The Meteor Metaphor

Unemployment, poverty, inflation, interest rates, debt, world wide currency crisis; all symptoms of one disease, yet hardly anyone calls for its removal. It is strange that so much can be affected by one entity, one institution, yet not too much is discussed on the way to remove the parasite and begin the treatment towards healing.
So why are so many interested in these symptoms? Are they important? Yes they are. Are they shrinking? No, Not in the slightest. So what are we doing to rid the body of the infection? Why are we merely wiping up blood, instead of closing the wound?

Talking to someone recently about this issue I used a metaphor for this dilemma: The Meteor. 

When we see meteors from earth we see a tail of fire and smoke, a bright streak hurling itself towards the earth. This tail is what everyone is looking at, mainly because it is what grabs your attention and awareness. The tail is where all of these issues lie. You can see the increase of poverty, just drive past your local shelter or soup kitchen. You can see the increase in Unemployment, simply visit the unemployment office. You can even see inflation by going to your local grocery store, what did your bread and milk cost only 6 months ago? But all of these are only the effects of something bigger.

What is unseen with the meteor? What is the cause of the fire and smoke? What is leading the way?

Yes, the rock itself. The actual meteor, the hard matter that is entering the atmosphere and causing the bright streak of flames. Looking at it this way, what is the cause to the rise in unemployment, inflation and poverty?.....

It's not the increase spending, It's not a lack of revenue. These are just two more effects of bad monetary policy. When the currency is weak everything else will follow. Now here in America we have a centralized banking system, The Federal Reserve, which is the leading cause of our domestic monetary strife.

The Federal Reserve was given authority to be the originator of domestic loans in 1913. It has overseen the creation of new currency, it has been the bearer of artificially low interest rates and has even been responsible for the devaluation of the National currency since its creation. The Federal Reserve is a special kind of institution, it is not federal, though it's name would imply it was, and has immunity to federal oversight. It's "job" is to facilitate the nations debt by issuing credit to the government and then selling that debt to foreign and domestic investors and speculators. A caveat to all of this is these special loans given to the American Government are paid back with the revenue, with interest added of course, collected from the incomes of all working citizens. 

The real Mass of the problem, the meteor, isn't the unemployment, inflation, or poverty, it is a system that has debased, devalued and manipulated our national currency to the point of exhaustion. While everyone is staring at the bright lights, the meteor is continuing it's course to ruin us all!

Fix the Money, and we can start to Fix the problems.

So how do we fix it? The course of action must include the abolition of the Federal Reserve. This needs to be done not through government action but through individuals finding ways to make their currency obsolete, to go around the Federal Reserve. Emerging digital currencies like BitCoin, WorldCoin and AltCoin along with neighborhood or local based currencies like the Long Island Buck being the newest way to do this. . This would end the mandatory obligation to accept their  fiduciary notes of debt; this would return us to a natural trade system where individuals would negotiate the terms of trade, credit and payments. This is not to say that money would not come about in a natural way, but it would be only a tool to facilitate trade between consenting partners and not mandated acceptance. 

Wake up before we wind up like this.

No Victim No crime, Are you a Belieber?

Pop Star Justin Bieber  was arrested on Thursday morning for apparently driving while intoxicated, resisting arrest and driving without a valid license. Later Bieber "made some statements that he had consumed some alcohol, and that he had been smoking marijuana and consumed some prescription medication" according to a police spokesperson.  While this is not good for the 19 year old singer, it is however a great lesson in the No Victim No Crime Theory. 

The act of driving under the influence is one of those "crimes" that has never really made much sense to me. Whether or not a person is intoxicated should be irrelevant when making the decision to press charges. In Bieber's case there has been no action that has resulted in the destruction of property or harm to another individual. Since the case lacks a victim it can not be considered a crime. With the lack of a victim in these cases there can be no crime. Even the act of an intoxicated person damaging or destroying his or her own vehicle and no other property there is still no victim as the intoxicated individual has only destroyed their own personal property by voluntarily consuming the intoxicating substance. Another point to be taken with this issue is the risk factor. Can we really legislate risk away? Is there a risk that a person who is impaired may injure another person or damage someone's property? Sure, but then too, there is the inherent risk that persons not afflicted in any way may do the same. At what point can we say that one is acceptable enough not to have restrictions placed upon it while the other must have restrictions and legislation?

