The Declaration of Independence: Solution to the Immigration Problem

Posted  Friday, July 09, 2010  

The Declaration of Independence: Solution to the Immigration Problem  

by Chuck McGlawn

If the Declaration of Independence was the Mission Statement for our National Government, (and I think it was.) then immigration would be a question for each individual State.

It seems as if our US Constitution recognized that aspect. Here is a Constitutional sandwich dealing with the powers of Congress, on both sides of our DC Government’s power over immigration. The Constitution says, “…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, (not immigration) and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures…” (Emphasis added) That is correct gentle reader the Constitution granted to Congress no power over immigration.

Please remember what the Declaration of Independence said about the Power of the National Government, it was, “to secure” man’s natural rights that, “governments are instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the governed.” Now, take yourself back to 1781 for the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. Take yourself back to 1789 for the Ratification of the Constitution; you lived in one of the thirteen States and under the jurisdiction of that State. Did you as a citizen of, let us say Georgia have ANY power to dictate the immigration policies of the State of New Hampshire? Of course, you did not. Moreover, since governments, “deriving its just powers from the governed” it only follows that the only State to which to which you had any power over the immigration policies would be Georgia.

Now, let us say that Connecticut and Massachusetts both having similar economic circumstances. In addition, Connecticut opted for easy entry and easy come and goes to migrants, while Massachusetts took a hard line on migration, with more and more border guards, and stiff penalties for people who hired migrants. This would be a huge cause and effect learning lesson for each State’s Administrators. Other States would also learn from the experience

With the Declaration of Independence as the Mission Statement for our DC Government, when the law passed granting the DC Government the authority to establish a Social Security Administration the Supreme Court would have had to deliberate for about 30 seconds before declaring a National Social Security unconstitutional. Without a National Social Security, migrants would no entitlement on which to make a claim. However, if New Hampshire and Georgia had a form of Social Security safety net, then you could take whatever steps necessary to prevent migrants from collecting Social Security benefits.

With the Declaration of Independence as the Mission Statement for our National Government, education would be administered at the State level. Each State would either choose a tax-supported Public School system, or leave education to privately owned schools brought into existence by the free market, or a combination of both. State Administrators would decide who attends and who does not attend Public Schools. Additionally, State Administrators may pass that decision down to the County level. In smaller School Districts, efficiencies and inefficiencies would reveal themselves faster and more completely.

Almost everyone agrees that our DC Government exercised too much power over individuals. Almost everyone agrees that our DC Government has usurped power from the States and from the people of those States. With the Declaration of Independence as the Mission Statement for our National Government, that usurpation would not have taken place. This means the current problem of migrants overloading our emergency rooms would not exist if we did not have a too powerful and too dictatorial DC Government to control admission procedures to privately owned hospitals. This means the current problem of migrants signing up for the IRS “Earned Income Tax Credit” would not exist without a too powerful DC Government to create an Internal Revenue Service. This means the current problem of migrants bring their children and overloading our school system would not exist without a too powerful DC Government to dictate admission procedures to State-funded tax-supported or privately owned Schools.

With the Declaration of Independence as the Mission Statement for our DC Government, States would be competing with all the other States for populations. State Governments call populations the “Tax Base”. Therefore, with competition being what it is, no State could ignore such a powerful impetus to State growth or to State stagnation, and State Administrators would learn in short order, which the migrants produced.

Islamo-Fascism is an Oxymoron

Friday, July 2, 2010  

Islamo-Fascism is an Oxymoron  

by Chuck McGlawn

If you support the war in Iraq because you think it is a war against Islamo-Fascism, let me tell there is no such thing as Islamo-Fascism, there can be no such thing as Islamo-Fascism. The President Bush first use of the term came on Oct. 5, 2005, almost three weeks passed before the second. It is a word clearly designed to garner support from the naïve. Support for the war, which is precipitating an expansion of governmental power unprecedented in history.

Fascism is a societal development that is more than five centuries ahead of the development of any Islamic nation. There was a time (long long ago) when the Middle East was the most advanced and technologically superior, area of the world. When they accepted Mohammad as a profit, their social and technological advancement stopped cold. Fascism is a development that requires many elements not present in any Middle Eastern Country.

The culture that gave the world the zero, and the numbering system still used by most of the civilized world is hovering in and around the 18th or 19th century. Most of the rest of the world experienced an Industrial Revolution. The Middle Eastern populations, by the time of WWI, were still wearing the flowing robes of the 8th century. They had not reached the "division of labor" stage so necessary for the next step in the evolution of mankind, so eloquently described by Adam Smith in 1776 Scotland.

By the time of WWII, the Middle East had barely advanced beyond flintlock rifles. By the time of Desert Storm, the Middle East military had barely reached the 20th century with simple rifles and automatic weapons bought from others. The Scud Missiles are just very big fireworks "skyrockets" bought from China, a China that could have provided more sophisticated weaponry, but training levels locked them into the simple point-and-fire Scud.

Anything in the Islamic world that smacks of the 20th century are imported. In an area of the world where energy would have been so cheap, and their location so perfect for the development of a world-class automobile industry, it is doubtful that the manufacturing capability of the Middle East could produce a simple bicycle. This is the Great Enemy we are supposed to fear.

The Middle East holds a position of significance only because of policies of the US Government. Moreover, the supporters of the war with pom poms in hand are cheering the war along to even more stultifying policies with that effect on the US economic development. The Middle East as a threat to the US is a total fabrication of the Military Industrial Complex.

Please note the great enemy of the US, namely the USSR was beginning to crumble by July of 1989 when Gorbachev frees Warsaw Pact Nations to choose their own futures. By November, the Berlin Wall came down. By Jan, of 1990 the Soviet Union with plans to rule the waves was now waving the rules. It ceased being a power. A little more than eleven months later the US propaganda machine had manufactured out of whole cloth a new Great Enemy.

