The Greatest Trick The Devil Ever Pulled…
One of my all time favorite movies is, “The Usual Suspects.” There is a line in the movie were Kevin Spacey says, “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world that he didn’t exist.” I started thinking about this line after a discussion on government regulations.


The state has pulled off some equally remarkable feats when it comes to convincing the public that they are needed. I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that they have been able to do it so well. From the time you are born you are put into the system, without your consent. You are inundated with government propaganda through all your formative years. And then you are told that all of that was done because YOU run the government.


Into the Matrix


The first thing you get when you are born is a state issued birth certificate. It shows that you are a person now and that you are a legal citizen of the state. Then you are given your income tracking card, some people call it a social security card. That plugs you into the government taxation system, even though it will be many years before you earn any income. Once upon a time you could wait to get your government number until you got ready to earn income, but now you have to get it earlier, just in case I guess.




Certain collectivist types are pushing for earlier childhood education. In other words, they want your kids sooner. When the government says that children are “our” greatest resource, they mean “our” as in the governments, not the families, not the communities, not the parents, but the governments. From an early age the children are taught more about how to act and interact within the framework of government institutions than they are taught critical thinking. The time spent teaching math, science, language, and other needed skills to survive in the real work take a back seat to being taught to be obedient citizens who will go along with the program. I don’t think anyone would disagree that government education is all about social engineering.


In the late 1800’s, William T. Harris, commissioner of Education, summed up government schooling. Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening. The average American [should be] content with their humble role in life...” I think that sums it up pretty well.




Even some people that claim they would like to see nothing more than the end of government have no problem accepting the authority of the government and even participate in government institutions and programs. This is from that early indoctrination. Somewhere deep in their being they can’t get over the programming that says government can be used for a force of good, despite all the evidence to the contrary.


Mention abolishing government programs like the FDA, FCC, Department of Education, USDA, etc. and prepare to watch peoples heads explode. They can’t envision a society without those things. Heaven forbid that people should be responsible for what they put into their bodies, or for educating their children themselves. “YOU NEED SOMEONE MAKING SURE BUSINESSES DON’T FEED US POISON!!!”


The idea that we could buy our food from people we know, and do business with businesses we can actually trust, is a foreign concept. Personal, individual responsibility is such a scary prospect to them that the mere thought of taking any for themselves strikes fear in their hearts. George Bernard Shaw said it well, “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”


Even the minarchists fall into this trap. They can’t see how things like justice and defense could be handled by the free market. Even though on some issues they have no problem pointing out numerous examples of government over reaching their bounds into the pockets and liberties of the citizens, they can’t give up that early indoctrination that says there are certain things that only the government can provide. For whatever reason, they can’t see that their arguments for a limited government are the exact same arguments for a huge government.


It is like any other protection racket though. “We will make sure that your liberty is protected, just gonna cost you this much.” But it never costs that much and eventually you have to go along with whatever they demand.


I think the idea of providing a limited government that cares for certain things is a wonderful idea. Finding a way to keep that government limited seems to be a harder prospect. There are some great people in the limited government movement, but none of them will ever have the power or opportunity that the founding fathers had, not while they are trying to work within the current framework of politics. But along with buying into the concept that there are certain things that the government can handle more efficiently than the market, they have bought into the other false concept, that the people control the government.


“And like that, POOF, he was gone”


I have full faith that the market can supply me with the pair of shoes I want. I have no less faith that the market can supply me with the justice and defense I want too. The difference is that on the market, they will actually be the ones I want, whereas under the current structure, I can only have the justice and security that the government is willing to provide. Not the best that the market can provide, but the overpriced crap that always comes from that type of monopoly on power.


At the end of “The Usual Suspects”, the head investigator finds out that everything he thought he knew about the case was a lie. By then of course, it was too late. The bad guy got away.

Social Contract My Ass

I hear people talking about a social contract all the time. Usually in the context of some authoritarian action by the government, instituted many times by the “will” of the majority (this is really a misnomer in itself, since the majority doesn’t participate in the process). I have referred to this previously as “the common good”, but the idea is really one in the same.


I want to point out, right off the bat, that when I refer to a social contract in this piece, I am discussing the idea of a perpetual social contract. There is nothing inherently wrong with a social contract provided it passes a few simple tests. First, there must be a way (without giving up anything you have acquired) to get out of the contract. Second, it can not be enforced through force against the unwilling. Third, each person involved in the contract must consent to all areas of the contract. Failure to meet at least these three simple tests would render ANY contract null and void.




The actions that are being called a social contract don’t even really qualify as such. Jean-Jacques Rousseau first published his theory on the social contract, “The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right”, in 1762. The idea was that a perfect society would operate on the “general will” of the people. He suggests that the way to achieve this is for the people to gather together and come to a consensus on the actions the government could take. Without this consensus from the people, any action taken by the government would be illegitimate. The sovereignty of the individual was still paramount, the representatives couldn’t even participate in the decision making process.


Three main points to Rousseau’s theory were;

THE Sovereign, having no force other than the legislative power, acts only by means of the laws; and the laws being solely the authentic acts of the general will, the Sovereign cannot act save when the people is assembled.

Every law the people have not ratified in person is null and void — is, in fact, not a law.

The legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone.

Rousseau, like any intelligent person, knew that it was illogical for a person to volunteer to be a slave. So his vision of a social contract also stated that a person could leave the contract at anytime and be free from the confines of it. He broke the social contract down into two groups; the sovereign (the people) and the government. Another interesting point to Rousseau’s social contract is that the larger the sovereign, the larger the government. The larger the government the more power it would be able to wield. When the government begins to force compliance to this social contract on anyone unwillingly, it has obviously become, not a social contract, but an authoritarian power grab.


John Locke


In Locke’s second treatise on government, “An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government”, he equates a social contract with the laws of nature. In their natural state, man enjoys complete freedom, but there are some confines to what they can and can’t do. He states that people have a natural right to “life, health, liberty, or possessions". Any person that commits aggression against those natural rights is entering into an act of war. Locke’s belief was that a state of war was likely to continue, because each act in a state of war was is an act of aggression on the others natural rights. Whereas a state of nature is absolute freedom, based on morals and not politics, Locke felt that to protect those natural rights it was acceptable for people to enter (again, voluntarily) into a social contract to provide that protect. They could form civil governments, giving up their personal and individual sovereignty, to a body with the authority to punish those who transgress against others.


The important thing to consider with both of these theories of a social contract, the individual enters into them of their own free will and can leave them at anytime they see fit.




There is a great quote by Mikhail Bakunin, in “The Immorality of the State”…


A tacit contract! That is to say, a wordless, and consequently a thoughtless and will-less contract: a revolting nonsense! An absurd fiction, and what is more, a wicked fiction! An unworthy hoax! For it assumes that while I was in a state of not being able to will, to think, to speak, I bound myself and all my descendants-only by virtue of having let myself be victimized without raising any protest - into perpetual slavery.


The acceptance of a social contract implies that the state or the originators of the social contract had a superior set of ethics or morals and that their “consensus” was based on an unchanging universal truth. Obviously this isn’t true or even desirable. When we look at the changes in our society, we can see that our forefathers couldn’t see the future. The leaps in technology, manufacturing, the evolution of the market, the accumulation of government power, the blurring of class lines, none of these things were or could have been foreseen. Any social contract based on their circumstances, with their world view, would only be applicable for as long as each of the participants involved wished to participate and nothing in their society was subject to change.


When Bakunin wrote about being victimized into perpetual slavery, he was referring to being bound to a set of rules that you have no choice but to be bound too. The way the government ensures that the “sovereign” people are bound to this contract is through the use of force and the enforced monopoly on the land within its borders. Any contract that you can not opt out of is not only immoral and invalid, but it is nothing more than a form of slavery. Taxation to enforce that slavery is nothing but theft.


The Adulterated Social Contract


The founding fathers, particularly Jefferson, were heavily influenced by Locke. The idea of a social contract was attractive to a group of people that wanted to ensure the maximum freedom for themselves. They wrote up a contract (the constitution) that stated how it would work. When they had finished their work, someone asked Franklin what they had done, his famous response, “A Republic, if you can keep it”, has been widely quoted and often commented on. But the point of the comment shouldn’t be lost. A Republic is a form of government where the supreme power rests in the hands of the power. That part is easy to understand, but the second part, “if you can keep it”, is something we should examine. My belief is that Franklin knew that, minus the informed consent of the people, the Republic was non-existent.


Between the time Franklin uttered that phrase and the civil war, many people decided to opt out of that social contract. Sometimes they negotiated further terms, sometimes they just moved on, but participation was always voluntary and force was not used for the sole purpose of holding them in subjection to that contract. Of course, the great tyrant came along and changed that. Lincoln, contrary to the legitimate powers granted the government, took upon himself the task of destroying the voluntary aspect of the social contract. He set about centralizing all government power to the federal arena and set in motion the destruction of the Republic.


The Bastar-d Children


Today the idea of a social contract that holds the “Union” together is one of the most widespread misconceptions. Most people don’t understand what the concept of a social contract entails. Above all else, it is a voluntary situation. Being able to vote is not the same thing as being able to withdraw. If you can’t withdraw or abstain from a situation, it is not voluntary. Sometimes you will hear people saying, “If you don’t like it, leave it.” Great concept except that it violates the right of the people to their possessions. And there is a balance due. Since Lincoln violated the contract, all laws and taxes that have been forced on the people must be repaid. But that is a topic for another blog.


A Short Note…


I could have included a brief on Hobbes and it probably would have been appropriate to do so, but I didn’t feel like it. I find his belief that natural law equals disorder and violence to be unsavory.


 I also could have (and probably should have) touched on Lysander Spooner and “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.” I highly recommend that work to anyone.

Out of Texas...