The next charge of driving without a license is well, just a unnecessary law, it is just another way for the state to manipulate people into their control and a way to extract more revenue. A license has absolutely no real reason to exist except as a tool of control. That being said, the act of driving without a license has neither damaged another's property or actively aggressed against another person, therefor there is in this case also an absence of a victim and as such can not be labeled as a crime.

Now comes the fun stuff; Marijuana and prescription medication. The act of ingesting either Marijuana or Prescription medications does no real harm except to the person doing the ingesting. The lack of anyone to call a victim leaves no logic to have a penalty attached to this voluntary act. At what point does the legislating of consumable goods become too intrusive? It has been proven over and over again that the leading cause of death in the United States is Heart Disease caused by obesity, yet there are not laws on the amount of consumed calories or legislation dealing with the strict diet and exercise routine of all citizens. 

As Lysander Spooner words it in his work "Vices are not Crimes; A Vindication of Moral Liberty" Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. 
Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another". Also stated in this work is the quote," It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of 
another. But no one ever practices a vice with any such criminal intent. He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice 
toward others". 
This is the firm belief in self ownership, personal responsibility, and willingness to adhere to the repercussions of those actions.

As I said this incident is not ideal for Justin Beiber, but can be a very important lesson in Self Ownership and the No Victim No Crime Theory.

Here is a good Video by Christopher Cantwell on this case as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG9hHuR8U6k

Remembering Martin Luther King Jr.

This is my list of the most influential quotes from Martin Luther King Jr.

1. Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

2.Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

3. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

4.Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

5.Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.

Also please read my post on MLK from last year. http://thejeffersonpapers.blogspot.com/2013/04/martin-luther-king-jr-and-government-lie.html

What is Law?

     Law does not inhibit or stop persons from committing any act, it merely represents the fear of punishment for doing so. It is laid out to discourage or incite prohibition to certain acts the lawmakers deem unfavorable or unwanted in their society.
   
     In theory law is created to prohibit certain peoples from doing thing, taking things, enjoying things, destroying things and so on and so forth, but what it cannot do, in any way, shape or form is to stop someone from doing it.

     Lets take driving laws for our first example. Most roads in the United States have a certain speed at which automobiles can travel, there are laws establishing these speeds but these laws are broken every day by people from every walk of life. 112,000 speeding citations are issued EVERY DAY in the United States, 41,000,000 annually. Statistics show that even though there is a law against driving faster than the posted "legal" limit there are a lot of individuals who still do it. The people have no fear of the law itself since it is a non tangible idea of moral and social acceptance. Some people fear the punishment from the law enforcers. Law enforcement. What they fear are the repercussions of committing an act by which a law has been made.
Fines, imprisonment, or the revocation on the right to travel are the reasons many choose not to break these silly intrusive laws.

     Driving isn't the only area that people do not adhere to the law.

     Many people will claim that if added legislation or laws were placed on gun owners or the possession of a firearm we would have less murders. But murder is already illegal. So why would adding greater laws against the act suddenly affect the existence of the cases of murder? The same can be said of drug laws. Laws are there restricting the use, cultivation, possession or sale of all kinds of drugs and medicinal plants, yet here we are with prisons full of drug law offenders. It didn't stop them from doing what they did, they just didn't heed the threat of violence or incarceration. And there's no proof that the law has stopped someone from doing anything, it's not like people say, "you know if it weren't illegal I would totally start eating mushrooms and shooting heroin." If people are drawn to do something they will do it regardless of legality.

     And that's law is, a threat of violence or incarceration for actions that one perpetrates.

A defense against mandatory GMO labeling.

I am against any mandated action to label foods that use GMO products.
Now let me explain my reasoning.

There are many people that will yell at the top of their lungs, "We have a right to know what's in our food!", and of course they are correct. But they are not correct to assume that they can legislate compliance by food manufacturers through the use of government force. The business owners ultimately have rights to run their company they see fit. Through the means of market pressure these GMO activists can call for a protest of these products and can change company procedure in that way. The use of government to create laws and mandates on business owners and producers always has the effect of raising prices, lowering production or altogether closing a company up for good. This reduces market choice for everyone, even those that do not care whether their foods have GMO's in them or not. Your right to know doesn't supersede their right to not care.

Also, as an individual you have the right to produce your own foods. By planting foods you and your family or neighbors consume you now have taken back control of knowing whats in your food. Local farmers markets are full of people that have started small scale farms and home businesses off of this very platform, why can't you? This is quite possibly the best alternative to retailers as you can create a relationship directly with the producer, sometimes able to barter for goods and supporting local economies.