We picked a fifth-rate power Iraq and goaded them into attacking a 10th rate power Kuwait. Then the Great Moral Leader of the world could not allow Iraq to occupy Kuwait, even though by geography, religion, and temperament they were brothers in the field, and had been fighting amongst themselves for centuries.

If the US had just stayed out of the foreign policy business, and allowed a free market system to deal, or not deal with a particular area of the world, then the disparity in the standard of living would have been so gigantic, that $5.00 per gallon gasoline would have been a small price to pay. If you add to today’s gasoline price the taxes and borrowing necessary to wage an ever-escalating war. Then include the loss to economic expansion caused by the war, we are paying more than $5.00 per gallon today. Alternatively, who knows if we had pursued a different course a different source of energy may have emerged.

We need to get out of Iraq, and the 100 or more nations of the world, and notify the world that we will no longer be acting as the world’s police. Take the money dispersed throughout the world and return it to the beleaguered taxpayer. Then experience a growth in the national economy that would send signals around the world that war is excessively costly, not only in life but money, that peace would be the wave of the future. Then no tin-horned dictator in the world could hold its populations in the semi-slavery now so commonplace in many parts of the world. Then Americanism could become the positive forward-looking philosophy that it set out to be in saner times.

Posted Friday, July 02, 2010

Posted  Friday, July 02, 2010   

The Airport and Border Security Fraud  

by Chuck McGlawn

We are being herded leftward, toward more and more government control with less and less liberty by measures ostensibly designed to provide Americans with security. Examples of the loss of Liberty include the call for more southern border control, the increased searches at airport terminals, the limitation on what you can take with you during air travel, unwarranted wiretaps, unwarranted searches of financial records, etc. There is a quote mistakenly attributed to Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety. " See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin This whole maneuver is a total fraud perpetrated on the American people.

If the US government were to spend every dollar they collect in taxes, add to that every dollar that the US is able to borrow. Then let’s have the US government draft every adult citizen and marshal all these assets toward airport and border security it would not make us secure, it would not make the US safe from terrorist penetration.
So any attempt to secure the borders, or any promise that “if we just add this one more limitation to liberty” it will provide us with the security Americans deserve, is just a lie, and our leaders know that it is a lie. It makes one suspect that their motive is something other than our security.

It is virtually impossible to secure our borders. With this in mind, would we be more secure by making the United States LESS OF AN ENEMY to those who are willing to sacrifice their life to strike America?

To make Americans more secure, get the US out of the Middle East not only physically but also financially.

If the middle-east nations remain impossible to deal with, then declare war on energy dependence. Stop spending money to kill innocent Iraqis, and militants trying to secure their borders. (Over a billion dollars a day.) Use that money to move the US toward energy self-sufficiency, or at least no longer dependant on middle-eastern oil.

This blow would be far more devastating to the middle east than all the bombs we can build and drop. Furthermore, it redirects the hatred toward their own governments and away from ours. This would get more attention from the leaders of the Middle East than all the missiles we can buy and launch. This step would relegate the Middle East to the status for which its internal policies lead, that of being a 19thcentury threat in a 21st-century world, that of having a 10th-century philosophy in a 21st-century world. Then their 20th-century weaponry would be as ineffectual as bows and arrows against armored tanks.

Independence Day: What are you Celebrating?

Thursday, July 1, 2010 

Independence Day: What are you Celebrating?

by Chuck McGlawn

The holiday that we celebrate on July Fourth goes by many names. It is proudly called “Fireworks Day” Those who celebrate Fireworks Day are likely doing so to relive a memory. The memory of their youth when their father after taking them to the fireworks stand, and coming home with a huge bag-of-fun, eager for darkness to be able to witness the exploding shower of excitement. I have celebrated just such July Fourths exactly that way.

Another name for the holiday that we celebrate on July Fourth is simply called “The Fourth of July” those celebrants have some residual memory of Jr. High and High School Civics classes. This group comes with the same bag of fireworks to ignite at dusk, but during the display, they remember that what they are celebrating is the day that marked the day that we started on the course of kicking the British out of OUR COUNTRY. Many of my own years passed in just this manner.

For many July Fourth is the holiday that celebrates “Independence Day”. This group paid closer attention in their Civics Classes, and then likely went on to do some supplemental reading. These revelers are celebrating the day that we declared our independence from the British Empire and embarked on an experiment in self-government, an experiment that has lasted 234 mostly glorious years. With a gnawing in the stomach, that portends the sunset of the glorious experiment, and perhaps a slipping back from individual sovereignty to being a collective subject accompany this celebration.

Take heart gentle reader there is on the horizon a newly evolving way to celebrate July Fourth. It encompasses the best of each kind of celebration from the flash, sparkle and boom excitement to the “button-popping” pride and the liberating Independence. There is emerging a Fourth way of celebrating the Fourth. It marks the point of demarcation on a journey that will take us to higher levels of liberty than mankind ever even imagined. It marked the beginning of a completely new way of thinking about liberty, and more specifically about RIGHTS. Let us talk about rights. Let us talk about the History, Evolution and Future of rights.

There is one very curious thing about history. Historians do not appear until rather late. Theirs was the job of sorting out what had come before. The responsibility to name things that had happened long before historians arrived. The job of naming those happenings fell to these historians. A phrase like “Classical Liberal” was not even coined until the mid-1920s. The phrase that now describes 17th, 18th, and 19th Century advocates of liberty. It was not needed, until the Progressives and the Populist successfully co-opted the word liberal to describe their “statist” programs. Historians are responsible for a plethora of other names: “The Age of Enlightenment”, “The Middle Ages” The Dark Ages, “The Protestant Reformation”, including two of the three names that describe man’s attitudes towards RIGHTS.

History and historians have clearly delineated at least three separate and different attitudes toward RIGHTS. There is perhaps a fourth, and maybe even a fifth. Future historians will confirm the last two based on what happens in the next 50 to 500 years. We only mention them here to show that the attitude towards RIGHTS may still be evolving.

