|
|
||
To Alter Or To AbolishChapter 23Political SystemsWritten by Darrell Anderson. In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other. Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764) Many individuals often see modern statism as primarily mercantile in nature. Mercantilism is a philosophy where people incorrectly identify the concept of money with wealth, specifically the token symbols representing a common medium of exchange — currency. The primary goal of mercantilism is the excess accumulation of currency — profit. The concept of mercantilism ignores the fundamental purpose of a currency — to facilitate the exchange of wealth and to improve aggregate efficiency.[1] Nonetheless, this excess accumulation creates potential future exchange power. Thus, to protect that goal, many people attempt to use political systems to create avenues of privilege. Instead of promoting equal protection and reciprocating mutual survival, mercantilism is a philosophy where some people receive higher consideration and protections than others. Therefore, a primary goal of people promoting mercantilism is to create artificial scarcity in order to promote profits. People become more involved in accumulating things rather than life and meaningful productivity.[2] This process of using the political process to invent special privileges, create artificial scarcity, and condoning certain actions under the color of law is incorrectly called licensing. By definition, a license is permission from a lawful titleholder to use property without transferring title. Therefore, a political “license” is not a license but merely political privilege and permission to act in a specific manner. When politicians and bureaucrats require “licenses” to perform various human actions, they promote artificial scarcity and create an illusion of licensing by creating a legal fiction. Legal fictions are contrived presumptions in order to operate under the color of law. Legal fictions exist for two primary reasons:[3]
Although embraced within the jargon of the legal community, the idea of a “legal fiction” is an oxymoron. A fiction is something that does not exist. Something either exists or does not. Through the concept of legal fictions, rules or principles of customary law are being masked. One principle is there is no true complainant or defendant involved in any subsequent legal dispute. Another masked principle is that often no actual trespass occurs. There is only the illusion that trespass might occur if certain actions are not coercively regulated and there are only humans acting behind a veil of political privilege. Another masked principle is pretending that this process does not create scarcities where none previously existed. The primary purpose of political “licensing” is to promote artificial scarcity and to protect political privileges. People embracing political “licensing” deny the concept of self, advocate form of conscription, deny explicit consent, and therefore, reject free association and voluntary exchange. Modern political systems exist primarily for one reason — to control and manipulate the process of creating artificial scarcity. A political system is merely the physical manifestation of the philosophy of statism — the political means of sustaining energy flows. Political systems do not always encourage class warfare, or protect the ruling or bourgeoisie classes. They always protect the self-interests of those who control the process. Some individuals might argue that even if the philosophy of statism is founded upon conquest and the fear of conquest, that such arrangements or human systems are nonetheless useful and legitimate. For example, some people might argue that humanity’s “fallen nature” requires something like the philosophy of statism, despite the disadvantages. The necessity of such a coercive “force” was Hobbes’ conclusion, but his foundational presumption about the “state of nature” was flawed. Such reasoning fails, however. Most people recognize that contracts and agreements must be self-enforcing and that cooperation is a more beneficial option.[4] Statism is a philosophical doctrine or practice of vesting control and planning in a minority of privileged people, and to survive needs continual revenues and an oppressed populace — or at least a self-oppressed populace. The concept of statism is diametrically opposed to the concept of liberty of action. In a culture where boundaries are prized and protected, the economic well-being of people will be self-enforcing. There would be no need for centralized control of human actions. Collected revenues would be used only for those purposes explicitly authorized — protecting boundaries. Revenues would be collected voluntarily and contractually — without force and coercion. Many political systems initially operate openly under a charter that specific powers are granted by people, and initially often this is true, but after momentum is provided, this charter often is forgotten. Political power tends to corrupt and absolute political power corrupts absolutely.[5] In theory, the process of government exists solely to protect boundaries and to promote mutual survival. Unfortunately in practice modern political systems are designed to control and regulate people, and through special interest groups and factions, to promote numerous agendas.[6] Within political systems, factions are groups of people who collectively attempt to enslave other people. Almost everyone tends to act out of their self-interests. This is hardly surprising as this is a fundamental principle of survival and sustaining energy flows. Whereas many people form groups as a means of avoiding feelings of isolation, some people also seek to dominate others to avoid that same feeling.[7] People form social groups either through a common territory or through tyranny, through cooperation or compulsion.[8] Political systems merely encourage this process to the point of class warfare, where one group of people tries to control other groups. Everybody is trying to guarantee their own economic security.