Breach “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “breach” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and “Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

 

 

 

(Ballantine’s)

A break; a breaking; a violation; the violation of an obligation, engagement or duty; a hernia.

  • Breach of contract: a failure without legal excuse to perform any promise which forms a whole or a part of a contract, including the refusal of a party to recognize the existence of the contract or the doing of something inconsistent with its existence [National City Bank v. Erskine & Sones, 158 Ohio St 450, 49 Ohio Ops 395, 110 NE2d 598]; a nonperformance of any contractual duty of immediate performance; the breach may be total or partial, and may take place by failure to perform acts promised, by prevention, or hindrance, or by repudiation [Restatement, Contracts § 312].

(Bouvier’s)

  1. The violation of an obligation, engagement or duty; as a breach of covenant is the non-performance or violation of a covenant; the breach of a promise is non-performance of a promise the breach of a duty, is the refusal or neglect to execute an office or public trust, according to law.

  2. Breaches of a contract are single or continuing breaches. The former are those which are committed at one single time [Skin. 367; Carth. 289]. A continuing breach is one committed at different times, as, if a covenant to repair be broken at one time, and the same covenant be again broken, it is a continuing breach [Moore 242; 1 Leon. 62; 1 Salk 141; Holt 178; Lord Raym. 1125]. When a covenant running with the land is assigned after a single breach, the right of action for such breach does not pass to the assignee but if it be assigned after the commencement of a continuing breach, the right of action then vests in such assignee [Cro. Eliz. 863; 8 Taunt. 227; 2 Moore, 164; 1 Leon 62].

  3. In general the remedy for breaches of contracts, or quasi contracts, is by a civil action.

(Black’s)

The breaking or violating of a law, right, or duty, either by commission or omission.

  • In contracts: the violation or non-fulfillment of an obligation, contract, or duty.

    • A continuing breach occurs where the state of affairs, or the specific act, constituting the breach, endures for a considerable period of time, or is repeated at short intervals. A constructive breach of contract takes place when the party bound to perform disables himself from performance by some act, or declares, before the time comes, that he will not perform.

  • In pleading: this name is sometimes given to that part of th declaration which alleges the violation of the defendant’s promise or duty, immediately preceding the ad danmum clause.

    • Breach of close: the unlawful or unwarrantable entry on another person’s soil, land, or close [3 BL. Comm. 209].

    • Breach of covenant: the nonperformance of any covenant agreed to be performed, or the doing of any act covenanted not be done [Holthouse].

    • Breach of duty: in a general sens,e any violation or omission of a legal or moral duty. More particularly, the neglect or failure to fulfill in a just and proper manner the duties of an office or fiduciary employment.

    • Breach of pound: the breaking any pound or place where cattle or goods distrained are deposited, in order to take them back [3 Bl. Comm. 146].

    • Breach of privilege: an act or default in violation of the privilege of either house of parliament, of congress, or of a state legislature.

    • Breach of promise: violation of a promise; chiefly used as an elliptical expression for “breach of promise of marriage.”

    • Breach of the peace: a violation of the public tranquility and order. The offense of breaking or disturbing the public peace by any riotous, forcible, or unlawful proceeding [4 Bl. Comm. 142, et seq.; People v. Bartz, 53 Mich. 493, 19 N.W. 161; State v. White, 18 R. I. 473, 28 Atl. 968; People v. Wallace, 85 App. Div. 170, 83 N. Y. Supp. 130; Scougale v. Sweet, 124 Mich. 311, 82 N. W. 1061]. A constructive breach of the peace is an unlawful act which, though wanting the elements of actual violence or injury to any person, is yet inconsistent with the peaceable and orderly conduct of society. Various kinds of misdemeanors are included in this general designation, such as sending challenges to fight, going armed in public without lawful reason and in a threatening manner, etc. An apprehended breach of the peace is caused by the conduct of a man who threatens another with violence or physical injury, or who goes about in public with dangerous and unusual weapons in a threatening or alarming manner, or who publishes an aggravated libel upon another, etc.

    • Breach of trust: any act done by a trustee contrary to the terms of his trust, or in excess of his authority and to the detriment of the trust; or the wrongful omission by a trustee of any act required of him by the terms of the trust. Also the wrongful misappropriation by a trustee of any fund or property which had been lawfully committed to him in a fiduciary character.

    • Breach of warranty: in real property law and the law of insurance. The failure or falsehood of an affirmative promise or statement, or the non-performance of an executory stipulation [Hendricks v. Insurance Co., 8 Johns (N. Y.) 13; Fitzgerald v. Ben. Ass’n, 39 App. Div. 251, 56 N. Y. Supp. 1005; Stewart v. Drake, 9 N. J. Law, 139].

(Webster’s)

BREACH, n.