This is a little different than my usual blog posts. I just wanted to say, over the last month, I have officially escaped from Texas. It is good to be back at the Mountain (Albuquerque). I love this place. It has been 18 years since I have been here and I wonder why I ever left (I don't really wonder, it was a police escort). Albuquerque has always been a great place, but in the time period since I left it has even improved. The view is amazing, looking out your front door at a massive mountain, then looking the opposite direction and seeing extinct volcanoes, awesome. All the casinos have brought another kind of feel to the city too. There is a budding music scene, the campus area (UNM) is still full of incredible shops, it is all just awesome. On the one hand...

 On the other hand...The people are the best. There is a large group of people who are very politically aware, although they have varied views on government. But underneath everything is just this feeling of, "We do what we want." That is a hard feeling convey if you have never felt it.

It is a great place.

 Anyway, thats it. No words of wisdom. Just a blog.

Immigration - Again

Sometimes I am accused of hammering this issue into the ground. That’s fine with me. It comes up a lot among the different factions of the libertarian movement and, to my mind, has become a good measure of where people stand on individual rights versus collective rights. There are a bunch of different views on why there might be a case for collective rights, and just as many excuses.




To me, there is no difference between collective rights and socialism and I think I should state that from the beginning. Socialism is a socio-economic belief that property and the control of wealth are subject to the control of the community as a whole, working towards some “greater good”. As I have stated previously, there is no greater good than personal freedom, so for this reason I am totally opposed to the concept of socialism. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think people have the right, need or desire to work together for a common goal and they should always be free to voluntarily associate to do that. And there is the rub.


If you are not given the choice to participate in something voluntarily, what is the difference between that and being a “subject” of who ever? In this country that “who ever” is the majority sometimes, the government other times, working on behalf of the perceived wants of the people. In this case, the perceived want is to keep “illegal” aliens out of the country. There are a couple of understandable (although incorrect) beliefs behind this for the socialist minded. First is a protection of the environment. I know that may sound strange on its face, but the belief is that more people equal more of a negative impact on the environment. Next is protection of public goods, such as welfare programs, “public” roads, “public” education, etc. As I pointed out in an article entitled, “Quit Saying Public Please”, “public” is actually a euphemism for government owned. Just because they take our money to pay for those things doesn’t make us co-owners of them. And these “public” goods are usually administered on the state, not federal level. Every immigrant, whether they are legal or “illegal”, pay as much into the system for these local goods as anyone else, especially when we break down the amount paid based on what economic class the people are paying into it from. The money that is pumped into these programs from the federal government all comes from federal taxation that comes from the people of the states anyway. The third and probably most vocal opposition to immigrants is their entry into the labor pool. Socialists have a need and desire to protect “their” labor pool from outside competing labor. For a socialist system to operate (for however temporarily they are able to keep it a float) they must have control over the flow of people into and OUT OF the system.


Socialists are not the only ones opposed to immigration, even though the other groups, if they were capable of being honest about it, should be able to trace their reasons back to this socialist standpoint.




Nationalists are also opposed to immigration on the grounds that it “dilutes” the culture of the country they are entering. This is the group that will be most vocal about their opposition not being “racist”, even though their argument is nothing but racist. Their arguments all sound something like this…


“These people bring their culture with them and don’t integrate into the culture of the US. They keep their language. They bring their politics with them. They tend to keep to themselves and not become a part of the larger community. They are not educated and they take all the entry level jobs. They don’t care about their communities, they leave trash everywhere. They are more involved in crime than normal citizens (and if you ask for proof of that, they use the old line, “They are here illegally, that means they are criminals).”


To me, those are all racist reasons and we should call the people that make them racist. The exact same arguments against the blacks, Irish, Germans, Italians, and every other group, were used to keep these groups from being accepted into the mainstream society of the US.


But we have another one to add to the list since 9-11. “They might be terrorists or sympathetic to terrorist groups.” Of course, this one falls apart pretty quick when the opponent is honest. Someone can be any race and be sympathetic to terrorists. They can be from any country. They can come to this country from anywhere or already be in this country. So, why aren’t we building the wall along the Canadian border? That’s were the hijackers came into the country from. And out of the 19 hijackers, only 3 were here illegally. But the wall isn’t going along the Canadian border. This same argument isn’t being used against white people. The focus of the attack is on the Hispanic immigrants, not even on the immigrants from the Middle East, were the supposed breeding ground for “Death To America” comes from. Mexicans on the other hand love America. They have loved it so much in the past that a third of the country belonged to them.


When these arguments fail, they retreat to the socialist economic positions that I mentioned earlier.


Outright Racists


Another group that I am going to mention here is the people who are outright racist. Their arguments usually fall into the above two categories, but they add their old favorite stand bys. Since they don’t really even have their own ideas maybe I could gloss over them like so many others do. But they are out there so no use denying it. Anyone that has seen or been to any immigration rallies (either pro or con) has seen them there, making themselves known and heard on the issue. This group doesn’t get the media coverage that the others do. They aren’t embraced by the public face of the anti-immigration movement, but they are there. And for that reason, they are here too.


Believe it or not, as reprehensible as I find their views most of the time, this is the group that I think is at least honest about their beliefs. They hate (insert some group here) and don’t want to have anything to do with them. Like I said, at least they are honest about it, something to be said for that.


The Stupid Sheep


The last group is the outright stupid. I probably shouldn’t include them in the list either, since every side of every argument or position has their fair share of these people. They are ill-informed of the positions they take, they have nothing but regurgitated propaganda to repeat, they spend their time hammering one point whether it is true or not and they don’t seem to care that they are ignorant. The reason I thought I should include them in this list is because it seems the anti-immigration crowd has more than its fair share of these people. Lots of times it seems like an argument a lot of them hold onto is that Mexico is a third world country were disease (at least in their minds) is running rampant and the immigrants need to be screened for these diseases before they can come to this country.


People come to this country everyday from all over the world without getting screened for disease. That is just the way it is. But even if we did screen everyone that came here legally, how is an invisible line in the desert going to stop diseases from spreading here. It isn’t like you come upon the US-Mexican border and there is force field that keeps diseases from traveling across the border.


Human Rights, Property Rights and Constitutional Rights


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”


These are extremely powerful words and that is probably the reason they open the Declaration of Independence. They put forward that idea that strikes at the heart of the idea behind natural rights. The Declaration of Independence made clear the idea that regardless of the government that a person found themselves under, they are entitled to be treated a certain way based, not on the laws of the nation that claims to be their master, but on something deeper, something rooted in the act of just being alive. There is nothing in that statement that limits human rights to the rule of any type of law and the document they came from was in fact a rejection of the rule of law for a higher authority.


Some people familiar with natural rights might point out that when Locke was talking about natural rights, he included “property”, instead of the “Pursuit of Happiness”. This is true and deserves to be mentioned. The incorrect assumption that is often made based on this call to “property” is that it isn’t a call to any type of collective ownership of property and surely not a call to a governmental monopoly on land that falls inside of its borders. This call to the idea of collective property goes back to the socialist “collective goods” idea that rejects individual ownership of property and says that there is a greater good that trumps individual rights and freedoms.


Often I get to hear that the rights we enjoy in the US are a result of the laws we have here and that anyone that rejects any of those laws is a criminal that doesn’t deserve to enjoy those rights. Since these people think rights are derived from obeying the laws of the land, they have never been given a speeding ticket, fined for anything, pulled over or anything like that. Maybe, trespassing?


Isn’t that basically what we are talking about here? The law that these evil immigrants have broken can be boiled down to what it really is, trespassing. Do we deny people their human rights in this country for trespassing? I hope not. And what about my “constitutional” rights of freedom of association? Does their fear and loathing of immigrants allow me to be denied of my “constitutional” rights of free association?


Most of the collectivists seem to think it does.


The No Name Group Project 

The War On…

The War on Drugs


This one has been going on for a long time. I started with this one, not because of personal preferences of any kind, but because this is the basis for so much federal intervention into the everyday lives of the citizens and it is the one I am most familiar with. The model to enact federal drug laws is still in use today and is the round about way the federal government actually criminalizes behavior. Until the drug war started, it was a generally held belief that the states, not the federal government, had the power to criminalize behavior. You would be hard pressed to find criminal laws from the federal government until after the Harrison Act.


The first state law against marijuana was in 1913 in California. California had previously passed laws against opium dens in1875, the first anti-drug laws in the US. The law against opium dens was aimed primarily at Chinese immigrants. When they got around to passing the law against marijuana, it was primarily aimed at Mexican immigrants. In 1910, Utah outlawed polygamy. Lots of Mormon polygamists moved to Mexico and when they returned a few years later, they brought marijuana with them. As part of cleaning up vices in the Mormon Church, the state outlawed marijuana use.


The Harrison Tax Act was the first federal law to regulate drug use. It was aimed at three drugs; opium, morphine and its derivatives and the coca leaf and its derivatives. The purpose of the act was made clear from the beginning. First, they wanted to regulate the medical use of these drugs. What they did is pass a tax and require doctors to get a stamp to prove that they were in the medical practice and that they paid this tax. Second, they placed a tax of $1000 for any every non-medical exchange of any of these drugs. You have to remember this is in 1915 and a tax of $1000 was obviously a way to prohibit the transfer of what probably amounted to less than $1. I remember my grandfather talking about the benches in the front of drug stores we used to see a lot when I was a kid. He said those benches were for people that had purchased a .5c bag of morphine in the drug store. They would go and “nod out” on the benches. Of course, failure to pay this “tax” led to breaking a federal crime, tax evasion.


Between 1915 and 1937, 30 states outlawed the use of marijuana. The reason for the majority of this is best summed up by the words of one Texas legislator, “All Mexicans are crazy and this stuff (marijuana) is what makes them crazy.” Some states outlawed marijuana because they were afraid that heroin addiction would lead to marijuana use. I think that is pretty funny.