For the first attitude towards RIGHTS named by said historians, we must return to the very dawn of life on this planet, around three and a half million years ago. This attitude towards RIGHTS starts there and takes us right up through most of our history, recorded and unrecorded, including yesterday’s newspaper. That first attitude toward RIGHTS has not completely disappeared. The first attitude about RIGHTS is “Might makes Right”. Any life form had the RIGHT to do anything he wanted to do IF HE COULD. One could do whatever one wanted to do because he had the might to do it, and the only limit on this seemingly limitless right and the only thing that prevented this action was greater might held by another, which of course made the greater might “more right”.

This stage of man’s development may sound somewhat brutal, and it was. However, this stage in man’s growth was completely necessary. Yes, I said that “Might Makes Right” was a necessary stage in our development. It placed a value on the strong. It enabled man to control and utilize a larger part of the available substance and move up along the evolutionary progress. It enabled strong men among us to marshal and lead large forces to move across the land masses making the “might make right” concept universal. Genghis Khan would be among the best known of the “Might makes Right” leaders. Khan was a Mongol conqueror. After uniting the Mongol tribes, he conquered and ruled one of the greatest land empires of history. Some of the other “Might Makes Right” alumni would include Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joe Stalin, and Saddam Hussein.

Near the end of this “Might makes Right” period, another element was beginning to evolve to alter the hierarchy of the strongman leader. The new element added to the mix was the “trusted advisor”. These alter egos are known by as many different names as there are different parts of the world and different cultures. They have been called Shaman, wizards, witch doctors, medicine men, and Lieutenants. Their arrival marked the birth of the next evolutionary step in humankind’s attitude towards RIGHTS. You see these alter egos climbed to their “second banana” positions not because they were strong but because they were smart. While there is a limitation on strength, there is no limitation on smarts.

As the strong man leaders died off, the alter egos the second in command quickly replaced them. These leaders proclaimed that they were not in their positions because they were strong but because their “god selected them”. This period in history has been named by historians the “Divine Right of Kings”.

Even though this stage was based on deception, it was nonetheless a necessary stage in the development of humankind, it was a stabilizing time. The rule of law while not universally applied began to take on more meaning; it laid the seeds of humankind’s next evolutionary step. It represents a time for growth and expansion of man’s understanding. This is the environment that produces a John Locke, a Sir William Blackstone, the contributions of a Richard Cantillon, pioneers of sociology like Adam Ferguson, fine-tuning the works of David Hume. There are many, many not listed but let us end the list with Adam Smith and Thomas Paine. During this period, man grew philosophically and built the launch pad for the next step in the evolution of man’s attitude toward RIGHTS.

While the foundations and underpinnings of “natural law” are taking root, they are, at the same time, being studied by the Founding Fathers who ushered in a whole new attitude towards RIGHTS which took on the name “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” or “INALIENABLE RIGHTS”. The precise elements, the exact formulation and perfect timing all coalesced to give birth to this completely new concept in man’s attitude toward RIGHTS and a brand new governance based on that attitude. In short, we had arrived at that time in our philosophical history that man realized that he had the capacity of self- government. That time in our evolution makes the concept that might made right ready to be discarded to the trash heap of history. That period when we realized we no longer needed a monarch supposedly put in power by God to guide us through life.

This was not only a completely new attitude toward RIGHTS; it also spawned a completely new relationship between man and his government. This entire miracle captured in just one paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence becomes our government’s “Mission Statement”. It lays out the basic plan as to what our founding fathers planned to accomplish with the government that would be created if we fought off the British Monarchy.

Starting with We hold these truths to be self-evident… this statement indicates that the underpinnings of these concepts were well laid, and were almost universally understood by 1776. The Declaration of Independence continues with, …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.
What a powerfully insightful sentence. It lays out man’s rights, (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) with the dictum that these rights are granted by the Creator. That they cannot be taken away. Not even by the government being created. They are “unalienable” And that these truths are confirmed by observation of natural law.

Let us look just a little closer. You have three and only three RIGHTS. Simply by being born, you have the right to LIFE. And, you have the RIGHT to do with that life anything you want to do, that is called LIBERTY. You have the RIGHT to plan and conduct that life in a way that you think will maximize your happiness. (These are all yours, so long as what you do does not interfere with another’s right to do what he or she wants to do with their life).
Next, the framers make a vitally important assertion. “That to secure these rights”, (notice here that these are rights that we had even before we had governments to "secure" them.) “governments are instituted among Men”. Please note here exactly what is being said, that “We The People” are going to engaged in a contract with our (soon to be formed) government to “secure” (that is to protect) our rights. It is also important to note that men make government, and therefore men precede government. This means that government is the agent to and servant of man, and not the reverse.
Now the framers are going to designate from where our government gets its powers, and at the same time put an important limitation on that national governmental power. The Declaration of Independence says, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” There you have it. If the government gets its power from the governed, it follows that man cannot create a government and give to that government powers that man himself does not have. Let me say that again. . If the government gets its power from the governed, then the National Government cannot have powers that man as an individual does not have.
Now, let us ask some questions about the power of government. Remember we are only talking about the National Government. The State, the County, and the City governments do not enter into these limitations. Question #1, does man have the RIGHT to defend his own life and property? The answer to that question is YES. Therefore, man can institute a government and share with that government the power to protect life and property. In fact, that is the justification for a military for national DEFENSE, a police force for property protection and a court system to adjudicate crimes against property.
Question #2, [And I am serious here.] Does man have the RIGHT to take money from your pocket, and give it to someone else that he thinks needs it more? The answer to that question is NO. Therefore, it would follow that if man does not have that right he cannot create a government, and give to that government the power to take money from you and give it to someone else that the government thinks needs it more.
This means our national government can have no power to extract taxes from you to educate children, no matter how badly you may think children need educating. It means that our national government can have no power to extract taxes from you to fund social welfare, no matter how needy you think some people are. It also can have no power for health care providing, business promoting, Park building, educational standards setting, régime changing, weather reporting, democracy-spreading, database keeping, farmer saving, speed limit setting, toilet designing, mail reading, phone tapping, or the dozens of other things that the national government is either financing or regulating.
The future of our already grossly eroded RIGHTS is grim indeed. With the two major parties competing with each other to buy votes with increased spending and increased regulation, RIGHTS for a time will have to pay the price. Rising from that downturn will be a newly evolved man, man that knows instinctively that the only rights he has are the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

