Anarcho-Capitalism: Is it a worthwhile goal?

Anarcho-Capitalism is the idea of destroying Statism and boundaries and letting capitalism flow. The idea is that people will band together in communities and trade and what not through there. That currencies will be self-regulating and worker rights will happen out of capital, and would not need legislation.

Is this possible? The Commonwealth of Iceland can give us a dabble into the possibilities. While it did have a State and government, it was VERY laissez-faire, and the courts held very minimal power. There was no president, and no Congress. It had regional leaders, that you chose, and the country went nearly three centuries like this.

Was Iceland's fall poor economics, or how about capitalism greed? Not quite. Iceland's fall was it did not have enough capital in comparison to the bigger and wealthier Norway. The King of Norway wnated to vassalize Iceland so he sent a family member with more wealth than anyone in Iceland could make on their own. This family member would cause a series of civil wars and drive the country into chaos and force them to become Norway's newest vassal.

So, it comes from an impossibility, to being a quesiton. Can it work? I believe so. After learning about Hoppe's argumentation ethics, reading essays by Bastiat, Rothbard and Mises, I can see the rationality in a state-less society.

If you want to think that 19th century America is an example of why capitalism won't work, then you probably do not understand the fundementals of economics. Children worked long hours, but because the economy required it and their families did as well. If the labor laws that are in place today, were in place then, those families wouldn't have made it by. So, is that the fault of capitalism or that the economy doesn't have the wealth or technology to have a higher standard of living?

Myth: Kucinich is the Ron Paul of the Left

Fact: Kucinich is a party politican who is willing to concede principle for party reputation.

That's right! He met with President Obama on a few occassions and the last time was a plane ride before the legislation would be voted on. Dennis Kucinich disagreed with pretty much everything in the bill. He's a supporter of single-payer universal healthcare. This wasn't even close to that.

However, in his blog Mr. Kucinich says it is a step towards single-payer (which is laughable) and that it was to save Obama and the Democratic Party's reputation. By that, it means like how the Republicans pushed through "No Child Left Behind" and the Bush healthcare legislation that were seen as huge Conservative vicotories. He was worried they would get the same sort of treatment as is what happened during the Clinton presidency.

However, you are not going to see Ron Paul do this. Ron Paul voted for neither of those conservative victories. He has never done a party vote, strictly because it's partisan, he votes because he believes it is constitutional and fits his philosophy.

I used to believe Kucinich was like that, and while he might be more honest than most, he's definitely no Ron Paul.

Texas Board of Education to Demote Thomas Jefferson

Demote, like take him OUT of Enlightenment Curriculum. In a vote of 10-5 in a new standard for Texas Textbooks on the subject he is being replaced by such thinkers as St. Thomas Aquinas. Why would that be..?

Two new members of the Board - David Barton and Peter Marshall - whom are ideological Christians. They oppose the idea of seperation of church and state and I suppose would rather see a Theocracy replace our current government!

They suppose our founders wanted a Christian nation, depsite the first amendment proposed by James Madison and upheld by nearly all of our founders. To take Thomas Jefferson out of any curriculum on political thinkers of Enlightenment is completley insane.

Texas is a major influence when it comes to textbooks in this country and this is insanely dangerous. This is not a fight to take lightly, we must FIGHT and FIGHT hard. This has the potentially of totally destroying the foundations of this country. Moreso than any other single action, because it will bring America closer and more in line with it's European ancestory of perpetual war for centuries millenia.

What other things do they want to do? As I have noted, get rid of one of the greatest political minds in World history, especially concerning limited government and personal liberty, but to sensationalise an American Christian theocracy, destroy any gay rights movements in Texas.

They would rather uphold the ideas of Christian Nations that tyrannized Europe for centuries and laid no foundations for the liberties of humanity. Thomas Jefferson was one of those thinkers who was able to break the mold, as a founder of the country that brought liberty to a world shackled in oppression. Texas Board of Education would rather the future of Texas not know that, and think that theocracy is somehow a better form of government and that equality and liberty is not as important.

How To Pay For Healthcare Bill?

Many people have rightly asked, where is the funding going to come from? Many say they will cut spending in other areas to equal out.. however, anyone who has watched government and closely listened to it.. knows otherwise. Any time they give an estimate, you know it'll be much higher, or if they say it will equal out, it most certainly will not.

However, there is a way to save a trillion dollars a year and use it on Healthcare. Bring our troops home! Shut down military bases in all foreign countries. Not only will this save us money that we continue to borrow, but it will change our perception throughout the world.

We won't be the country who bosses nations around. We will be the nation who is benevolent and shows the world an example of a humble and great nation. We ought not to be the nation who demands people be like we are, we must show them how to act and let them choose for themselves.

The healthcare bill obviously has its flaws and is definitely not constitutional. Yet, that's not the biggest problem, it's the mere cost. The costs are not actually proven where the funding will come from, most likely because there is none. At the same time these wars won't end, and I don't see how we expect all these money sinks to be sustainable.

We have so many money sinks and this is just another one. Greece is not an anomaly.. Spain, Portugal and Ireland are potentially there. America might be years from such a prospect... but years isn't really that long of a time. You can't change over night, it's a grueling process and while Americans might not want to take it, it will happen one way or another, the Greek way is definitely the harder way.