In 1937 the congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act. In the 20’s and 30’s there were two federal law enforcement agencies created. One was the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN). The testimony of congress, before passing this act, lasted a grand total of two hours. The first to testify was the head of the FBN and his entire testimony was, “Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality and death.” Another person to testify was a pharmacologist who said he injected the active ingredient (even though THC wasn’t synthesized until after World War II) into the brain of 300 dogs and two of them had died.


The last to testify is the most important though. You have to remember that this was during the time of FDR and his socialization programs. A group that disagreed often with FDR and his programs was the American Medical Association (AMA). Dr. William Woodward was a doctor and lawyer and the chief counsel for the AMA. He told congress, “The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.” So what did these “progressive” activists in congress reply to him? “Doctor, if you can’t say something good about what we are trying to do here, why don’t you just go home.” The government had already made up its mind what it was going to do.


As during alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition has led to a huge black market for the prohibited drugs. Cost of enforcement, likewise, has also risen. The number of people in prison hasn’t shrunk due to more enforcement; the market for the drugs hasn’t only increased, but it has soared. People involved in the drug underground can’t go to the police when a crime is committed against them. If they are robbed, raped or murdered, they are treated different in the eyes of the law than other citizens.


And the cost of the drug war can’t be overstated. Even by the federal governments own conservative estimates, the war on drugs cost the taxpayers $37 billion dollars a year.


The War On…


There have been other things that we have declared war on. We have declared war on poverty, cancer, terrorism, all with some of the same effects as the war on drugs. The growth of government programs, out of control spending, private contractor abuses and on and on and on. Regardless of any good intentions on the part of the people declaring these wars, the end results are fairly the same. We lose something every time the government takes up a cause. I am sure that depending on ones perspective, these wars could have some merit, but they all lack the results that show the costs are worthwhile. In the case of the war on terror, the loss of civil liberties may be the most expensive costs.


Battle lines are drawing up again. Who knows what the next “war on” is going to be. Probably immigration. If the government holds true to form, the estimated costs of illegal immigration on the US economy now, will be dwarfed in comparison to how much money and civil liberties the government can take from us.


The No Name Group Project 

Pushing the Button

 Button, Button, Who’s Got the Button


Everyone has probably seen the commercials for the office supply company were all the person has to do is push the “easy” button and all their problems are solved. Every time I see that commercial I think about what Rothbard said in “Toward a Theory of Strategy of Liberty”. He is talking about the classic liberal, Leonard Read who, after World War II was advocating the immediate end to price controls. In a speaking engagement he said, "If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would release all wage-and-price controls instantaneously I would put my finger on it and push!" Now that sounds like an easy choice to make. And maybe on an issue by issue basis, people could easily say if they would push a button to do away with something. But how many people are totally committed to freedom?


To quote Rothbard in that same piece, “The libertarian, then, should be a person who would push a button, if it existed, for the instantaneous abolition of all invasions of liberty — not something, by the way, that any utilitarian would ever be likely to do.” I see this hesitancy to “push the button” in the minarchist vs. anarchist debates. Personally I am tired to death of the debate, but it is a lingering question that will not go away. Roderick Long has already addressed the ten most common objections to libertarian anarchy and they are a great starting point for investigating the possibilities. But there is still reluctance on the part of some to “push the button”. Since we know what the objections are, I was wondering what the motivation behind those objections could be.


Our Father Who Art in DC


The first one I can come up with is the belief that people are basically “bad” and need a higher power to guide their interactions. This is an old belief and seems to be totally engrained to religious schools of thought. More often than not the people that tend to make this argument are religious, so I don’t find it that strange that they would feel a higher authority is needed to guide human interactions. What I do find strange is that these same people (if they are of the minarchist camp) find the “leftist” devotion to the state to be a form of religion and atheism to be a religious devotion to secular humanism. All the while arguing that a higher power, this in the form of the state, is necessary to keep people from being “bad”.


Interestingly enough, there are plenty of Christian Anarchists and anarchists that practice other religions as well. I remember having a conversation with a Christian friend of mine and discussing Christian Anarchism. He is not a minarchist or a libertarian, but he was dumbfounded at how anyone could be both a Christian and an anarchist. To him they were mutually exclusive. I am not an expert on the subject so I pointed him in the direction of some research material on the subject. A few days later get got back with me. He said he could understand the standpoint, and in a perfect world he would agree with it, but he still disagreed with the idea that you could be a Christian and not support government, at the very least that you wouldn’t make yourself into subjection to the government. This is by no means the only time I have had this conversation with Christians.


So, again, I am not surprised when I see this ingrained belief carried into the realm of politics. The belief in people being “bad” by nature is hard to overcome from this standpoint. It calls into question a complete belief system that many hold onto for dear life. I don’t blame them for their beliefs. They feel there is a higher greater good than even the “collectivists” argue for and that adherence to that is the only true salvation. It is hard to blame someone for their core beliefs.


The Emperor Wears No Clothes


The next belief is that “might makes right” which is another one that is hard to overcome. The group that takes this approach is often the same group that praises the foreign policy of Ronald Reagan. The have no problem with foreign intervention as long as it is in the best interest of the US. They buy into the “myth of self defense” even in the face of contrary evidence. They have what seems to be an overwhelming belief that every country in the world wants to invade the US and would do so as soon as the government ceased to be. An interesting argument they put up for this is the “invasion” by immigrants from other countries. To me, that is quite a leap. The idea that people will invade us without a government is an interesting one to say the least.


Right now we annually spend more than the next 24 countries combined on our military. Adding the growing cost of actions in the Middle East to the mix and the budget is staggering to say the least. We have bases in over 100 foreign countries, we GIVE weapons to different despotic regimes, we engage in clandestine operations all over the world, we place economic sanctions on a number of countries, all in the name of providing security for our country. All these actions are OFFENSIVE, not DEFENSIVE in nature. So the idea that we have enemies around the world is not hard to swallow. But are they the enemy of “the people” or of “the state”? This brings us to the first problem with this group.


There must be a difference between what a government does and can do, and what the people can do. Thomas Paine said, Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins ... Society is in every state a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." This seems to be a lesson forgotten by many. We tend to base our beliefs on a certain society on the actions of their government. In Iran a looney tune religious fanatic has the bully pulpit. He spits venom at Israel on a continual basis, at the US on a continual basis, pretty much just about anyone in the world might be on his shitlist at any given time. Does that mean that is the general consensus of the people of Iran? What leads us to believe that they are any different than we are? Truthfully, there is no reason to think that any larger numbers of the Iranian people support their president than the numbers that support the US president. But that doesn’t sell the fear that is needed to keep the imperial war machine oiled. People tend to be people no matter where you go in the world. By virtue of birth within the imaginary lines that are the borders of the US we are not endowed with a secret knowledge on how to live life better than the rest of the world. Iran tops the list of likely candidates to “invade” the US if there was no government, but what do they have to gain? What do any of the possible candidates have to gain?


First and foremost, without a government, those countries would be free to pursue business with US companies that up until this time they might have been barred from trading with. China makes a ton of money off the US already, what purpose could an invasion serve them? Cuba, don’t make me laugh. Cuban soldiers on US soil would be more likely to buy a house and settle down. Russia? What Russia. Hugo Chavez, who can’t even get enough support in his own country to stage a revolution going to come here, among the most armed people in the world, and try to pull it here. I don’t think so. The people that fall into this category have fully bought into the idea that somewhere out there, someone is just around the corner waiting to enslave them. They are right in a way, but the thing they are missing is that the corner they are right around is in Washington DC.


The only purpose our military superpower status has is to maintain American firepower all over the world. Unfortunately it has backfired and no amount spending is going to change that. We haven’t been able to use that force to maintain our financial standing in the world. We haven’t been able to use that force to stop terrorists from hijacking planes with box cutters. And we won’t be able to, sometime in the future, repeal an imaginary invasion. Its time to quit calling these people whatever it is they want to be called this week and call them what they are, imperialists. And just like every other empire, eventually theirs will fall too.


One point that I will barely touch on, but an objection I hear often, is that a citizen militia couldn’t repel an invading army. First, I would have to see some concrete evidence that someone somewhere WANTS to invade the US. Than, I would want an explanation on how a superior force, one that is larger than the next 24 countries in the world, has such a hard time in places were a guerilla force is offering resistance. I want to know what makes people think that anyone in the world would sit around and allow another country to invade us. Once you pass those questions, I will discuss how a citizen militia can defend us.


The Button Theory


The reality of the situation is that there is no “easy” button that could instantaneously abolition anything, much less invasions of our liberty. But if there was such a button, I would push it in a heartbeat. I don’t have any fears or qualms about freedom and liberty. I also don’t have blinders on to the fact that there would indeed be problems to work out. I lack no faith, however, in believing that those problems could and would be solved by what have proven to be some of the most industrious people in the world.


I believe what Jefferson said when he said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Putting faith in the government to shrink its own size, to return liberties it has stolen, to return to a minarchist wet dream are pretty unrealistic. Anarchists are constantly being called “utopian dreamers”, that anarchy is unachievable. I say, not only is it not achievable, it is inevitable. No empire lasts forever. Eventually under its own weight, even this one will fall. When that collapse comes there are liable to be many types of societies built among the remnants, and that is just fine. Some of us are trying to work out the kinks in one that will be based on freedom and liberty, free from the force of a coercive state. Some of us are working towards ways to hasten that arrival, because we don’t have a button we can push to do it now, but we are not giving up on wanting it NOW. If you do find the easy button that will transform the leviathan to a mouse, let me know.