1. The act of breaking; or state of being broken; a rupture; a break; a gap; the space between the severed parts of a solid body parted by violence; as a breach in a garment, or in a wall.
2. The violation of a law; the violation or non-fulfillment of a contract; the non-performance of a moral duty; non-performance of duty being a breach of obligation, as well as a positive transgression or violation.
Every breach of the public engagements is hurtful to public credit.
3. An opening in a coast. [Not usual.]
4. Separation between friends by means of enmity; difference; quarrel.
5. Infraction; injury; invasion; as a breach upon kingly power.
6. Bereavement; loss of a friend and its consequent affliction.
7. A violation of the public peace, as by a riot, affray, or any tumult which is contrary to law, and destructive to the public tranquillity, is called a breach of the peace.

 

BREACH, v.t. To make a breach, or opening.

A Primer on Welfare Statism: Why You Should Never Accept a Government Handout

[Download a PDF of this article]

Statists who champion the systematic theft of private property do not understand fundamental property rights. These welfare statists not only commit verbicide with the very word “welfare,” but also clearly do not understand basic market dynamics, or even simple economics. What they do understand is that government is the only social institution that maintains a monopoly on the initiation of coercive force, and if they can seize control of it, they can dictate the “policy” of regularly stealing the wealth of a nation’s producers and doling out portions of it to those whom it does not belong.

 

Henry Hazlitt observed that:

 

“Everywhere we turn today we find the welfare state – the state that promises guaranteed jobs, guaranteed incomes, the guaranteed life, security from cradle to grave, the quick if not overnight elimination of poverty. And the principal way in which it undertakes to achieve these goals is to seize from those who have and give to those who have not.”

 

That statement, written in 1969, is just as true today in 2013 as it was back then. In fact, it has only grown worse because of the central bank’s deviousness that has resulted in many perversions, one of which is that the current number of Americans on food stamps, between FY 2011 and FY 2013, have increased from ~ 44,000,000 to ~ 47,000,000. No amount of minimum wage statutes, artificial job creation, or central planning is going to save them, or anyone else, for that matter. If the currency wasn’t being regularly debased through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing, which is only possible because of fractional reserve lending, then the power that the welfare state currently enjoys over the lives of the American people (both directly and indirectly) would become so greatly impaired as to be laughable.

It has become pandemic to expect something for nothing… free lunches, as it were. It matters not that true Christian charity is voluntary and best expressed through friendly societies, “liberal” statists only spout back what their masters have taught them; that only the welfare state, as an instrument of force by the government, can help the destitute, the unwed single mothers, and the ill.

The truth is, whatever institutionalized religion any of these sycophants claim to follow is nothing more than empty window dressing; what they truly worship, the God they actually bow to, what they really believe in, is the State. “Thou shalt not steal,” unless you can do it by way of government, then it’s just fine, isn’t it? If you call it “taxation” and “inflation,” it stops being a sin, right? After all, it was only your God that said you shouldn’t steal, but the State said it was okay. It’s pretty obvious which one outranks the other in their minds.

God said, “Thou shalt not covet,” but coveting is the lifeblood of the beast that is the State. Voters are taught to resent, despise, and hate anyone who has anything they don’t have. They clamor for the State to tear other people down, steal their property, and give it to them. And worst of all, it’s all done in the name of “fairness.” What is the endgame result of all this systematic thievery for you, though?

You end up suffering an excruciatingly slow death when you become hopelessly dependent upon the government, which is truly a gut wrenching experience. Much like a declawed cat or defanged snake, you incrementally begin to give up on life once you realize that you will never again exercise your natural powers. Day in and day out, time begins to waste away at your soul, whittling you down to a level below that of the animals. Right before you hit rock bottom is when you realize that you will never be the same again.

Probably the worst part of this whole mess is that the logical end of it ends in premature death, resulting from either gluttony or emaciation, until your heart gives out. All that will be left of you then, that anybody can find, is your skin and bones. At least during a war (or even a revolution), there is the possibility of “going out in a blaze of glory;” here, your early demise is quite anti-climatic, pathetic, and in vain. It literally will have become a waste of space.

Thus, the vicious cycle of not being to find the work you want, which exacerbates you becoming more socially secluded and physically degraded, wastes away at your very being and renders you that much more dependent on that which you resent the most – someone who has unwittingly sold out to the Establishment by being willing to take whatever scraps from the table that they allow you to keep. The most important thing that you can do is to reject the victim mentality by doing whatever it takes to get off the dole. So, what if the welfare state is enticing you with handouts that you happen to qualify for? Either make a detailed accounting whose money it really is and return it to them as soon as you are able, or better yet, improve your vocabulary and skill sets so you can create your own job and eventually become financially independent of both the corporations and the State.