He further knows, and you may be hearing this for the first time, though not likely if you are a regular reader of these pages, that you cannot initiate force to accomplish social, economic and personal goals. This means that as much as you may abhor drug use you will also know that you cannot initiate force to stop it. Furthermore, you cannot create a government and give to that government the power to legislate punishment ostensibly to reduce drug usage.

Those same criteria will apply to all victimless crimes like prostitution, loan sharking, minimum wage violators, immigration etc. Whenever these peaceful activities are criminalized an underground, often, a criminal gang will rise to supply these markets. Correspondingly, new law enforcement divisions are added to the policing department and new wings have to be added to the prisons. The resulting cost to the taxpayer is greater than the loss that the actions created, and to add insult to injury the actions that lawmakers find offensive expand.

The newly evolved population will see the initiation of force as a form of “create a problem” and then buy the votes of those who want the problem solved. In the past the laws passed will create additional problems for a larger segment of the population and more votes are bought. And so on, and so on, and so on. This will not happen.

As we celebrate July Fourth, however, you may celebrate it, ask yourself are you one of those evolved, or evolving persons that do not believe that if we don’t give tickets and fines to folks that slowly roll through a stop sign that in time the will roll through at 30 MPH? Are you one of those evolved, or evolving persons that do not believe that if we don’t give tickets and fines to folks that that turn left without the left arrow at 3:00 am in the morning will in time turn left without the left arrow at 3:00 pm during rush hour?

There is a whole new world on the horizon be ready for its dawning.

Posted Thursday, July 01, 2010

Posted Thursday, July 01, 2010 

Recapturing the Single-Plane Left/Right Political Spectrum 

By Chuck McGlawn

Let me thank you in advance of reading this article, despite the fact that you may think me somewhat Don Quotesque, and that I am tilting at windmills. I hope to change your mind on that front.

Before you read my article, Let me ask you a question. Is it your understanding that the terms “left”, “leftist” and/or “left-wing”is somehow connected with statism, socialism, communism or totalitarianism, and basically the advocacy of more government? If your answer is yes, you are halfway onboard with my quest. Because all I am trying to do is to reestablish and I do mean reestablish that “right”, “rightist”, and or right wing is the exact opposite or the advocacy of less government.

You do not have to read the complete article in one sitting. Each segment is a stand-alone part of the whole. And I might suggest that you re-read some of the segments, as to more completely imprint them in your memory.

What you will learn from reading this article:
1. How the left and right got their names and meanings.
2. Political realities that created a NEED for a Left/Right Political Spectrum.
3. How earlier thinkers dealt with this basic left/right information.
4. How confusion took root, to muddy the waters.
5. How clarification works for us, in our efforts to promote liberty.
6. And lastly, I would like to show how you, yes you can begin clearing up the confusion and begin to recapture the single plane left/right political spectrum as the Roadmap to Liberty.

How the left and right got their names and meanings.
Let us go back to find out how left and right got their names and meanings, and no, gentle reader, it will not be necessary to revisit the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly Circa 1789. Even though it is true that the Clergy (the First Estate) and the landed nobility (the Second Estate) sat on the right hand of the King. This positioning arose solely from the respect the King was showing for those two very powerful and respected groups and had nothing to do with their support of or opposition to Louie the XVI, the King of France.

On the left side of the room, were the “cheap seats”, occupied by the (Third Estate) everyone else. That included the middle class the working class and if you will the begging class, including, some very unsavory characters. The Jacobins (Which some have considered the prototype for communism) sat on the left hand of the king, and some say Bastiat was on the left side of the room. Neither the occupants on the right or the occupants on the left were voting blocks, that passed their philosophy along to future generations of leftist or rightist. Again, it was not because of any support of or opposition to the King. All of these groups were their seeking favor. Seeking to lobby the King, to protect what they had, or to improve their position.

The Single Plane Left-Right Political Spectrum was not brought into use until much much later. I do not find any reference to it until the early 20th Century. Contemporary writers have used the facts surrounding the French National Assembly to designate the significance of the seating arrangement.

If you would like “my spin” on how right means an advocate of less government. And my spin is no more conclusive than any of the others. In the 1840s Marx began calling his movement a “movement of the left” it may have had something to do with whom he viewed as his enemy. You will recall the landed nobility, were the exploiters of labor, and that "Religion is the opiate of the proletariat". Regardless of why Marx chose it the LEFT designation caught on and has been used ever since to describe communism, socialism, and totalitarianism. Lenin and Trotsky continued to refer to Communism as a movement of the left. “Lenin’s last major work, addressed to the supporters of the Russian Revolution in the West, was entitled “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder - a critique of the “leftism”. See Encyclopedia of Marxism. “During the 1920s and onward, Trotsky criticised (sic) the Soviet Union in some cases for being too far left (e.g. forced collectivization).” See Encyclopedia of Marxism)

Over the years “Left” has been used to describe Communism and Socialism. The name spread to describe governments that were totalitarian, including the National Socialism of Hitler and the Fascism of Mussolini. In the early 20th Century it included people who advocated a move toward more government, and the “Right” got its name and meaning merely by default.