I used to be of the opinion that minarchist and anarchists could work together to achieve a certain acceptable amount of government. However, that would make anarchists minarchists instead. The goal and the strategies for getting to that goal are different. I looked around the libertarian movement and found that I felt like I was on the outside of a right wing conspiracy to overthrow the collectivist empirical government that is in place in the US. I have no intention or desire to replace the current government with one of my own making, so that struggle is not for me. If that places me outside of the political libertarian movement, if those ideas I hold dear, freedom from government and liberty for all, if those are too radical, than just call me a Free Market Radical from now on. It is more apt anyway.


The No Name Group Project 

Time to Bury The Dead

Some people in the movement seem to want to hold on to the relics of the past as if their lives depend on it. I believe this is due to an inability to comprehensively come up with new approaches to age old problems. Of course, that is only a part of it. There is also the refusal to face the reality of the situation, as it is now and how it has been. In some places, the idea of a socialist revolution based on the precepts set forth by Marx may make sense, but most places don’t fit the bill. Marx was concerned with the struggle between to unique classes, the bourgeois and proletariat. I have heard bourgeois applied to so many different people and ideas that the word has no meaning any more. Anyone that points out the reality of the situation is bourgeois. It is pretty sad really. It is no longer a prerequisite that someone be intellectually honest. Honesty and intellectualism are shunned. And the revolution is a failure because of it. Socialism has brought about more authoritarian governments than the ones they attempted to replace. Marx already said that, “The traditions of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.” He was an advocate of looking forward as opposed to living in the past. It is time that revolution meant just that. Revolution.


Ancient Language and Modern Reality


It is important to consider history and the context within which Marx was writing before we attempt to apply those terms and words to our modern world. The situation today, though we can draw parallels, is not the world of the 1800’s.


Wealth in the 1800’s was measured by psychical property. The more psychical property, the wealthier someone was. Land ownership was restricted, by law, to the bourgeois class that Marx was talking about. They owned “the means of production” because the property and everything on it, regardless of who did the work to produce it, belonged to the land holders. These bourgeois claimed all sorts of rights and liberties with the people whose lives they controlled. And all of this was enforced by the legal system that was in place. There was no way to move from the lower class and it was reinforced by the law.


Today the socialists equate the poor with the proletariat. This is not an apt comparison. Yes, there are struggles to being poor. Getting by day to day can be a struggle and the prospect of home or land ownership seems like a pipe dream to some. But this condition is not necessarily imposed by law. There are definitely things that the government does to maintain this lower class, after all, one side needs the cheap labor and the other side needs someone to point to so they can say how far we need to go. But the days of the company or landlord being able to oppress them are long gone.


There is a monopoly on land and how it can be used and by whom. But that monopoly isn’t in the hands of the rich landlord anymore, instead it is in the hands of the government. They draw borders and institute programs that control the flow of people and goods and restrict ownership of land that is not being used. The federal government in the US is the largest single land holder. And I assure you, they are not about to let the productive class claim any right of appropriation on that land. It is in this way that the government controls the scarcity of resources and keeps the poor from using their labor and mixing it with the land to create a life for themselves.




The scarcity that existed in the time of Marx and Engel’s no longer exists in this day and age. Yes there is a “class gap” between the rich and the poor, but the ability to transverse that gap is no longer limited to a direct uprising and “theft” of the wealth. Today people change between these groups on a regular basis. The idea of redistributing wealth is nothing more than advocating theft. The reason a large Marxist movement has never taken hold in the United States, and never will, is because the conditions of scarcity of basic resources do not exist. We have only ONE class that controls the wealth, the government class. We don’t have a group of people starving and working for their mere sustenance, despite the claims of some. There are not people dieing of hunger in the streets, there are not great lords of the manor forcing people to work their factories just to get by. Some people like to paint this picture but it simply isn’t true. Again, there is an inability or a direct attack on honest discussion, based solely on the need to create a struggle that doesn’t exist. Without that struggle, the conditions Marx pointed out for the seeds of revolution do not exist.


So we are left with socialist movement within government institutions as the means of effecting the change from a statist society to a free society. What do they create instead though? A regime that is even more authoritarian than the previous one. Instead of creating a free society, they create a society were all “citizens” are condemned to equal slavery. The idea that the accumulation of power into the hands of these self-proclaimed defenders will result in more humane treatment has proven to be false time and again. Their actions do nothing to return the power of self determination to the people; instead their programs drive the wedge between the ruling class and the people deeper. They set the chains in stone, they make the whip seem to be made of velvet and they convince the people to give up freedom in the name of the “greater good”. There exists no greater good in society than freedom. Only one class benefits from this relationship, the ruling class. Far from the ruling class of Marx’s time this group uses their social programs to maintain the illusion of a compassionate hand. The illusion is so appealing that it is accepted by most without question.


Class Struggle


There is a class struggle in this country as I briefly touched on above. Far from being the bourgeois class spoken of by Marx, the current ruling class consists of the government itself. With a monopoly on the land, the law, the money and the use of force, they are able to create social and economic situations that seek to ensure that they maintain power. The goal, no matter how altruistic they try to make it appear, is to keep the hierarchical system in place, with them firmly on top.


So why do some people embrace this “collection of power”, even if it is into the hands of a local council or group? The very idea that a group or collective can adequately represent the individual is a fallacy. Only the individual can and will work in their best interest at all times. This may include appointing a representative for themselves, but only if the representative is willing and able to make their wishes known to the letter. That means for a society to exist each person must have their voice heard and be allowed to make their decisions based on their own internal truth.


Any system that doesn’t recognize the sovereignty of the individual is an enemy of freedom. Government, even on the local scale, is still government and by nature is the enemy of freedom. It is time that we refocus the class struggle from the economic angle and realize that the struggle exists not between the rich and the poor, but between the controllers of the markets and the labor. This was the actual message of Marx and one that seems to have been largely ignored or at least hijacked by self serving would be gods.




The favorite target of the old movement was capital. But we have to look at what capital and wealth were in that day and age. It is time to ask ourselves if the situations that Marx described at the time fit with our knowledge of what capital is today. Capitalism has become the enemy, even though the word is taken out of context and applied to an economic system that it doesn’t represent.


Every person is their own highest authority. No one has a moral right to place limitations on what they can achieve, how they can live or who they can associate with. The free person knows that their life has value. Knowing the value of that life, they are able to make any decisions necessary to sustain that life. Thinking and acting on those thoughts can not be interfered with by anyone else, unless those actions interfere with the freedom of another. Self ownership is one of the cornerstones of life. All other rights are derived from the idea of self ownership. The state can only infringe on that fundamental right, by proclaiming themselves the voice of the people. The only person that can speak for me is me. Anyone else that tries to do it is robbing me of self ownership. No government or group can come “close enough” to holding my best interest at heart. No one, not government or a group or an individual, can ask me to trade or act in any manner that causes me a loss of any sort. That is an underlying part of self ownership. By nature, man will always act in their own best interest; therefore transactions between people are always a net gain so long as people are allowed to enact those transactions of their own free will.


This is capital. Each person, their skills, their beliefs, their thoughts, their actions, the fruits of their labor, all those thing are included in capital. Simply stated, capitalism is a belief that an individual has total moral right to all those things.


Instead of embracing capitalism, it comes under attack. I have to assume it is from a misconception of what capitalism is. Just for the record, we don’t live in a capitalist system. We live in a system that business has set up, in collusion with government, in which exploitation MUST happen for the system to work. From the worker being exploited by the owner to everyone being exploited by the government, this system is evil to the core. This is not the free market.


In the free market, you are free to make voluntary exchanges for goods, commodities or services. These transactions are between two people. There is no outside force that can be applied to any part of the transaction. When the transaction occurs, both parties gain from it. The environment for a free market to work in can’t exist in conjunction with a government that is able to influence those transactions. Any criticism of capitalism that blames the system for the actions of the government is at least ill-informed, at most an outright fabrication.


158 Years of the Same Ol’ Song and Dance


The failure of the Marxist revolution has not stopped people from holding onto the ideas that he espoused. At the time they were revolutionary, today they are tired and empty rhetoric. Marx never intended for his work to become the bible of anyone. He wanted to provide a basic insight into revolutionary thought and action, which he succeeded well at doing. Unfortunately we see people have stagnated and can’t get past the ancient slogans and movements. There is no movement today. There is nothing but small groups holding on for dear life to ideas that many of them barely comprehend today. The only remnants of that school of thought making any movement today are unable to come up with a plan to get from here to there. They realize that the communist society they envision can not come about through socialist revolution, so they advocate and end to the state. But to what end? Only to replace it with a new state when the old one is gone. Though this is a broad generalization, it is easily seen within their ranks.


We have seen the rise of socialism in many facets and many countries around the world. Usually leading to a depressing, oppressive end. The nature of man is to work in his own self interest. We can not deny that, in fact we should embrace that. To ever see real change we have to take into account the nature of humankind focus our thoughts on achieving change with that nature in mind. As soon as power is concentrated in one central body it has the effect of growing exponentially until it is all inclusive. Without competition there is no motivation for those in power to work in a manner that will insure that their personal needs are met while at the same time working to be more attractive to the persons they wish to represent.


The inability of the socialist movement to get past the dictatorship phase is well known. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho, all have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that total power concentrated in the state or councils ends up in the hands of the most vicious perpetrators on Earth. Even the socialist influence on other countries like, Great Britain, the United States and Germany have shown that the aim of true freedom can not be achieved in a collectivist society. Unless we turn away from the mistaken thought that a small group can represent the whole of society, we can make no progress towards securing our own liberty, much less the liberty of even the smallest minority group in society, the individual. The only system that can achieve that is the one were every individual is totally free to make all decisions regarding their “self ownership”. Their property must be respected by all. The fruits of their labor must be theirs to negotiate or trade with as they choose. We must realize that there is no greater societal good than the freedom of the individual to do as they please in all maters, provided they grant us the same courtesy.


