TheGreatCompromise

Jan 9

“Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority.” Milton Friedman (via catharsisdiaries)

(via thefreelioness)

Nov 2

Would an America Free of Government Mean Default on $17T in Treasuries?

One of my colleagues recently asserted that ending the U.S. Government would result in a worldwide financial catastrophe because of the default on $17 Trillion in U.S. Treasuries.

The elimination of the U.S. Government doesn’t require a default on all or any of its debt. I believe the U.S. Government has plenty of assets to pay off its debt. They can sell their strategic oil reserves and auction off public buildings and national parks such as Yellowstone. With trillions of stolen money going back into the economy and the universal financial windfall created in the reality of free markets, I am sure non-profit environmental groups such as The Sierra Club will have no problem raising the money to secure and preserve the lands. They can sell off-shore drilling sites in the Gulf and Alaska. If non-profits don’t want oil companies to get their hands on those sites, they can raise the money to purchase them AND control them. The U.S. Government could also sell interstate highways, technology, and information. It is the big ticket items in the military, however, that will go furthest toward paying off the debt. I recently saw an article pointing out that the new F-35 is going to cost tax payers $1 Trillion — as much as the entire GDP of Australia (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/). Think how much the U.S. Government could get for all of its planes, aircraft carriers, missiles, submarines, tanks, and drones.

http://thegreatcompromise.tumblr.com/post/34230169269/thats-right-americans-buy-as-many-ak-47s-as-the

Remember, the U.S. Government does not need to close shop for us to regain our freedom. They only need to allow for others to complete with them in regard to regulation, protection, currency, banking, infrastructure, and philanthropy (http://thegreatcompromise.tumblr.com/post/34642025477/how-we-transition-from-statism-to-anarchy). Unfortunately, they are overextended, have a negative cash flow, and need to sell assets to pay their debt.

This is, however, a unique moment in time. It is now that we have the assets to pay off the debt and transition to a free voluntaristic society while avoiding financial catastrophe. Soon total liabilities will exceed asset values since from a “profit and loss” perspective, operating expenses such as social security benefits, medicare benefits, pensions, welfare programs, military payroll, and law enforcement payroll exceed fixed asset purchases that have value and appear on the balance sheet.

http://thegreatcompromise.tumblr.com/post/31236877027/this-is-only-5-minutes-watch-this-why-romney

In the end, however, I no more have a problem with the U.S. Government keeping all of their own property than any other company keeping their own property. My only issue with the U.S. Government is its monopoly and use of force to collect fees to force me to pay their debt. If, in the end, it is just Barack in the oval office with a few of his cronies with no lights because they didn’t pay the power bill and maybe a couple of tanks on blocks in the yard, and they want to homestead the White House, or maybe start a private rights enforcement business, or perhaps a “community organizers for hire” business, and they make the White House their headquarters, and they want to name their private business “The U.S. Government”…well… then I have no problem with the U.S. Government owning property. Hell, let ‘em keep all their property if the free market will bear their fee and they can pay the debt—otherwise, the property should be liquidated or go to the creditors.

Oct 30

Law Enforcement or Rights Enforcement?

I don’t want “law” enforcement. May I please stop paying for the enforcement of the government’s laws/rules? Let them pay for their own enforcement. I want to pay for “rights” enforcement.

How we Transition From Statism to Anarchy

Short of a majority of Republicans and Democrats deciding not to vote and legitimize the State, it seems that it will take some parliamentary act for us to gain our freedom. The good news is that it really only requires one parliamentary act. We need only to remove the coercive authority of the State - revoke it’s monopoly license. In other words, we need only allow others to compete with the State. For example, allow for competing currencies, competing regulatory agencies, competing rights enforcement, competing adjudication, etc. We don’t need some long confusing ten year transition plan. The State will quickly vanish into nothingness.

Constitutionalist Libertarians?

Constitutionalist Libertarians/Ron Paul Libertarians are a peculiar crowd. They complain about the immorality of a few special interest groups and a minority political party (since Republicans and Democrats make up a third of the electorate each) promulgating rules and laws with regard to individual rights. They object to Obamacare, gun control, The Patriot Act, the NDAA, and drug laws. They say, “It’s not constitutional! It needs to be in the constitution!” It is as if their objection is to the constitutionality of the law rather than the morality of the law, or as if by some strange mystic force laws that were previously immoral are now moral because rather than fifty percent of the people agreeing, two thirds of the people think that the law is needed.

“…production is ultimately geared towards the objects required.” Friedrich Engles, “Preface to the First German Edition of The Poverty of Philosophy” p. 286

Anarchy is self-ownership.

Isn’t it Just as Offensive?

One of the most offensive crimes perpetrated by the State during the civil rights movement was that blacks were forced at gun point to labor to pay taxes to fund a police force to enforce segregation against themselves.

Isn’t it just as offensive that gays and trans genders are forced at gun point to labor to pay tax to a government to enforce laws that discriminate against gays and trans genders by among other things forcing them to labor longer hours to maintain a similar standard of living because of who they love?

Isn’t it just as offensive that people who use marijuana and other drugs are forced at gun point to labor to pay taxes to fund a police force to enforce drug laws against themselves?

Isn’t it just as offensive that people who are against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are forced at gun point to labor to pay taxes to fund a military that kills civilians in a war fought for the interests of others and a war which they think is immoral?

Isn’t it just as offensive that people who are not yet even born will be forced at gun point to labor to pay taxes to pay for present day government services the benefits of which the unborn taxpayer will never receive?

Isn’t it just as offensive that taxpayers are forced at gun point to labor to pay taxes to pay for the enforcement the Patriot Act and NDAA against themselves?

Isn’t it just as offensive that victims of police violence and parents of children incarcerated for victimless crimes are forced at gun point to labor to taxes to pay for the prisons who incarcerate their children and spouses or to pay for the salaries of the police who assaulted the tax payer?

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” The Invisible Hand, Adam Smith

For me, economics is the language of peace.