I am not advocating the use of GMO's in any way, I look at them the same as those activists, but I refuse to try and impose my want on any business by government force.

The Libertarian Utopia Charge

One of the most prevalent claims against libertarians is that their ideas are Utopian in nature, but this can only be construed as a bad thing if you use the definition given by Sir Thomas More. The word Utopia first came about in the 1500’s through the philosopher and author Thomas More. If one examines the book they would find that the mythical place described in the book Utopia is nowhere near its present day meaning and by all accounts would never form in a libertarian society. Presently defined as an ideal place or state it would fit the vision of libertarians. It is here that the separation of definition takes place from the fiction story to the present day definition.

Of the many themes in More’s description of Utopia; I want to compare two major areas as they are the very basis to individual liberty and Libertarianism as a whole; Private Property and Self-Ownership. These two points in Thomas More’s fiction story are meant to lead to a Utopia or perfect world, but error on the basis on individual liberty. This is where the charge of Libertarians being Utopian by the book's definition in their ideas and vision is completely false. 

Private Property

“In More’s novel Utopia has no money or private property and there is therefore no greed, power struggles, corruption, or vanity, and very little crime. Everything is held in common and everyone's needs are supplied” [1].

     

This is nowhere near a Libertarian stance. The existence of property owned by the state has never been a view expressed by the Libertarian philosophy. Private ownership of property leads to the owner feeling a sense of personal investment in the maintenance and improvement of that property. When the ownership is transferred to the state that investment is not realized and the property is subject to abuse and quickly falls into disrepair and dilapidated. Simply look into your local public housing projects to see this effect in comparison to a area of high private home properties.

In the modern day definition of utopia, a libertarian society would be centered around the Right of Private Property and its protection.  As Ludwig von Mises once stated,"If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization." Private ownership of property is one of the fundamental tenets of Libertarianism. It leads to the production of goods and the means of labor to produce those goods. It is this ownership that allows individuals to create homes and businesses.

Self-Ownership

In More's description of his utopia he includes the custom of owning servants or slaves, Labeled as "bondmen", these unfortunate people are owned by others to be put to work in the home and wherever else needed.

This absolutely in no way represents the Libertarian view of self ownership. The belief that you and you alone can own your body and the fruits of your labor and toil is a vital, central axiom of Libertarianism and cannot in any way be construed to include any sort of servitude or bond to another person.
Another point in this issue is the way in which in More's Utopia there are authority figures set into every community and city, eventually leading to a central ruler and its court. This point is a little different in the Libertarian stance. Libertarian is broad and a very large tent term. It contains those that believe in the minimal amount of outside governance while some believe in no governance but self rule.

Define your meaning of the word Utopian.

With the charge that Libertarians are Utopian in their ideas one would have to differentiate the term from the classical to the modern.

In the classical sense, in no way, shape or form would that type of Society exist or even begin to exist under the Libertarian stances of Private Property and Self Ownership.

In the modern day definition, a more perfect world, yes a utopia could exist under a libertarian society. This begs the question, shouldn't this be wanted by all, shouldn't this be embraced by everyone?

With the modern day definition being what it is I must ask, If libertarians are utopian in ideals, what does that make the other party's ideals. What is the purpose of all the added regulations, laws, rules, restrictions? What are they working towards? Is it all for the ultimate goal of total control? Of course these are rhetorical questions, I already know the answers.

But Libertarians help Democrats win, Right?......

In a recent letter to the editor Bob Veit, Republican Party State Committeeman, wrote about a visit, Libertarian Adrian Wyllie, made to the St. Augustine Tea Party. In his opinion piece Mr. Veit explains perfectly why Adrian, myself and many other Libertarians do not belong to the Republican Party. He and other leaders like him have been and still are willing to say anything to try to scare people into continuing to vote for the members of the Republican Party.

In this opinion piece he wrote:

“They are at it again. The Libertarian Party, after successfully electing a Democrat governor in Virginia as opposed to a Republican supported by the tea party, is making a run here in Florida that will guarantee the same result. It’s public record that a major financial backer for the Virginia Libertarian Party candidate was also a Democrat fundraiser for Obama’s last campaign. Curious??”

This UNelected official in the Republican Party wrote something that is completely false.

Robert Sarvis photo LP.org

Exit polling proved that Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate for governor in Virginia, was supported by more people that identified themselves as liberal on Election Day than those that considered themselves conservative. A simple google search looking for the exit polling would have cleared this up. (SOURCE)

He is also claiming that there had been a conspiracy perpetrated by the Democrat Party to have Sarvis in the race.