Problems and Solutions to Distribution


The problem of distribution of wealth has been addressed many times. But the answers, for the most part, have been unsatisfactory. The main reason for this seems to lie with the means of distribution. Only one system has consistently proven itself a model of efficient distribution and like it or not that is capitalism. When the individual has total control over the worth of themselves and are free to trade with anyone they wish, on any terms they wish, they can exercise true freedom. All transactions must be between individuals or their representatives. There can be no outside influence that will always consider THEIR interest in a transaction that does not concern them. They will always influence those trades in their best interests, despite what is in the best interest of the other parties involved. It doesn’t matter if this is a large centralized government or a local council. If they are given the power to intervene in transactions, their nature will require them to look out for their own interests in the transaction over anyone else involved. Not to mention the fact that giving someone, even if it is a local council, the ability to intervene in private transactions is giving them the ability to exert force against non-compliance.


The successful model of distribution will see that the real value exists in the individuals and that their transactions will lead to the betterment of the society. Just as freedom comes from the ground up, so does economic growth.




Today, to see any real change, we need to change our language. What existed at one time no longer exists. Holding on to failed ideas and slogans that mean nothing will not change anything. The most that can accomplish is to keep everything “as is”. That is unacceptable to the person that yearns for freedom.


It is time to learn from the lessons and words of people like Marx and tailor them to fit our personal reality. Not the reality of 19th century Europe, but today. It is time to live in the present and bury the dead. They are stinking up the place.


The No Name Group Project 

The Damning Mentality of the American Right


Give Peace a Chance


It is funny that a word like “Peace” automatically brands you a commie loving democrat to so many people. The idea of “perpetual war” and always having an enemy to fight is so engrained on the American Right that the idea of peace is a foreign concept. The real American Idol (at least to the right-wingers), Ronald Reagan, is the shining beacon of freedom. After all, he single handedly ended the Cold War, freed millions from communism, and stopped an imminent nuclear attack against the US. All while lowering taxes and keeping his hair perfect. Ok, I know this is a fairy tale and easily squashed and I will probably get around to doing that sooner or later, but the concept of the Cold War and the mentality behind it are what is important about the Reagan reign.


Today the perpetual war idea has us locked into battle with terrorists. Of course, there are other things we are doing battle with like drugs and poverty. Even though those two things are out of the scope of this article, they do play to the idea that we must be locked in a continual struggle for “the greater good”. As I have pointed out before and I am sure most people are already aware of, the idea of “the greater good” is nothing more than another form of subjugation, either by the masses on the minority or by the mini-tyrants of the state on us all. Invariably, the mini-tyrants will take any grain of acquiescence and use it to their advantage, taking the natural good will of mankind and using it as a bludgeon against the people.


Of course, as with all other things involving Reagan, this mentality can be traced further back.


Roots Bloody Roots


The roots of the eternal struggle, which is in essence the perpetual war idea, probably goes back further than Hegel, but the application of it as political theory can surely be traced to him. His theory was that reality is only a creation of the mind, that what you believe to be true is true, regardless of anything else. The second was that history could be explained as an eternal struggle between opposing spiritual forces. The struggle between opposing spiritual forces can still be seen today in modern politics, especially in the United States. We have all been involved in the fight, either against our will or with our approval, against both Godless Communists and Muslim Terrorists. They hate us for our freedoms may be the rally cry, but the slogans themselves denote the struggle as religious in nature. A belief that America is founded as a beacon of Gods Divine Will, and that will being Christian in nature, both lend credence that any disagreement with the religious dogma of Christianity is a direct attack on the US. Of course, no one just comes out and says this, which would be crazy and would open up the person that says it to outright scorn. There are those that would love nothing more than to see the US become a Christian Fundamentalist country with the implicit separation of church and state done away with, but even those people temper their beliefs in the politically correct speech of the day. There are those too who do not notice the relation between religious belief and political policy. Either out of total ignorance or just a desire to distance them selves from the theological discussion, they choose instead the convenient blinders of that will keep them out of the larger fray.


These Hegelian theories were picked up and refined by another philosophical giant, Karl Marx. Marx took the eternal struggle theory and applied it to class distinctions. His idea was that people make determinations strictly based on economic need and that the struggle applied to the person’s relationship to their economic status in society. Instead of reforming the original Hegelian ideas though, which may have been partially what Marx was attempting; it added another level to the original theory. The struggle not only included the spiritual aspect of being, but it also included their very economic survival, a threat to their very way of life.


Unintended Groundwork


The concept of the greater good and the eternal struggle already existed before the Neo-Cons invaded the right. Eisenhower could rightly be credited with expanding the notion to include the military as the tool of enforcing the greater good on a worldwide scale. Of course, his use of the military was aimed at stopping the spread of another Hegelian offshoot, communism. On the one hand Eisenhower sought to “defend” the country against the threat of “communism”, while at the same time he not only kept the New Deal socialism instituted by Roosevelt, but he expanded the programs and made a cabinet position to oversee them. He built the Interstate Hiway System to make sure that the military could get to any part of the country, and this in a sense lent an air of military interventionist policy into the American consciousness. The idea that there was an enemy, right at our doorstep, was easy to swallow coming out of World War II and the attack on Hawaii by the Japanese. The greater good became the defense, at all cost, of the United States from communism. He stated that the US was, “prepared to use armed force... [to counter] aggression from any country controlled by international communism.” Combine that with our Imperial allies losing control in their colonial areas and the real threat of communism taking hold, especially in the Middle East, where the Imperialists were losing ground to the Arab Nationalists, and gaining support from the communists, and we see a pattern of “the greater good” philosophy taking on a distinctly military personality in the US.


Although Eisenhower added to the military aspect of the idea, the eternal struggle had not yet taken on the perpetual war personality. Eisenhower’s actions were hard to argue against at the time, although people like Louis Bromfield, Murray Rothbard, Garet Garret and Ernest Weir were doing just that. Of course, they were accused of being communists and anarchists and denounced by many on the right.


The insidious use of “might makes right” and perpetual war came after Eisenhower left office. If Eisenhower introduced the idea of military necessity to the American mainstream, the Neo-Con movement found a way to use that idea to their advantage.


Neo-Con Infiltration


The Neo-Con movement is an interesting, yet oft ignored, facet of American politics. Eisenhower’s continuation of New Deal programs, combined with other factors, such as the waning of communist power and internal fighting among the various communist factions, proved fertile ground for a political movement in the US.


Disillusioned with the failure of communism taking hold of power, by 1965 the Trotskyites had “renounced” communism and were looking for a place to land. At first glance it would seem like the Republican Party would be the last place for them to take hold, but they played a tune that resonated with the conservatives in the party, conservatives already resigned to the idea of the New Deal. The message was that the might of the US military could be used to spread the American ideal of right and wrong around the world. Sold as defending our country from the spreading threat of (fill in the blank), conservatives fell neatly in line.


The movement gained ground with Reagan. In Reagan they found a sympathetic ear to military intervention and growth. Reagan himself had come from the left (having been called outright a communist by the Republican Party of California) and his holding onto the idea of “the greater good” idea was parallel to the Neo-Cons. They found in Reagan a “soul-mate” and they helped perpetuate the idea that Reagan single handedly used the mighty power of the US to overthrow the Soviet Union. The idea that the US had a noble calling to rid the world of countries that disagreed with the “moral” foundations of the US has proven to be a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the Republican Party. Irving Kristol, often referred to as “The Godfather” of the Neo-Con movement, in “The Weekly Standard” of August 25, 2003, had this to say…


“Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican Party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility.

Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the “American grain.” It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies.”

The idea behind the Neo-Con movement is still the same Hegelian theory of a battle between good and evil. It has been ingrained in the American political system as “compassionate conservativism” and everyone that wishes to be considered a conservative in the current climate must accept the same philosophy that Marx accepted, that there is a material struggle against evil morals that must be won at all cost. Spending or military action are nothing in the face of the overall struggle and nothing is out of bounds to achieve the goals.


Perpetual War


So the struggle goes on against this scary threat that is right at our doorstep. The Cold War is over, communism is all but dead, but that doesn’t mean we are out of enemies who “hate us for our freedom”. Every country that doesn’t live how the United States say they should, who doesn’t accept our moral creed (largely based on a spiritual concept not shared by others), will face the might of the US. Even if everyone loved the US, it would be necessary to find an enemy somewhere. Possibly even to create a boogeyman to go after.


Of course, with the US still involved in the struggles of the old Imperial powers, empires that are for all intents and purposes are long dead, we will have no shortage of enemies. The words of Ernest T. Weir in "Leaving Emotions Out of Our Foreign Policy," that he wrote back in the 1954 still ring true…


“(W)e have to accept the fact that it is not the mission of the United States to go charging about the world to free it from bad nations and bad systems of government. We must reconcile ourselves to the fact that there will always be bad nations and bad systems and that our task is to contrive some basis other than warfare on which we can live in the world.


The sane voices have been calling for it forever, but the crazies are in charge. The general “for the greater good” cry reigns supreme. Not only has the right learned this lesson, they have met the left and surpassed them.


The people that speak out against the ideas of an eternal struggle between good and evil, against the idea of perpetual war, of overthrowing dictators and chasing “bogeymen” through the hills of foreign countries, will still be called communists and anarchists and denounced by many on the right. But don’t feel too bad, you are in good company.


The No Name Group Project 

Supreme Court – Enemy of Freedom

Judicial Activism

The US Supreme Court is set to hear a case involving gun bans. The interesting thing about Supreme Court cases is that one side will say they screwed up, no matter what. The court is accused by one side of abusing their power, or legislating from the bench and praised by the other side for upholding either the constitution or the spirit of the constitution. It is ridiculous.

