people met at 9:30 Saturday morning in downtown Dallas with a real sense of optimism and disorientation. The original plan was for nearly 10 times that attend. But in the last few months, those projections have been cut in half many times over. There’s a cyclical drop in interest, especially after a loss. I think a contributing factor had to be the lack of communication on behalf of the organizers and the attendees.

From my perspective, it was well understood that the convention would break down into each of the senatorial districts. This had been stressed time and time again. But after the introductions and question-and-answer period, one organizer gave a short speech on why the yet-to-be-named Texas organization should not become an issues-oriented campaign. That is something I personally agree with, but any effort to be objective was totally disingenuous on behalf of the organizers. Another organizer attempted to make a motion to the non-deliberative body for additional donations. Soon a few in the audience were calling for motions during this period. Others didn’t know why they had to be split into senatorial districts at all.

The benefit of a central pre-convention for the Metroplex was to answer any confusion. But many if not all of the questions remained, and few more came about. If it had to be done all over again, it would have been simpler, cheaper, and faster just to organize 31 separate meetings before the state convention. Some of the most pertinent questions, like cost, date, location of the state convention are still yet to be finalized.

Back Home Again

I’m a newer participant, so this didn’t hit home for me as much. But many people commented just how much they missed being around other “Ron Paul people,” as they called it. A lot of resources have been committed to this effort, and it’s a positive note that it was not in vain.

There were three prominent points that were discussed in my senate district meeting. The first stressed why this liberty movement was so successful: its spontaneity and optimism. The second was that a successful strategy is going to have to inspire and and mobilize again those supports we have lost track of. Third, any strategy must express what an individual can do to make a difference. That could mean assigning a precinct to a person to distribute fliers or gather voter registration. We have to give people something to do and let them know they are not alone.

Debriefing

After the district meetings, many of which lasted until about 6 p.m., a lot of us Educators of Liberty folks met up to talk about what happened. We had missed our regular Saturday gathering so it was only proper.

So I’ve covered the clarity, confusion, hope, and despair I mentioned up top. The only real agony was sitting on my bottom all day, but it was worth it, and I got to eat some good BBQ for lunch.

This video was made in November 2007, so he doesn’t have the benefit of the hindsight today to see just what kind of education [...]]]> YouTuber XOmniverse says that it’s counterproductive to support libertarian-bent politicians, even going so far as to call Ron Paul’s campaign irrelevant, because resources could be better spent educating voters.

This video was made in November 2007, so he doesn’t have the benefit of the hindsight today to see just what kind of education the Ron Paul campaign provided nationwide with grassroots support organizations popping up like weeds in the Democrats’ and Republicans’ own backyard.

Now, he is right that education is the key to reversing course from the politics of theft to a politics of peace. However, it was Ron Paul’s media exposure that did a great deal to expose libertarian ideas to the masses. That media publicity would not have been available had he not been running for president. The new faces and networks that popped up are going to be terrific assets for political change.

“Ron Paul is not a cause; he is an effect,” XOmniverse says. “If you’re focusing all your efforts to supporting Ron Paul rather than spreading the message of liberty, basically you are trying to contribute to the effect, rather than try to contribute to the cause.” He likens this to moving a car forward by pushing it rather than starting the engine. “The ideas of liberty are the engine that push change.”

This is a just a strawman tactic. The truth is, we can educate and politic. With education as the engine and politics as the driver, we can reach any destination we set our course.

After a recent weekend EOL meeting, we got into a discussion of central [...]]]> I’ve been discussing the function of the banking with Educators of Liberty founder and technology coordinator Scott Barber. EOL is a great pro-liberty organization here in North Texas that I’ve been lucky enough to join, but more on that sometime later.

After a recent weekend EOL meeting, we got into a discussion of central banking and the Federal Reserve, an institution which serves as ground zero for the funding of the warfare-welfare state imposed on us today. Personally, ending the Fed is the impetus and foundation of my political activism, because without the counterfeiting Fed it would be next to impossible to fund a $3 trillion empire in Washington, D.C. That says nothing of the wealth redistribution and wealth destruction it is responsible for.

During out talk, Scott had leveled a critique of the Fed that I just couldn’t buy, namely that the creation of money traps borrows into a, like, loop-back pattern since they can’t all pay back the principal and interest from the total money originally borrowed. And that makes sense on its face. How can you pay back 101 dollars, the principal and interest total, when there are only a total of 100 dollars in existence?

As despicable as the Fed is, I didn’t see this as a claim against central banking, but rather against banking in general. And I thought there was a simple answer to this charge; that the same dollar is “recycled” through an economy and can be spent multiple times over a period of time.