This again was absolutely false.

As written about in this NPR article:

“But a few things are off here. The $150,000 that they cite went to an existing Libertarian PAC, not the candidate. A co-founder of the PAC says less than $20,000 found its way to Virginia, for both Sarvis and legislative candidates. And the mystery donor is more generous to Libertarians than to Democrats.

The Center for Responsive Politics says that since 2009, Texas high-tech entrepreneur Joe Liemandt contributed $172,500 to Libertarian committees versus $132,996 to Democratic committees and federal candidates. (He did max out to President Obama in 2011: $5,000.) Add in money from his wife, Andra, and Democrats edge out Libertarians, $243,993 to $235,829. Andra, not Joe, is the Obama bundler, listed as raising between $200,000 and $500,000 for the 2012 campaign. Neither of the Liemandts gave directly to Sarvis.

Wes Benedict, who co-founded Libertarian Booster PAC, says he got a call from Joe Liemandt in 2008. Benedict told NPR, “He said, ‘What would the Libertarian Party do with a million dollars?’ ”

Benedict says the PAC started out in 2011, focusing first on Texas races, and Liemandt contributed — although less than $1 million. Benedict says, “Last time I communicated with him was months ago.”

There are only two reasons why this Republican State Committeemen could have made these false claims. It is either he did not know enough to do the research possible to find the correct answer (low information voter) or, and more likely, he did know this and willingly mislead people in order to support the Republican Party.

What Mr. Veit does not realize is that Libertarians are not interested in being led by fear tactics. No party owns their vote. They believe in principle. They believe in change and voting for the same people out of the same fear is not change.

When you have a party with a State Committeemen, a leader in the party, willingly misleading voters when writing a letter to the editor, it shows there is no reforming the Republican Party.

He continues…..

“I introduced myself as an activist Republican and asked why, since he knew he could not win the seat next November, would he want to see a Democrat elected versus a Republican. He said it did not matter whether Scott or Crist was elected since they both were progressive liberals. I also asked why he did not enter the Republican primary race to unseat Scott instead of using a third party ticket. His answer was interesting in that he said the Florida Republican Party would ‘”corrupt” him. Curious?”

Charlie Crist was the Republican Governor before Rick Scott was elected. I am willing to bet that if Charlie was still a Republican Mr. Veit would have written the same letter telling people to stay Republican to vote for Crist.

The lack of principles and willingness to lie to advance an agenda within the leadership of the GOP is quite sad and not something any tea partier or Libertarian would want to be a part of. Mr. Veit knows this and is willing to say whatever it takes to keep people in the Republican Party. He does not care about restoring this country to its Constitutional roots. His loyalty oath to the party means more to him than any actual principles.

We see this Republican Committeemen for what he is. Mr. Veit also writes.

“I encourage fellow tea party members to unite and oppose this sham Libertarian Party candidacy for what it is and please continue to work with the St. Johns County Republican Party to elect candidates who support and will fight for the preservation of our freedoms.”

Well Mr. Veit, Your fear tactics and misleading information maybe desperate but they are also transparent and will not help you in 2014.

The people see through them and have had quite enough of the red team vs. blue team politics. Your party is fading fast and this country will be much better off because of it.

Written By Jim Burkiewicz 

New Year, New Ideas, New Liberty

     2014 will be a great year for the liberty movement I believe.

     Starting off this year I along with thousands of others are lending our skills to promote the ideas and the philosophy of liberty to people around the world. We will be talking about topics that matter and making suggestions that far exceed the stagnant progress of government.

     This year I begin with new projects, new ideas and new topics, explaining the real core of individual liberty. I want to increase the amount of posts, time permitting, and also venture out into new writing projects. Already I have gotten a guest contributor piece for the website http://wearelibertarians.com featured, and new contributor spots for http://thelibertarianliquidationist.com and http://essenceoflibertas.blogspot.com.
Both of these will be contributions from different authors on a multitude of issues. Please check them out.

     2014 can be the year the major shift happens. A shift in the perception and recognition of individual liberty and its real world practice and success.

     Stay tuned, you don't want to miss what's next. Thanks for being here. Also we have set up a Bitcoin donation wallet, if you feel the want to contribute we appreciate  every bit. Our wallet can be found at the top of the homepage or accessed here. 1PTE1cBxRPUsNcWjgoktDUW2o33ZpazZc3.

For Liberty.