For some reason, all these many years after the formation of the Supreme Court, people still don’t seem to understand that the court is a legislative branch of the government. Quit shaking your head and admit it, you know it’s true, at least you should.

At the beginning of chapter two of, “The American Supreme Court” by Robert G. McCloskey, he states…

“Nevertheless it is perfectly apparent to the detached observer that the Court’s decisions do tend to fall into patterns that reflect current judicial views of what ought to be done; and that these views, though heavily influenced by the nature of the forum that issues them, are nonetheless policy decisions. The very question of what subjects should claim judicial attention, involved and avowed or implicit decision about what is most important in the American polity at any given time, for the Court has always enjoyed some leeway in controlling its own jurisdictions…”

By determining if something the government has done is “constitutional” or not, the Supreme Court is in effect lending legal credence to the actions of the Legislative and Executive branches. By failing to review every action by the other two branches, they are, by proxy, enabling any type of abuses the Congress or President wish to lay on the people. The makeup of the Supreme Court is of paramount importance to political parties in the US for this very reason. It lends credibility to their positions for years to come.  They are expected (and act accordingly) to be political activists. That is their job.


And the Winner is…

Who benefits from Supreme Court decisions? My belief is that no matter which way they choose to decide an issue, the government is the sole beneficiary of their actions.

If they decide in favor of the people, they leave the case open to be regulated further by the Congress or state governments. They help Congress “close the loopholes” in their legislation. They have continually bowed to the superiority of the federal government over both the States and the individual. They have granted, at the very least through inaction, the other two branches of the federal government to gather more power.

And why shouldn’t they? They are part of the government. This near reverence the people hold for the Court seems to ignore the simple fact that they are nothing more than a branch of the government. At what point would they rule against themselves maintaining that position? They have a vested interest in a powerful federal government. They have a vested interest in maintaining “the union” at all cost. They have a vested interest that is known as self preservation. Unlike the other two branches of the federal government that have at least a cursory interest in getting elected, the Supreme Court doesn’t have that same “liability”, they are set for life and their position is entirely dependant on them doing only a few things.


What They Do

First, they have to avoid controversial issues that may tend to stir up the populace at inopportune times. If you look over rulings during times of social and political upheaval, they have worked only to bow to the most powerful force. This is especially dangerous in a climate were the government is becoming more and more powerful with each bill or executive order.

Second, they have to stay relatively healthy. Sounds crazy, but since they are in for life, living has its benefits.

Third and probably most important, they must work to maintain the dominance of the federal government. Issues that would clearly put them in conflict with the “will of the people” they pass on.



I have seen a lot of people writing about the upcoming case of Parker v. District of Columbia. The gun advocates are already claiming victory for the most part. After all, the Second Amendment is pretty clear in granting rights to THE PEOPLE. But I would advise not to count your chickens before they hatch. Even if they find in Parker’s favor they will leave the door open for legislation. They will likely close all loopholes or chances to argue it further. This is not an issue that is likely to come up in the Supreme Court again in a very long time, if ever. This will be the final word on the deal. With a simmering undercurrent of disgust with our federal government, I don’t foresee a ruling that would arm the citizens. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.


The No Name Group Project 

Big Government Libertarians?

OK, this is kind of off topic for my usual posts, I admit it. But, I have noticed lots of Big Government Libertarians. That is an oxymoron, right? Well, any semi-intelligent person would think so; however it seems not to be the case lately.

Because of recent (if you consider everything since Nixon recent) political trends, lots of people that would otherwise be happily calling themselves Republicans have taken to calling themselves Libertarians. The ties to smaller government Republicans and Libertarians are pretty easy to trace. You remember, the Republicans that used to believe in freedom and less government, they used to “cross the line” on occasion and delve into the Libertarian arena, only to end up back where they belonged later on. Maybe once they logically followed libertarian thought to its conclusion it scared them, I don’t really know. And really, isn’t that the disconnect, even between libertarians and Libertarians? Yes, I used the big L and little L deal, sue me.


I believe that the market can do anything that the government can do and can do it more efficiently and effectively. But I have no problem with people that have a hard time accepting private arbitration and security. I think with the right intervention they can be saved. The Libertarian party has always been fairly accepting of libertarians and market anarchists, they are after all the ones that have developed the thinking and theories that for the most part dominate and lend credence to the principles of the party. Even if they are not one big happy family, at least they shared enough common traits to be civil.


Enter the Big Government Libertarians. They seem to have no problem with military intervention in the name of “security”. After all, a huge military is what has made the US a super-power. Add to that the newer disdain for all things immigration. Those “damn Mexicans” are stealing our jobs and our welfare. The fact that their position lends credibility to the welfare state doesn’t seem to faze them. Close those borders and save our country. Another biggie for them is abortion. The government should by all means step in and end this brutal practice. It’s like some twisted Oz like mantra, “Abortionists and terrorists and Mexicans, oh my”. It doesn’t stop there though.


Drug legalization? They can see their way to possibly legalize marijuana, but other drugs are a bane of a free society. Mandatory auto insurance (one of my biggest pet peeves) is necessary so that people can recoup their loses from irresponsible drivers. Gun control? Well who would argue that citizens shouldn’t be able to own any type of weapon they want, after all, we would have a bunch of wackos shooting up schools if people could get any weapon they wanted. And of course, their hero is the late great Ronald Reagan. Even suggest that he wasn’t the savior of freedom and they are libel to go into nuclear meltdown.


Do they all share these exact same views? Not always, but the majority of them do. Their current goals include changing the Libertarian Party to be “more election worthy”, which includes everything from changing the platform of the party to reaching out to decidedly non-libertarian candidates. They have taken the name “Libertarian” upon themselves and turned it into something that isn’t even recognizable as libertarian. To me the funniest part is to see them discussing their positions in a group of libertarians. When no one agrees with them, they claim the whole bunch of them are not libertarians, just damn anarchists. Point out that the Libertarian Platform, pre-coup attempt, and they accuse you of being a “purist” that is living in the past.


So why are these people flocking to the Libertarian Party? Obviously their ideas are unpopular in the Republican Party and big military is hard to sell to Democrats. The open style of the Libertarian Party makes a takeover seem not only likely, but pretty workable. I think the seed of the Big Government Libertarians takes their cues from the Neo-Con movement and its takeover of the Republican Party. A lot of their positions seem to be similar to me. They have killed off the smaller government Republican, now they have their sites on the very limited government Libertarians. They have no interest or time for libertarian thought. It runs counter to their goal of gathering political power. It isn’t that they want to be free from the chains of government; they just want to hold the whip for a while.


This coming year is going to be a telling year for the Libertarian Party. They are faced with a mass defection of support for a Republican candidate. They are faced with the Big Government Libertarians infiltrating the party. I hope they always remember that the libertarians are still out here and still sticking to the principles that have guided our thoughts and actions all along. Maybe they can convince the Big Government Libertarians to go back to being Small Government Republicans.


The No Name Group Project 

Immigration Smokescreen

First Thoughts


First, let me say that when I say "illegal immigration" it is just to differentiate the topic, not because I think any immigration is illegal or in any way different from any other immigration. My personal view (from an anarchist’s perspective) is that people can't be illegal. Every person born has the same natural rights and liberties and no government borders can change that. One of my favorite anarchists was Thomas Jefferson (people think I am crazy for calling him an anarchist), but something he wrote applies to this thought. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Those rights are for everyone and they don't come from a government, we are born with them. I think that applies to everyone, everywhere. Doesn't matter where they are born. The reason the government raises and issue with illegals has nothing to do with them taking jobs, or using welfare, or any of the stuff they talk about illegals being a problem for. The money for those programs doesn't come out of the governments’ pocket, so why would they care about it. The only problem the government has with illegals is that they don't have the power to tax people they don't know about. That’s it. PEOPLE that have a problem with illegal immigrants are very upset and vocal about the problems they perceive them causing, but if you notice, the government hasn't really done anything to address their concerns, except when it will get them votes. Politicians that still feel some obligation to US citizens have tried to do things to address it, but it doesn't gain much traction. Partly because some of the politicians realize that, despite the cost associated with "illegal" immigration, a simple economic principle is in play. People are capital. They represent a real unit of capital. It is ALWAYS good for a country to get more people into it. They stimulate the economy, even if they aren't paying taxes. The not paying taxes part is probably the ONLY part the government is really concerned about. I don’t buy the, “They could be terrorists” argument.


Beat Down


I have to point out that government has a monopoly that they force on the people. They have a monopoly over a bunch of things, but the particulars related to immigration have to do with taxation, control of land, and the use of force to require compliance. It is in their best interest (not the interest of the people) to define an area of land as theirs and theirs alone. The idea that we have private property in this country is really a misnomer. The government can force anyone to comply with anything they want, even though a person owns a piece of paper that says the land belongs to them. They charge a yearly rent for that land in the form of taxes. They make rules about what you can and can't do with that land. And if the mood strikes them and they think they can do something better with that land than the owner, they can and do take it for themselves. So what does that have to do with illegal immigration? The main reason for borders is to show the world where their sphere of influence lies. If they fail to enforce those borders, at least to make a showing (no matter how half assed), than they are saying we don't really care about this area or our influence over it. The reality than is that they care less about who comes in those borders than who goes out those borders. I mean, yes they are going to be opposed to other governments trying to move in to that area and trying to assert force on the people inside them, but as far as people crossing them, it is mostly in their best interest to have more people to be able to exert that force over.


We the People?