[9] Thomas Paine attempted to summarize this process in his pamphlet Common Sense by writing, “Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, in its worst state an intolerable one.” The concept of government is not a necessary evil, but a natural outgrowth of individuals forming societies. Statism and political systems are destructive, and the necessity of that philosophy is open to discussion. The reason for this misbehavior is understood by observing basic human nature. There need be no mystery or conspiracy theories to explain why many political systems falter or fail. Without restraint, or more specifically, without respect for property, rights, and self-government, the normal and natural self-interest people possess tends to distort into greed, and individuals then tend to become lawless. Restraint exists within the structures of community living and customary law, but from behind the veil of dictatorial law, such restraints disappear because many actions are condoned under the color of law. History demonstrates that all people need knowable boundaries. When laws are subjective and objective property boundaries are clouded, people cannot act with reliable knowledge. Without restriction these attributes grow out of control, especially when individuals who have been “empowered” to protect property and rights are the very ones who do the trespassing. Much of the abuse arises from forgetting the purpose of the concept of government — to protect boundaries and to promote mutual survival. Through that concept some individuals are specially empowered to promote those goals. “Public servants” receive what are called “police powers.” However, just as there are limits to what the concept of government can accomplish, there are limits in exercising any so-called police powers. “Police powers” are not “group rights” but group privileges. No individual can empower another with rights not already possessed — only group privileges can be created. Therefore, “public servants” receive no special or extraordinary powers. The only power “public servants” receive is a contractual privilege to help protect boundaries. That, in a nutshell, is the limits of the so-called “police powers.” “Public servants” otherwise cannot exercise any so-called police powers.[10] Adjudicators and court judges contribute to this confusion by conveniently forgetting the purpose of the concept of government. Such people have become willing supporters of statism rather than remaining impartial, disinterested third parties. Often judges will refer to the “sovereign powers” of “the state.” Sovereignty is a concept implying ultimate or supreme control. The idea of “sovereignty” has roots from the Roman civil law, but sovereignty in that legal code was understood to be held by people, not magistrates or legislators. In the United States, originally there was no such thing as “sovereign powers” of “the state,” but Americans have quietly (and ignorantly) allowed this philosophy to persist. Through twistifications,[11] court judges routinely uphold actions of “public servants” through the so-called police power doctrine. The confusion arises partially because definitions are lacking. Does a political structure serve people or do people serve those managing the political structure? Who and what is a sovereign? Despite an attempt by the American Framers to create a new structure of government, they still were influenced by history and were products of their environment. Doctrines such as nuisance laws, eminent domain, and assumptions that certain businesses such as taverns and carriers could be “regulated,” or that property could be taken in the form of “taxation,” all have contributed to this confusion. Despite wishful thinking otherwise, Americans never have truly enjoyed dominion over their property.[12] Within America the idea of a “government of laws and not of men” remains an unknown ideal. Assuming complete innocence and lack of bias of judges, a challenge facing judges is the issue of “publicly” owned property. Because of the inherent nature of a political system, most legislation is the result of special agendas and not protection of boundaries and rights to property. Wealth often is being forcibly redistributed. Thus, judges often settle political disputes, not actions of torts.[13] Judges have little choice in the matter because the majority of the existing statutes are political in nature and not rooted in the principles of customary law or equity. Furthermore, this vagueness toward property titles encourages vague and uncertain doctrines such as deciding legal disputes based upon a “rational basis,”[14] or a “clear and present danger.”[15] An obvious question becomes “Rational or a clear and present danger according to whom?” Statists — those individuals who choose to live by the political means of survival? The only time the so-called police powers should be used, that is, the only time force and coercion may be used, is to help enforce and protect knowable boundaries. The concept of government exists to protect the boundaries of people, and those protections rest upon the two cornerstones of justice. Has trespass occurred? Should justice be served? Within social systems specific individuals are sometimes empowered to use force to help prohibit or compel behavior. When naturally existing rights and customary law are ignored, such force becomes tyrannical. Dictatorial laws often are enacted that rob people of the fruits of their labor and their property. This is a fundamental difference between customary law and dictatorial law. Customary law arising naturally rests upon the two cornerstones of justice. Fiat dictatorial law often rests upon the precepts of distorted self-interest (greed). Customary law is based upon the natural and scientific observations of the real world. Fiat law is based upon whims and desires. Customary law is self-regulating and consistent. Fiat law is difficult to control and inconsistent. Fiat law often is lawlessness operating under color of law.[16] The concept of liberty of action opposes such lawlessness. Liberty requires only that people live responsibly and respect the boundaries of other people. Pursue your happiness and do not trespass. Liberty encourages individuals to self-govern and self-regulate by choice, not by force. The principle of reciprocity encourages self-government and restraint. Yet, many individuals, once elected or appointed to administer specific duties often forget the very precepts upon which their ability and standing are derived. This behavior was James Madison’s great concern regarding factions. Madison recognized that factions never can be eliminated nor can the causes of factions, but hopefully the effects can be controlled.[17] Political systems are ideologically driven and ideas always precede actions.[18] What is life like under the philosophy of statism?[19] To be governed is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. Finis. Next: Chapter 24 — Social Contracts Endnotes [1] Walker, Money, pp. 44–48. [2] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 95. [3] Maine, The Ancient Law, pp. 15–16. [4] de Jasay, The State, p. 5. [5] Paraphrasing John Acton in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887. His actual words were “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” [6] Benson, The Enterprise of Law, p. 282. [7] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 31. [8] Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative, pp. 219, 225. [9] Thurow, The Zero-Sum Society, pp. 19–24. [10] Epstein, Takings, p. 112. [11] Thomas Jefferson used this word to describe the opinion of John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch) 137 (1803). [12] Ely, The Guardian of Every Other Right, pp. 4–5. [13] Benson, The Enterprise of Law, p. 282. [14] Epstein, Takings, p. 30. [15] Schenk v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). [16] Maybury, Whatever Happened to Justice?, pp. 170–171. [17] The Federalist Papers, No. 10. [18] Barnard, Draining the Swamp, p. 62. [19] Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, p. 294. |
||