Now, stay with me here, if advocating more government is left and 100% government is the extreme left on the “Left/Right Political Spectrum”, then the advocacy of less government is right and 0% government is the extreme right, on the political spectrum. And the English Language has words that mean 100% government and 0% government, they are Totalitarianism (Note the word “total in totalitarian.), and Anarchy derived from the Greek meaning “no rule”.

This is not just conjecture; gentle reader, nor is it just my opinion. When someone is advocating more government he is not a communist but is calling for a move toward 100% government on the left. When someone is advocating less government he is not a believer in anarchy but is calling for a move toward 0% government on the right.

Confirmation of this hypothesis can be found in two articles by Murray Rothbard. In The Transformation of the American Right First published in Continuum, Summer 1964, pp. 220–231. Murray Rothbard correctly observed,

The modern American Right began, in the 1930's and 1940's, as a reaction against the New Deal and the Roosevelt Revolution, and specifically as an opposition to the critical increase of statism and state intervention… (Emphasis added)

Additionally, in “Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal” published in 1969, Rothbard further observed:

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

Farther along in that same article Rothbard said. 

Originally, our historical heroes were such men as [Thomas] Jefferson, [Thomas] Paine, [John]Cobden and [Richard] Bright and [Herbert] Spencer. As our views became purer and more consistent, we eagerly embraced such near-anarchists as the voluntarist, Auberon Herbert, and the American individualist-anarchists, Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker.
In other words as they became “purer” and more “consistent” there heroes were chosen from men that were closer to anarchy and 0% government of the right end of the spectrum.

Please evaluate the level of my persuasion on “How the left and right got their names and meanings.” Use one through ten. Post a comment below or E-mail your ranking to Chuckest@aol.com

Political realities that created a NEED for a Left/Right Spectrum. It was Plato, who around 380 BC said, and I am paraphrasing “NEED is the mother of invention.” We can easily see that NEED was in play with the invention of the cotton gin. The cotton gin eliminated the bottleneck in the trip from the cotton field to the cotton buyer, profits increased. Likewise, the traffic signal was a NEED fulfilled, brought on by the increased use of the automobile and growing traffic jams, traffic flowed better. Who can deny that freeways filled a NEED as urban centers developed adjacent suburbs? NEED also played a roll in the development of the Left/Right political spectrum. In the mid 1930s when FDR was expanding governmental power on a geometric scale, those opposed to this expansion needed some way to graphical display this growth of government.

Since all governmental power was at one time an individual liberty, increases in governmental power always represented a loss of individual liberty. The opposition to this expansion needed to display the growth of governmental power, and conversely the loss of individual liberty.

A thermometer would have worked, the rising mercury would represent the rise of governmental power and the diminishing empty tube at the top would represent the diminishing liberties of the individual.

A big pie chart could have been used with the expanding black wedge representing the expanding power of government, and the shrinking white wedge could represent the shrinking of individual liberty.

Now either of those displays would have worked. However, a different display was chosen, and chosen for a very good reason. It reminds me of the joke that goes: Why was PMS called PMS? The answer is that the name “Mad Cow Disease” was already taken. You see, Karl Marx had already staked his claim to the left by always referring to his movement as a movement of the “Left”. This tradition continued with Lenin and Trotsky. Consequently, almost no one uses the term “Left” incorrectly. (With the exception of Bill O'Reilly who attaches the “Far Left” moniker to anyone that disagrees with him.) It has always been used to mean an advocate for more government. The right simply took the name that was left remaining. That being the Right.

So you see, there was a NEED to be able to distinguish between the supporters of FDR and his “…critical increase of statism and state intervention…” and those who were opposed to it.

Please evaluate the level of my persuasion on “How earlier thinkers dealt with this basic information.” Use one through ten. Post a comment below or E-mail your ranking to Chuckest@aol.com Political realities that created a NEED for a Left/Right Spectrum.

How earlier thinkers dealt with this basic information. Before all of the confusion got a stranglehold on our language, the Libertarian movement, using the information that was available, took on some descriptive names. Let us look at the names by which Libertarians took on to identify themselves.

Most libertarians are willing to accept the name Miniarchist. What is the special significance of that selection? We all know that "mini" means small. Some examples of that include miniskirt, miniature, minimal, minimize, minuscule, minor, minority and minus. Arch means "rule". Some examples of that include Monarchy (rule by one) oligarchy (rule by a few) democracy (rule by the majority) theocracy (rule by God). Therefore, the word Miniarchist (not just my opinion) literally means and at the same time describes the Libertarians that believe in the smallest amount of government rule as possible.

The second word that many Libertarians call themselves is Anarcho-Capitalist. Now if the group that devised Anarcho-Capitalist gave it any thought, and I sure they did, (Libertarians are very thoughtful.) this would mean Libertarians that believe the government should have NO-SAY in the capitalist or free market system.

The third word that the smallest and also the most educated group of Libertarians hang on themselves, adopted long before the prevailing confusion, is a believer in anarchy. These libertarians believe that the solutions to social and economic problems are best found in an atmosphere of no government at all.

The word anarchy is made up of two Greek words: “arch” which we have covered as meaning rule and “a” which means "no". Examples of "a" meaning "no" include, Amoral (NO morals), apathy (NO feelings), absent (NO presents), aseptic (NO germs), asocial (NO social skills), acquit (NO guilt) and amnesia (NO memory). Therefore, anarchy literally means “no rule or no government”. This would make “Anarchy” or 0% government the Right end of our spectrum.

There is a philosophical basis for this mutually exclusive thinking. Rightist basically, believes that populations are made up of people that are mostly good. If these people remain minimally regulated and minimally taxed, they will make decisions that will generally tilt in their own self-interest. This thinking always leads to innovation and increased production, which moves a free people toward prosperity and peace. However, when they are over-regulated and overtaxed, they make decisions to avoid the consequences of the taxes and regulations. It is the reason that the freest areas of the world are also the most prosperous.