But, as you know some people inside those borders are opposed to other people coming over them. I would say they have some legitimate concerns based on their perceptions of what is going on. They know that the government is going to force them to give up money to pay for stuff. They know that people that come over those borders without paperwork that makes they share in being forced to pay for stuff are getting a free ride for any of those things they are forced to pay for and the newcomers aren't. It pisses people off, but they are pissed at the wrong parties in my opinion. I would personally be pissed at the people who are exerting the force and are REALLY stealing from the people, which is the government. If there were no illegal immigrants, there would still be welfare programs. If there were no illegal immigrants, hospitals would still have to see people that won't pay for the services, because by law they still have to treat people regardless of ability to pay. The illegal immigrants really are doing jobs people don't want to do, along with some jobs that people probably would want to do, but either way, first come first serve. Ask the onion farms in south Texas about the jobs that Americans won't do. Because of the rhetoric concerning illegal immigration, lots of people that usually work the fields didn't show up to work this last harvest. And it wasn't just in south Texas fields either; it was all across the US. Even the ones that have come to do the work legally didn't come this year. There were advertisements looking for workers, paying in some places $20 an hour to do the work. But the reality is that the work sucks. 12 to 14 hours a day, hunched over in the beating down sun, usually 7 days a week. Most Americans don't want to do that, for any amount of money. So I don't buy the "taking jobs Americans would do" argument at all. The social programs that are being taken advantage of will exist regardless of who is using them. So the argument goes back to what the governments argument is, they aren't paying taxes. On that point I can only say, good for them. No one should pay their taxes. Anything that is getting taken out of your check is theft, plain and simple. Any other taxes we pay, illegal immigrants pay the same taxes. Any illegal immigrants that are using phony social security numbers are also paying income taxes, and that is free money for the government, because no one will ever try to claim a return on it.


Freedom of Association


I think there is also a constitutional issue involved with illegal immigration, even though I don't hold much for the constitution itself (which is a different topic for a different time). The first amendment says in part, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". If you think, like I do, that "the people" applies to all people (that everyone is born with equal rights), than stopping people from assembling anywhere is wrong. If you believe that the constitution only applies to US citizens, it is still an abridgment of my rights if you want to keep me from assembling with illegal immigrants by keeping them out of the country. But really it is all probably a moot point.




I think nationalism is the same as racism. To me this is the reason, even if people don't realize the reason behind it, that some people see the anti-illegal movement as closet racism. It is about feeling that one group has more rights or a better station in life, merely by accident of birth. With racists it is by being born a certain race, with nationalists it is being born in a certain country. Everyone is free to feel however they want and to associate with whoever they want. But excluding people for whatever reason cuts a percentage out of your possibilities. Instead of looking for the things we think are wrong with illegal immigration, we should look at what is in it for us. If the government is doing something that is unfair to us, instead of saying the immigrants are taking advantage, we should place the blame on the ones who are forcing us to participate. If social programs and taxation are being taken advantage off, we should cut them off, no matter who is doing the taking advantage of. Let us give our money to programs that will spend it how we want, or lets us keep our money, either way. We shouldn't be forced to participate in things we think are scams. We shouldn't be forced to associate or not associate with anyone.


Blame Game


We do have a problem in this country and I think illegal immigration makes it glaringly apparent. But it doesn't have to do with the people, but with the government abuses of all of us. We need to quit letting the government shift the blame, especially when experience tells us that they have no real plans to do anything about it.


I don't think people are ever illegal. I would never tell a man he can't cross an imaginary line in the sand to feed his family or make a better life. There are some real issues that should be dealt with that the immigration problem points out though. I could also probably go on for a couple of more pages on private property rights and the difference between private property and "public" property, but I will let it drop for now.


The No Name Group Project 

We Need More Time - The Collectivist Battle Cry

I have heard it over and over. Excuses about why a collectivist society has always failed miserably. I have heard it so often that I have named it the "We Need More Time" excuse. "That wasn't true communism/socialism. If (insert excuse here) than it would have been a utopia." Well guess what, it wasn't a utopia and its very nature is flawed. Any process aimed at removing individual ownership of property or self is destined to the same outcomes as Russia, East Germany, Cuba or China. Before any of you collectivists try to point to China as an example, you better think twice. China has been doing better (but they have a long way to go) since they have introduced more of a free market approach. The Chinese Communists have NEVER exercised much control over rural areas of the country, of which nearly the entire country is made up of. China as a whole has been redirecting their resources largely based on the success of Hong Kong, which we all know, was probably the greatest free-market society that existed in recent times. If you need more proof of China's changing attitudes, look no further than the visit last year of the President of China to the US. Did he seek out his counter-part in the US government upon his arrival? Hell no, he went to see Bill Gates first, one of the most successful CAPITALISTS of all time. China has learned a lesson that you other collectivists have seemed to miss, your ideas don't work. So, if you want to point to China, at least admit we know where you really stand.

So the battle cry of the collectivists is "We Need More Time." Well, times up. It has been tried. It is a failure. Get over it.

The basis for collectivism is the divestment of capitol. The collective ownership of property. The very thing that it seeks is its downfall. Capital consists of ALL RESOURCES. Think about the automobiles you see in collectivists society and use them as an example. Where are the new cars, the new designs, the improvements in their production? They don't exist. Some people might argue that they don't exist because they are an unnecessary commodity. Than why do they continue to produce them in collectivists societies (if those societies at any time were able to produce them. Cuba has a bunch of old American cars that they just keep working on.)? The reason is obvious to anyone that is able to offer an objective response. The need to move people from one area to another is necessary in any society. To do that efficiently, we use automobiles. They still exist in collectivists societies for that very reason. So why haven't they evolved from their pre-collectivist conditions? Because the process of building them, the machines used, are capital. When you have a business, the means of production represent capital in the business. If your philosophy eschews capital, than you don't give a *** about the means of production. The tools used in production are of no importance. As a matter of fact, you might pride yourself on having older tools and point to them as a sign of your disdain of capital (either consciously or unconsciously). And there is your downfall.

As society grows (as they are likely to do) the amount of capital remains static in a collectivist society. The need for production rises, but the means of production remains static. Add to that the (ever increasing) amount of resources necessary to maintain a government (which despite any claims otherwise can never evolve past state-capitalism, might as well admit it) and your left with a shrinking resource pool, better known as LESS CAPITAL. Without increasing wealth and developing capital, the needs of a non-static society can never be met. The idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" can never be reached. Eventually even the most basic of needs will not be able to be met by the quickly evaporating pool of capital.

So, yell from the rooftops that you need more time. I will laugh at your ignorance. You have had centuries to do it and it is an impossible fantasy. Some collectivists societies bite the dust quickly, others take more time, but in the end, the results are the same. Good luck with that.


The No Name Group Project 

What About The Children?

First Thoughts

OK, my first thought is, “Why do people keep bringing up the children?” Even though I would have to guess that it is because they represent something to most people. So what do they represent? I think it is a deep rooted psychological problem that people have. They don’t even seem to know it. First, they see children as helpless and in need of someone else to care for them. That is pretty obvious and I doubt that most people would put much effort into arguing about whether children need protection or not. But, that brings me to my next thought on why people bring it up so much. People are made to feel (and act) like the government is their parent. They seek their comfort and care from the government. Every problem they have, they look to the government to solve. Every dispute they have, they look for the government to settle for them. Every bump in the night sends them screaming and crying for the government to come to their rescue. So when someone asks about the “children”, I try to understand what their real fears might be. But what I am going to do is try and take a look at some of the most common cries on behalf of the “children” and see if I can make sense of them.

Poor kids couldn’t go to school.

This is usually an argument put up by people that have never really seen any poor kids or been to any poor countries. I can assure you though that if you go somewhere with REAL poverty, the kids are in school. Education is an investment that most parents don’t mind making. As a matter of fact, it is an investment in society that most people, whether they are parents or not, don’t mind making. The idea that education would be less important if there were no government is just a knee jerk reaction to government indoctrination on the subject.

Early supporters of a government education system (by early I mean, directly after the American Revolution), felt that the best way to “indoctrinate” citizens to their views would be to start teaching them to the children at an early age. They wanted to pass on THEIR belief system and morals, because they felt that they were the most enlightened and that people should strive to be “just like them”. Most people that make the argument for government schooling today think the exact same thing. They all have certain goals and standards they want to pass on to the children. Never mind that in the US we spend the second most money of any country in the world on education and rank near the bottom as far as results go, it is more important that the kids learn to be “good citizens” that learn to bow before the authority of the state at an early age. It is more important that they learn tolerance than learn how to use critical thinking.

So the argument to me doesn’t seem to be so much, “Poor kids won’t go to school” as, “Poor kids won’t act the way we want them to act.” The two major political parties in the US seem to be like two divorced parents. Both of them using the “children” to try and get at the other one. In a world with no government parents, REAL parents will be able to pass on the type of education they want to their children on their own. It doesn’t matter who has money and who doesn’t, education is important enough that there will always be people willing to teach and children willing to learn.

Poor kids wouldn’t have health care.

Poor kids don’t really have health care now. But that has not much to do with the government paying for it, it has to do with the government being all up in the middle of it. It literally takes an act of congress to get the poor kids into the doctor. Than the doctor has a pile of red tape to go through to get paid. Book keeping takes up more of the doctors’ time than actually seeing the patients. And who requires the paperwork? You guessed it, the government does. All this extra work has to be paid by someone. When people are getting the government to pay for it, we all pay for it. On top of that, it helps the doctors set their prices on what they charge for their services. So on top of paying for it in taxes, when someone goes to the doctor they are paying for a service that is priced basically by the governments willingness to pay for the service. As the cost of doing business with the government (and conversely what the government will pay for the service) rises, so does the price for everyone else, even those paying for the service out of their own pocket. This is precisely one of those areas that the government has done incredible amounts of damage to the market by interfering in it.