(Note: I’m grateful to Scott for allowing me to reproduce our e-mail exchange from the past week. Here are the relevant portions below.)

Hey Scott,

I was thinking of what you said about the Federal Reserve that it creates the need for more loans to pay off the interest from the original loan. Forgive me for not thinking of this Saturday when we were talking about it, but the easiest way to show that is not true is by showing how money moves through the economy multiple times.

Say Albert lends Bob $1000 at 10 percent interest, and Bob turns around and uses that money to buy a lawnmower and equipment for his business. It could still benefit Bob to borrow the money even if Albert were his only customer. Bob could make his payment of $100 each month, and Albert would turn around and pay Bob $100 for cutting his lawn every month. Month after month, Bob’s remaining debt would decrease until the principal and interest were paid in full.

Now there could be a scenario where there is little if any need for Bob’s services. In this case, Bob would not make enough money to pay off the loan. But that is not the fault of Albert for the lending the money; that is Bob’s fault for misjudging the market for his services.

What do you think?

Scott said:

I understand your analogy. But in this analogy, neither of the people in question are the one’s who create the money. They are simply using money that has been create “above” them.

My second e-mail:

I can see what you’re saying. But my analogy is the same. Albert creates 1000 Albert Dollars backed by gold or any asset for that matter. Bob agrees to borrow the lump sum and make payments of 100 Albert Dollars to Albert for the next 11 months. Bob performs some service for Albert each month. So long as Bob earns an average of 10 Albert Dollars per month, the debt will be paid in full.

The Fed gets away with using a fiat currency because legal tender laws force you to accept them as payment. That is why the Albert Dollars had to have an asset backing them since he has no government monopoly. Nevertheless, if Bob has misjudged the demand for his work, the loan will default. That is the fault of Bob, I believe, and not the lender.

Scott’s second reply:

Ok, with this analogy, there are “Albert Dollars.” 1000 of them in existence to be exact. ALL of the dollars are borrowed from Albert and Bob pays them back at 100 per month. Now what happens if Albert wants interest, and will ONLY accept “Albert Dollars” in return. There are only 1000 of these in the entire universe. How does Bob get the needed “Albert Dollars” to repay the INTEREST on this loan without borrowing more dollars that then come as a new debt with new interest? At 8% interest, Bob would need 1080 “Albert Dollars” but there are only 1000 “Albert Dollars” in our universe. Where do the extra 80 “Albert Dollars” come from?

I respond:

To the question of the missing $80: money can be spent many, many times over the course of a year. After the first month’s payment, Bob would have $900, while owing $980, and Albert would have $100. Then Bob does some work for Albert worth at least $80, and Bob now has enough money to pay off the principal and interest in full (Bob $980, Albert $20). In fact, if Bob could get regular work each month from Albert, they could just pass back and forth the same $90 ($1080/12 months=$90/month) and Bob would still have about $990 ($1080-$90=$990) at the end of the year.

The kind of work they agree to is going to depend on what kind of reserves are backing the Albert Dollars. If Albert has the currency backed by one ounce of gold, then that is going to be relatively easier work than if the currency were backed by 1000 ounces of gold. You see, while Albert is using that gold as reserves, he incurs an opportunity cost because he is not able invest those assets. For his sake, he has to earn enough interest revenue to cover the costs for the gold storage meet the expected investment returns he believes he could have earned on the open market under similar risk. (There are probably many more costs of creating your own money.)

But what if Albert does not hire Bob for any work, so Bob defaults on the loan. But then why would Albert want to loan Bob more money if he knows he won’t get paid back?

Or what if Bob makes less than the $80 for the interest? Then Bob has to take out another loan or sell some other property to cover the rest. But that is the fault of the borrower, not the lender, for misreading the demand for his work.

Or what if Albert pays Bob for work in some other currency? That would make sense if Albert no longer wanted the maintain his own currency. Then why wouldn’t he accept different forms of payment once there were no more Albert Dollars on the market?

Oops, kind of got long-winded there.

Scott says:

In this example, Bob works for Albert directly. In the case of the federal reserve [sic], we don’t work for them. We don’t give them their “payments” and then collect our pay-check.

My final response:

You’re right that the circumstances are not the same, and I guess that’s the problem with using analogies. My goal was to highlight the principle of how an interest-bearing loan works practically: so long as the lender puts some of the currency back into the market, the debts can be repaid. There are lots of ways Albert or a bank could put the money back into the economy, and for simplicity’s sake, I chose that one.

In the Fed’s case, it has not only put some of the money back into the system. It has multiplied the money supply 25 times over by monetizing government debt and using fractional reserve banking. After all, how surprised are we that someone with a license to freely print money would abuse that power?

I get the last word for now.