While most people are good, there are some people that are bad. This prompts the rightist toward the advocacy of some government, but the least amount of government possible, only an amount necessary to protect the good people from the bad people. Examples are a defensive military to protect the nation. a police department, to protect our homes and a court system to adjudicate disagreements our everyday actions
Leftist, on the other hand, believe that populations are made up of the strong (themselves) and the weak (the ones that need their help), and the smart (themselves) and the not so smart (the ones that need their help). They believe that the weak and the not so smart are in those conditions partially because of government decisions that allow exploitation.

Therefore, the leftist, believe it is their responsibility to help the weak and the not so smart in a move toward more equality. Of course, the left always wants the government to tax everyone to accomplish this assistance and the increased taxes. And expanding government shoves more and more of the marginal people into the not so smart and the not so strong categories, which always calls for more government and more taxation. That is why leftist thinking always leads to more government and more government and still more government until society winds up with the dictatorship of 100% government.

Please evaluate the level of my persuasion on, "How earlier thinkers dealt with this basic information." Use one through ten. Post a comment below or E-mail your ranking to Chuckest@aol.com

How confusion took root, to muddy the waters.
The “left” had a connection to liberal which occurred in the US around 1920, when the “Populist” and the “Progressive”, movements became so thoroughly discredited that the terms literally became pejoratives in the political lexicon. Therefore, leftist needed a new name to continue their leftist work of collectivization of the American people, and the name they took was “liberal" And soon thereafter the terms liberal and left-wing became almost synonyms. From the early1920s to the mid-1960s the terms left wing and liberal were used almost interchangeably to describe people who were generally calling for more government.

Please note that prior to the mid-1960s, the Liberal/left had applauded and encouraged the growth and expansion of domestic social programs during the Roosevelt era. Additionally, the liberal/left tolerated the militarist expansion of the Truman and Eisenhower era. However, during the mid-1960s into the 1970s, a change was taking place. Even liberals, that had always favored expanding government, were beginning to feel the pinch of expanded government. At this point, the terms “Liberal” and “left-wing” ceased to be synonymous. Liberals now did not always call for more government. On personal liberty issues like marijuana use, prostitution, censorship, abortion and especially the military draft, liberals became decidedly anti-big government.

There were changes on the right as well, the terms right wing & conservative which had been almost synonymous from the early 1930s to the mid-1950s used almost interchangeably to describe people who were generally in opposition to the expansion of government, and favored less government.

The first deviation in the generally accepted meanings of these terms occurred in the 1950s when a large portion of Conservative/Right wing was convinced to take on the opposition to Communism. They were convinced by William F. Buckley who began calling for the expansion and empowerment of government, Buckley even called for a totalitarian government to have the necessary power to oppose communism. Please note the confusing factors. While opposing 100% government communism is an acceptable right-wing action, increasing the power of the US government to the point of totalitarian, in order to oppose communism is a left-wing action.

A greater deviation in the meanings of these terms occurred in the1970s when the burgeoning evangelical Christian movement joined the conservatives, the conservatives became numerous enough and powerful enough to begin using government to advance their agenda, a program that they adopted, and continue to embrace.

At this point the terms conservative and right-wing ceased to be synonymous. Now conservatives are calling for all manner of increased government, to the detriment of their right-wing roots.

All of these changes in conservative and liberal thinking had absolutely no effect on the left/right political spectrum. Then as now and always, the left/right spectrum measured the power of government or the degree to which government makes the decisions for individuals and businesses, or the degree to which individuals and businesses are free to make their own decisions.

These changes in the basic thinking are exactly why the left/right political spectrum is more important today than any time in its beleaguered history. Just think when Conservatives wake-up to the reality that they have abandoned their roots and are now promoting more government. Conservatives are calling for more troops on the border, more laws regulating abortion. They want the president to use of the Federal Registry to prevent stem cell research, cloning and partial birth abortion. Many Conservatives supported more government restrictions on free speech like flag burning, calling for English to be our official language, term limits on elected officials and creating Free Speech Zones far away, from where you may want to demonstrate your message.

When we are successful in recapturing the word RIGHT to mean an advocate of less government, conservatives will have to face the reality that they are left-wingers or leftist calling for increases in governmental power. Convincing a small government conservative that he has been duped into doing the work of the left will start him thinking about liberty or Libertarian movements so fast it will make his own head swim.
Additionally, as the big government liberals (Now calling themselves progressives and populist.) will lose their power to confuse a large number of followers because we will tag them as left-wing if they continue to advocate increases in government.

Now with all this information clearly in mind, a President comes along that, doubles the spending on public education, and then dictates that State governments follow a Federal plan that is supposed to improve test scores. He also increases Federal spending on a scale not seen since FDR. Calls for and gets the power to search your bank records without your knowledge. Moreover, makes it a federal crime for the bank employees to notify you that a search is going to take place. Calls for and gets the right to enter your home or business and copy information from your computer and not tell you for 90 days. (See the Patriot Act) Repeals the Bill of Rights for any citizen accused of terrorist type activities invades a country that was no threat to US security. Would you say this President moved the country to the right or to the left?

How about the actions of the private sector, we have a group calling for Federal laws to prevent stem cell research. cloning and abortion. They also want the Federal government to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. They want the government to block adult websites. They want the President to use (executive power) the Federal Registry to prevent partial-birth abortion. Additionally, they call for Federal Laws that make adultery and homosexuality a crime. Why would we call this group the “Religious Right” They are not calling for less government. Let’s call them what they are, the Religious Left.

What would you call a group that wants more government troops on the Mexican border, and are calling for the Federal government to build a fence between the US and Mexico? What would you call a group that wants to increase the penalties for drug possession and sales? What would you call a group that would reinstate the draft to carry out a non-defensive war in Iraq? I know what you would not call them; you would not call them the “Conservative Right”. Let’s call them what they are, the Conservative Left.