Today we see lots of clinics opening up. There have been medical and dental clinics all across the US that have operated on a free or sliding scale basis, but they are making a comeback. Doctors have figured out that the best way to offer their services is to take the government out of the equation. It lowers their cost of doing business and it increases the number of people they can see. In the case of seeing people for free, they are usually compensated through donations. But the impersonal treatment “medical farms” give to their patients is giving way to a more personal approach. This is very attractive to most people. Lets face it, even with a government, lots of people (not just kids) don’t have the insurance or money to pay for medical services at the rate they are charged now. And despite the pessimistic outlook people have of doctors being in it for the money (although I am sure there are plenty), most of them got into the field because they wanted to help people. The absence of government will not change the desire of a certain group of people that want to help others out.

What about child abuse?

I could break this down into its many, many different categories. Sexual, physical, mental, or just plain neglect, but there really is no reason to do that. Abuse is abuse. It happens with a government and it is likely to happen without one. The argument is that without a government, no one will step in to help the children. They say that private security agencies won’t have a motivation to intervene on their behalf. All I can say is, BULLSHIT. If I know about abuse of a child, I am motivated to step in on the children’s behalf NOW. What would change just because there is no government?

For something to be done about abuse in our current system, the reported abuse must come to light first. The same would have to happen under a stateless society. Right now the government sends people over to investigate the allegations. In a stateless society the abuse would be investigated by a private security agency. How do I know this? Because I for one (and I am sure most others would also) would only do business with a PDA that included that service. And if it wasn’t an included service of anyone of them, I would hire one of them to do it anyway.

The idea that the children won’t be cared for is just insane. I don’t even know where people come up with that idea. Well, really I do know where they come up with it, it is the load of propaganda they have been fed.

Kids would be doing drugs.

Once again, kids do drugs now. Having a state or not doesn’t change the fact. Some people think that MORE kids would do drugs than do now. That could be, I don’t have a crystal ball to say one way or the other. I do believe that only a certain number of people do drugs, it doesn’t matter if they are legal or illegal. If the prohibition of alcohol in the US is any indicator, we can pretty much assume that MORE people do things when it is illegal than when it is legal. But regardless, there is no reason to just assume that there would be more kids doing drugs then there is now.

What about the kids that no body wants?

I don’t know that there are any kids that people don’t want NOW. There are plenty of kids that are in foster homes or state custody, but that doesn’t mean no one wants them, only that for whatever reason the state has taken them from their parents. But, many of them seem to stay in the system now. Most of the ones in the system end up turning 19 or 21 or whatever arbitrary age the government says they can’t stay anymore and THEN they are turned out on the streets. With no support system, no family to turn to, no religious affiliation to lean on, nothing. Where do a lot of this kids end up? Back in the system, but this time they are locked in cages to be kept away from the rest of us.

Lots of these kids are kept from going to loving caring families for whatever reason the government comes up with. In some places, if you smoke you can’t take them in, if you are gay you can’t take them in, and on and on. Without those kinds of draconian prohibitions against caring and loving for a child, I don’t foresee any more children being homeless and alone, than we do now. More than likely those kids would find a loving home and someone else will provide the service that gets them together with that new family.

Something about a stateless society that sounds barbaric when you just hear it is this; in a stateless society, people will be able to sell their children. That sounds awful, but is it really? Think about it. NOW, if someone has a child they don’t want, can’t handle or can no longer care for, that child goes to the state. The chances of the parent ever getting them back are not very good and many parents don’t even want them back. It is a sad fact of life that there are unwanted children sometimes. But IF the parents can sell the children they will have an incentive to provide them for sell in the best possible shape. They will be motivated to make sure they are well fed, without disease and definitely not beaten and bloody. And since most people want babies or young children, they will be motivated to get rid of them as soon as possible, therefore removing the children from a bad situation even sooner.


One of those things that make people uncomfortable about a stateless society is their perception of how children will be treated. Whether that is a true belief that children will be mistreated or a deeper fear that they themselves will feel insecure without the government is hard to see on the face of the issues. I would be willing to say that it is a combination of both of those things. I don’t think the whole argument is about the children, but there are things involving children that I myself think should be addressed. Sometimes people are at different points on their journey to a stateless society and this is one of those issues that will continually come up.


The No Name Group Project 

Quit Saying Public Please

 It is interesting how much power is in that one little word, “Public”. From where I am sitting, it is the word used to commit all kinds of atrocities in the US. The idea that there is some kind of collective greater good that can be imposed on people against their will is implied in the word. Private property is subjected to the whims of special interest group’s because of that word. Education and discipline are taken from the hands of the parents because of that word. A feeling of subjugation is implied in that word. What I want to do is take a closer look at “public”.

Public Schools

The idea sounds good on the face of it. But what it really means is “funded by everyone”. They really aren’t public. You can’t go down to you local elementary school in your bathrobe and go check out a book from the library. If you don’t have kids in the school you may get to vote for school board members, but you have little to no say in anything else that has to do with the system. Even if you do have kids in the school system you have very little say. This is the local level, the place were you should be able to exert the greatest control. But instead we see schools that run from the top of government down. And we get government results out of our school systems. We spend the second highest amount on education in the world, but rank consistently low on all scales that measure education.

We continually hear about how the “public” doesn’t get involved with education. How they need more money, more teachers, more everything, but truthfully, your input is not really all that welcome. We hear about our school system failing and our future falling further and further into doubt. The answer? More money, more teachers, more schools. If you have pile of crap in your front yard, does it make it less of a problem if you pile more crap onto it? That just doesn’t make sense to me.

There are some good and interesting programs around that are making a difference and doing things that seem to offer a ray of hope for education in this country, but they are not coming from the government and they never will. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation comes straight to mind. They have been able to go into some places were drop out rates are high, reading and comprehension are low and a myriad of other problems are evident in the system and to turn it all around. And, they end up doing it for less than the government spends.

We spend an average of about $7000 a year per student in the US. Private school tuition averages about $3500 a year. And just look at test scores and overall student performance between “public” schools and private schools and you wonder why we don’t just send all the kids to private schools, save about half the money and get better results. I know I wonder why.

Well, really, I don’t wonder why. The school system is run by the government. It is really set up less to educate students than it is to turn out “good citizens” who are used to bowing to government authority figures. The schools are more concerned with instilling what students will accept over what they know. One of these days I am going to write more on this issue, but for now lets move on.

Public Funds

When people talk about public funds or public funding, they are usually referring to a pool of resources gathered at the expense of tax payers. Lots of people pay taxes against their will and don’t agree with the programs they go to sponsor. That is the first three strikes against public funds and I haven’t even gotten into the concept of them yet. Of course, unless it is against citizens, the government has no idea that after three strikes your out.

So what about this pool of appropriated resources? Is it really public? That should be easy to find out. When is the last time you paid your bar tab with them? Never has happened has it?

Funds taken from the people are not public. Quite the contrary, they are more private than your own bank account. When you get taxed, the money is no longer yours. The goods or services the money goes to are not yours either. The people that pay for goods and services are the owners of those goods and services. When you buy goods or services, they become yours to use of and dispense of as you wish. The money you used to pay for those things was yours and you can logically claim a right of ownership over not only the funds, but the property you acquire with those funds.

This is not how public funds work. From a local perspective you can influence more control over were those funds go and how much goes to what project, but the further up the chain you go, the further away from the funds you get. And when you get all the way to the top you hit another obstacle. Just because you voted or were involved in saying where those funds would go and how much would be spent on the local level, the federal level imposes all kinds of restrictions on what you can do with them. Really, it is quite a racket the federal government has been able to pull off. First, they take your money. They promise or guarantee certain things in return. Then they take part of that money and keep it for themselves. Then they give a portion of the remaining money back and tell you how you can spend it. Its nothing more than a scam, plain and simple. Advocates of states rights, though they are booed down by the left as wanting to bring back slavery, are really upholding a higher standard of accountability to the government. The US government isn’t supposed to work from the top down, but from the bottom up.

Public Roads

I am going to go camping on Sixth Street. I will just put my tent up right in the center of the street. No one should care, they are public roads. Then I am going to start me a little campfire, make smores and sing Kumbaya. Ok, I am not really going to do that. It isn’t allowed. But maybe I will just sell the street in front of my house to someone else. Then they can own a larger part of the public roads. They will have a controlling interest in the road system, because they will own more of the public roads than anyone else. What? I can’t do that either? I thought I was part owner, that they were public and I am part of the public that paid for them. I must be crazy.

At least I have a say so over where they put the roads, that’s something, right. Oh wait, I don’t even get to say that. As a matter of fact, if the government decides they are going to put a road through my front yard, they will do that. If they decide they are going to put a sidewalk next to that road through my yard, they will do that too.

I like the idea and use of toll roads. Pretty soon, you won’t be able to come to Texas without paying for the roads you are using. To me that makes a lot of sense and I can’t believe anyone in the government went along with it. I am going to talk more about roads on a later date too, stay tuned.


I think it is imperative that we take the word PUBLIC and remove it from use anytime we are talking about government. Let’s call these things what they are, Government Schools, Government Funds and Government Roads. And lets continue that and apply it to everything that we have been thought to believe is public. Public lands aren’t really public lands, they are government lands. Public airwaves aren’t really public, they are government airwaves. Public buildings aren’t really public, they are government buildings. If we took the use of the word public out and replaced it with government, people would see how all intrusive the government has become. Of course, some people would champion that. Some people can’t seem to get enough government. They want it everywhere; even in the bedroom (unless they are having gay sex with underage kids, but that is another story). The left wants to work “for the greater good” and take my money to help out a very small portion of the population. The right wants to “protect my safety” by killing people I have no problem with and keeping people out of the country that I really like a lot. How about this, I will keep my money and if I see someone in need, I will help them out. Or better yet, I will give money to charities that help them out. And if I see someone with an AK47 trying to blow up my house, I will keep myself safe. I don’t need to give the government a portion of my money, so they can give me back less, to do things that I am perfectly capable of doing myself without them.


The No Name Group Project