End the Constitution of 1789?

Should we destroy the Constitution? Is it worth much anymore? Should we call about a Constitutional Convention and break this document that has stood for over two centuries? I say, yes! The Constitution is a document that is not followed anymore and isn't something most of our leaders care much for:

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” - George W. Bush

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated (sic) that individual Americans buy health insurance as (sic) not a “serious question.”

(Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971)

The Constitution that was written from 1787 to 1789 has some things not in it anymore. One of the checks upon Democratic vote was the Senate elected by the legislature rather than the people. That is gone. Another provision was no direct taxes on income.. we now have that. Gold and Silver were the only legal tender and the Congress was given the power to coin and not another. We no longer have Gold or Silver coins or backing and only worthless paper as our currency.. and not to mention a secret Central bank that is not audited and not regulated.

Our Republic was formed to unite the foreign peoples who had won their new indepdence and keep them from trade wars and European-styled deceit. It was not to make universal laws and have a powerful Central authority. This is what we have today, and it is something to fear. We ought to destroy this document and create a new. There is much to be said on this subject, but for now, I will leave you with a quote from the Market Anarachist Lysander Spooner:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

My Foreign Policy Intiative

America today holds a Foreign Policy that does not run parallel with almost all of the founding fathers from Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, from James Madison to Thomas Paine. We have fought one defensive war in the past 100 years, but have fought far more than one war during that time. It ought to be a time to re-think our foreign policy and to find how we can do this TODAY.

First thing I would do is bring troops home from ANY country that we are not at war with (any country not named Iraq or Afghanistan). Close down all military bases and hospitals in countries we are at peace with and have no inclusion in supplying those troops in current "War-Zones".

We ought to end foreign aide that destroys foreign economies and uses money that the United States cannot afford to give away. We ought to stop the practise of embargoes, and stop the "Free Trade Agreements" and just agree to free trade! How sensible of a policy would that be?

We ought to re-think the War on Terror and realise that we are no longer fighting to catch the perpetrators of September 11th, but to fight a perpetual war on Islamic extremism as the Romans fought a perpetual war against Pagan barbarianism. It is a war with no end and no victory, and "fighting to win" is essentially asking for perpetuity in the act of war.

Let's end drug laws, let's legalize drugs and stop putting innocent tax-paying citizens in jail where they don't belong. Let's stop it to save the lives of those caught in the battlefield of drug warfare that has been caused by universal prohibition of drugs. It serves no purpose other than to destroy the order that Government is meant to provide, otherwise should we embrace Anarchy since that is essentially what we are given?

If these things are brought, then are we to fear an attack? Any sensible person would have to say no, for you Reason and Think of what I propose you could not possibly come to a conclusion of a people having the ability to convince people to kill themselves for a peace-loving and peace-desiring nation. It is only when interventionism in foreign politics that will drive people to do terrorism.

What will the end result be of Iraq or Afghanistan if we "cut and run"? That they will align themselves with Iran or that they will be taken over by monarchical or despotic government? As if that is what we cared about? We are allied with Saudi Arabia who is in the same area as both countries!

Let us retreat, to not only save American lives, but also to bolster our National Defense and bolster our relationship on the international level. We will no longer be war isolationist, but trade enthusiasts! We will be non-interventions, not the example Japan showed us for centuries, but the one we executed from 1789 to 1918!

We ought to reconsider our positions on foreign policy, because it is the most important policy. Not only from a Liberty perspective but a moral perspective. It is the right thing to do for Liberty, as war is what props up despotic government be it monarchial, artistocratic or bureacratic and it will prevent the suffering of foreign peoples and our own peoples through the actions to attempt to stop that suffering. It will only make it worse, not better.

Is The CIA Needed?

The formation of the OSS during WWII to use counter-intelligence against Germany, Italy and Japan, which would later reform into the CIA. The CIA was created to protect America from deceptive and otherwise unseen threats and to gather intelligence. However, does the CIA protect America's interests, or is it a secret army of the President or a secret army of itself?

I think, it is both. It's secrecy allows it to do things that might be politically unpopular or otherwise imposslbe. Such as displacing political leaders of other nations or influencing political campaigns of other nations. There's a few examples of this, such as Operation Ajax in 1953 in Iran. Or, the CIA's funding of the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, which has ruled Japan for nearly every year since 1955. (Only years it has not are 1993, 1994, and 2009)

These are things we know the CIA has done, many of the things it does are classified, meaning 'We, the People' are not capable of knowing and it would endanger us to know. That would mean that the CIA is doing things that would endanger us, and if discovered, would definitely be harmful.

The CIA stands for Central Intelligence Agency, so why not gather intelligence and quit the secret special forces mantra? Is the CIA needed? I think not, because it has brought upon this world more things bad than good. For example:

- Islamic Republic of Iran was based on a revolution against a CIA-enabled Regime. They are not an enemy.

- CIA funded a group of freedom fighters that would later fund an attack on September 11, 2001

- CIA helped fund Iraq's war with Iran, that would later be dealt with in the Persian Gulf War and the Second Persian Gulf War. Did I mention they helped get Saddam Hussein (who ran as a 'socialist') elected?