Can you see how this “Left/Right” chart would serve as an important aid to less informed voters? Can you see how in time every candidate and every issue would be evaluated using this chart? Can you also see how it would be important to the “government growers” to discredit this very powerful tool?

Please evaluate the level of my persuasion on, "How confusion took root, to muddy the waters." Use one through ten. Post a comment below or E-mail your ranking to Chuckest@aol.com

You can begin clearing up the confusion and begin to recapture the single plane left/right political spectrum as the Roadmap to Liberty.

This is not as big a job as you might first suspect. We do not have to try to change those people that have an agenda to confuse. Our success will deprive these confusers of this tool of deception. Likewise, you do not need to convert those people that are confused, our success triggers a change in the usage of the terms, they will start using it correctly just like they started to use it incorrectly. All we need do is when we discover a writer using the terms incorrectly, drop him a friendly E-Mail with a short exposition of the true and clear meanings, and sources. It is amazing how three e-mails to one writer using the words incorrectly alters his writing pattern. He may not completely change after just three reminders. Continued monitoring of this writer, let him/her know you have observed the pattern of change, and his move closer to the correct usage. This lets him/her know you are reading their material. Before you know it he will be using the terms correctly. (Read this paragraph four or more times.)

"You Knew That" By Chuck McGlawn

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 

"You Knew That" By Chuck McGlawn

Left means more government. Right means less government

All the information to verify the subtitle/statement is already in your knowledge base. All you have to do is to put the right pieces of your knowledge together. I think we all know that if the temperature variation on the planet Earth were only three degrees. Night or day, summer or winter, polar or equatorial the temperature only varies three degrees. Then no one would have bothered to invent the thermometer. You knew that. Additionally, if every woman on the planet were “drop dead gorgeous”, Hollywood would never have made the movie "10". You knew that. .And if it is as the "confused nicks" say that Communism and Socialism is authoritarianism on the left and Fascism is the authoritarianism on the right, no one would have ever concocted a left/right political spectrum in the first place, and David Nolan would have had nothing to come along and improve upon, You knew that.

Let us tap into that knowledge base of yours. Almost everyone knows that Communism and Socialism are on the left. In today’s vernacular, it is a given. If you were one of the few that disagrees with that, any more reading of this article would be a waste of your time. However, if you are among the confused that call yourself a "left" libertarian, you need to continue.

Communism, Socialism, designated “Left” by Marx are systems where the government makes all the decisions for individuals and business. As they own or control the major means of production. That is they own/control the Land (the country) they own/control the labor (the people) and they own/control the capital (the money and everything needed to make more money). Nazism and Fascism so called by Hitler and Mussolini are the same, and have virtually the same powers. All of these systems are 100% government of the extreme left. You knew that. The West added Totalitarianism.

When 100% government is the extreme left end and let us makes it the starting point of a political spectrum, then 0% government or anarchy would be the exact opposite or the right end of that political spectrum. You knew that.

There are four names by which overlapping segments of the Libertarian movement identify themselves. You may not be able to recall any of the names on your own. But when I list them, you are going to say that, " I knew that." Three of the four are Miniarchist, anarco-capitalism, and Anarchy. Please note each of these words contain the word "arch". Arch is the Greek word that means rule.

I’ll bet you know the meanings of the three names that Libertarians use to identify themselves. Miniarchist would be those Libertarians that believe in the least possible amount of government or rule. You knew that. Anarco-capitalist would be those Libertarians that believe the government should have no say in the capitalist or free market system. You knew that. Lastly, the anarchy wing of libertarianism would be those that believe there should be no rule or no government at all. You knew that.

I am not going to remind you of the fourth name. You are going to have to think* of that one yourself. Perhaps if we did a little more thinking we would never swallow that the right is somehow fascist or authoritarian.
I want to take it one more step. If Government is the enemy of liberty or libertarian, then liberty or libertarian would be all about reducing government. I am going to say it. If total government is 100% government, and it is on the left. Then reductions of government are increases in liberty and a move away from the left towards what? Towards the right. You knew that. Now I am not suggesting that a move all the way to the right is my goal. At this stage of my understanding, I cannot completely embrace anarchy. Additionally, I do not think the American people could even think that a system of “no Government” is viable

Let’s tap a little deeper into your knowledge base. There are two very compelling reasons why we need to recapture and utilize the Left/Right Political Spectrum. The first is, candidate handlers and issue promoters are getting more and more adept at their craft. It becomes more and more difficult to cut through their spin to get to the real candidate or the real issue. Therefore, their tactics constantly take in the uninformed. Even the informed need a roadmap to direct them on their course. Just look around, the Liberty Movement is more split today then it has ever been in its history. The second reason to recapture the Left/Right (more government/less government) political spectrum is to use it as a roadmap. It is simple enough for all to understand. The direction signs leading to the goals that we desire are clear enough for anyone to understand regardless of the depths of their knowledge. The Left/Right Political Spectrum shortens the learning curve so that even the newly initiated advocate of Liberty can hit the ground running, You knew that
*Here is your Challenge: WHAT IS THE FOURTH WORD/PHRASE TO WHICH LIBERTARIANS REFER TO THEMSELVES THAT SAYS "RIGHT (or less government) AND LIBERTY ARE CONNECTED" Send your answers to Chuckest@aol.com

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

 Wednesday, June 30, 2010 

The Declaration of Independence as a Mission Statement 

By Chuck McGlawn

Let us describe the appearance of a penny. This is going to be an “open book test”. (so get yourself a penny.) First, it is copper in appearance. On the heads, side there is a likeness of President Lincoln. There is also the phrase “In God We Trust”, and there is a mint date, and mint location and the word “Liberty”. On the tails side is a likeness of the Lincoln Memorial, the phrases, “UNITED STATES of AMERICA”, “E PLURIBUS UNUM” and lastly the denomination, “ONE CENT”

Now that is not a complete description of the penny, it doesn’t take into consideration that Lincoln’s likeness is in profile. It does not describe the slight ridge that borders the coin, and a dozen or more details both obvious and subtle, that could be included in the description of a penny. We just want to show that if you had a penny right in front of you, you could do a fairly good job of describing that penny. In addition, we believe that most any sixth grader, even a sixth grader with a public school education, could understand that description, and could go to a box of coins and easily pick out pennies by using just the description above.

The Declaration of Independence Imposes the Proper Function of our National Government.What does this have to do with defining the proper function of our National Government? We believe if you had the basic documents right in front of you that you could describe the proper function of our National Government just as completely. Moreover, when you completed that description of our government, any sixth grader could understand its description and would know the proper function of our National government.

What we are now going to give you is the description of our National government, as it is defined and limited by some elements of our basic documents. The Declaration of Independence is the “Mission Statement”. It lays out the basic plan as to what our founding fathers planned to accomplish as a Nation.

The Declaration of Independence says, “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….”There, in one powerfully insightful sentence, you have Man’s rights. (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) You have the dictum that these rights are granted by the Creator. In addition, they cannot be taken way. Not even by the government being created. Moreover, that all of this is a truth that is confirmed by observation of natural law.

We make an assumption here, that if you have RIGHTS, we mean real rights, then everyone else must have those same rights as well.

Let’s continue. The Declaration says that you have, “…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” I contend that you have three and only three RIGHTS. Simply by being born, you have the right to LIFE. And you have the RIGHT to do with that LIFE anything you want to do. That is called LIBERTY. In addition, you have the right to plan and conduct that LIFE in a way that YOU think will maximize your Happiness. (These are all yours with only one limitation. That nothing you do can interfere with another’s right to do what he or she wants to do with their LIFE).
The next line in the Declaration of Independence (And remember, this is the Mission Statement and the blueprint for our National Government.) the framers make a vitally important assertion. “…That to secure these rights…”, (notice here that these are rights that we had even before we had empowered a government to "secure" our natural rights.) “…governments are instituted among Men…” Please note here exactly what is being said, that “We The People” are going to engaged in a contract with our (soon to be formed) government and the National Government’s job is going to be “…to secure (protect) these rights.” It is also important to note that men make government and therefore precede government. This means that government is the agent to and servant of man, and not the reverse.

Now comes the most important statement. The Declaration is now going to designate from where our National Government gets its power, and at the same time put an important limitation on that governmental power. The Declaration of Independence says, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” There you have it. If the government gets its power from you the governed, it would logically follow that man cannot convey to that government powers that man, himself does not have.

You may be asking, “How does this work exactly?” To demonstrate let us use three examples. #1) Did man have the right to defend his own life before he had a government to help him defend his life? The answer to that question is of course yes. So man can institute a government and share with that government the power to protect his life. In fact, that is the justification for a military. Please note here that we do not turn over to the government the total power to protect our lives, for if we did that then we would no longer have the right to defend our own lives. I contend that since we have a right to protect our life, and we share some of that power with our National Government we can then tax ourselves to finance a defensive military. Please note, that the military that our taxes finance can only be defensive. Since man, as an individual does not have the RIGHT to initiate force on another to accomplish personal goals, then it follows that he cannot combine with others to create a military and give to that military the power to initiate force to accomplish communal goals.

This precludes creating an executive branch of government that has the power to order the military into preemptive military action. BTW, that includes our present preemptive action in Iraq and Afghanistan. No military action taken since Truman formulated the domino theory has been defensive. Truman spawned the opposition to any hint of Soviet Union expansion anywhere in the world.

#2) Did man have the right to defend his own property before we had a government to defend that property? The answer again is yes. So man can institute a government and share with that government the power to protect his property and with that shared power, the government can establish a police department, and charge that entity with the job of protecting our property. This function of government can also be financed by taxes. However, since the protection of property is a local job the National Government did not exercise the Police power.

Here is the third example. Read the following very carefully. Question: Before we had government did individual man have the right to take money from others, and give it to someone else that they thought needed it more, the answer to that question is a resounding NO, it is called theft. Therefore, it would follow that collectively man cannot create a National Government, and give to that government the power to take money from others and give it to someone else that the government thinks needs it more. This means our National Government can have no power to extract taxes from you to educate children, no matter how badly you may think children need educating. It means that our National Government can have no power to extract taxes from you to fund social welfare, no matter how needy you think some people are. It also can have no power for health care providing, business promoting, Park building. It should not be involved in educational standards setting, régime changing, weather reporting, democracy spreading. It should not be spending tax monies on database keeping, farmer saving, speed limit setting or toilet designing. No matter how large a budget surplus our government may have, it should never spend taxes on mail reading, phone tapping, corporate bailouts, or the dozens of other things that the national government is either financing or regulating.

A closer look at all these things might cause you to ask a question. “Why would our National Government risk alienating citizens by taxing them. The answer reveals the motive. All taxes, with the exception of taxes that finance the proper functions of government, is an attempt on the part of our National Government, to transfer wealth for the purpose of vote buying. Ask yourself this question: Why should the National Government have the power to extract taxes from the States and the citizens within those States, and then use the threat of the withholding of that same money to force those same States to comply with some program that the national government thinks important?

Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution says, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.” It is not likely that you have ever heard this phrase before. If you did, it was unlikely that you were given an explanation as to what it means.

Let me say this, we would be living in a radically different world if the lessons from the Declaration of independence and a clear understanding of Article IV Section 4 were a part of our national consciousness. I contend that as it becomes a part of our national consciousness, we will begin to have a National Government that is limited to the taxing and regulation powers as defined by the Constitution. Then we would have 50 or more States that would be competing for populations like K-Mart and Wal-Mart competes for customers. It would mean that every tax and every regulation would be instituted to provide betterment to the populations of each State. I suggest that at this birthday celebration of our Nation we resolve to make the lessons it teaches an ever growing part of our national conscious.