At the end of the day, the victim mentality ultimately robs us of our individual sense of responsibility for our own lives. This notion that somehow you are entitled to goods and services, or even love and affection from your fellow man, is utterly repugnant to any concept of freedom. Love, like money, has its own currency and its own standard of value; neither are subject to the arbitrary whims of the unearned. The decision to invest, or to love, is inherently rooted in the premise that something (or someone) has earned a level of respect and admiration, otherwise it (or they) would not be valued. No claim of alleged “victimhood” provides the moral basis for any sort of entitlement, whether it be financial or emotional. Taking the virtue of responsibility seriously is the only reliable way of defeating the victim mentality.

Don’t be misled by those who make the claim that it is morally straight for you to apply for welfare entitlement benefits under the justification that it is somehow mystically “getting some of your tax money back.” By pursuing the acquisition of it, you are sanctioning the original theft, especially since there is no accurate accounting of whose wealth was stolen, and precisely how much from each individual. Do not pay your taxes if you must (provided you are willing to risk violating mala prohibita), but certainly at the very minimum DO NOT take other people’s money under the paper thin ex post facto rationalization that “it’s really only your own money coming back to you.” That’s just the fictional story you tell yourself in order to ease your own conscience by attempting to justify “doing unto others as they do unto me.”

Granted, because of the rampant statism that is incrementally engulfing us, nobody can liberate themselves entirely from the multifaceted tentacles of the government. For instance, it is impossible to avoid driving on the roads, or pay for even basic necessities without using Federal Reserve Notes (FRN); however, the caveat here is that what you are morally obligated to do is to actively reduce your complicity in the system where it is possible to do so. Fortunately, it is possible to not use the United States Postal Service and avoid voting, so there are decisions you can make.

My own personal favorite rationale for the welfare state is that, if I think it is immoral, I must be a racist. Well, geez, talk about a fallacious ad hominem argument, huh? So, if I oppose the initiation of force to steal from the productive and give some of the proceeds to those whom it does not belong, I am supposedly “intolerant” of those folks who happen to have a different ancestral lineage than I do? What absurdity the statists will come up with next, I cannot even fathom. Apparently, cheating the productive out of their wealth, by way of government, is perfectly okay so long as you belong to a collectivist ethnic group, such as La Raza, which, ironically, is blatantly racist, given their outspoken support for the Plan of San Diego. Of course, it’s considered “racist” for a “gringo” like me to remind everyone that even the tejanos don’t appreciate the illegals scampering across the border and violating their property rights.

Speaking of illegal immigrants….*ahem* “undocumented workers”… being used as pawns in order to break up the country as part of a larger game of world domination, the welfare state is also a mechanism with which to deindustrialize America and render her more susceptible to globalization. Now, some mainline libertarians get all confused and think that globalization is good so long as it is done in the name of “free trade,” not realizing of course that the Establishment only uses that term to obfuscate what they’re really up to, which is nothing less than an incremental step towards forming a superstate on this continent called the North American Union (NAU). The danger of this is that the NAU, with its concomitant currency known as the Amero, will replace both the FRNs as well as the U.S. Constitution; put another way, the formation of this superstate will move us out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Corporatism, and its tumor-riddled younger brother consumerism, is justified on the same grounds as the welfare state. The Madison Avenue social engineers unrelenting convey the notion that we are not intrinsically worthy, or otherwise just disastrously inept. For instance, just watch any men’s hygiene, cereal, or automobile advertisement, and it will be conveyed to you that you need some corporation’s product in order to “better yourself.” That, without them, you are nothing. By understanding also the predictive programming elements in films and televisions shows, you can decipher the values they are attempting to have you internalize as a way of life. Such devious mechanizations are all aimed at creating an artificial dependence on the Establishment.

If you really think about it, the warfare state itself is little more than a welfare entitlement benefit scheme. As Lew Rockwell wonderfully pointed out back in 1997, probably the worst example of an immoral cesspool that should frighten the pants off the conservative statists is the military base. Rockwell illustrates:

 

“Young people are put in distant places where they face no supervision from family or an organic community. They have little work to do and an abundance of discretionary income. Their housing, food, medical care, and clothing are provided at no charge by the government. Nobody need plan, for example, to come up with next month’s rent…[i]t’s no surprise that the military is riddled with sexual abuse: in their off-hours, these guys are feeding our tax dollars to naked performers. It reflects the absence of chivalry inherent in all government operations.”

 

He goes on to describe how illegal drug use is rampant, tattooing is normal, gambling is acceptable, and all manner of sexual profiteering have served as a magnet for once clean-cut middle-class communities. If there was one more reason to never voluntarily enlist in the military, it would be for the sake of your own soul.

Speaking of the imperialistic wars of aggression, it is true what the conservative statists say when they cite that the federal domestic spending on social insurance schemes and welfare entitlement benefits exceeds that of total military spending. In FY 2010, the Defense Department’s budget only comprised 20% of all federal spending (that is $689,000,000,000 out of the $3,456,000,000,000 total) yet Social Security alone accounted for a very similar 20% ($701,000,000,000), not to say anything of Medicare & Medicaid together comprising a whopping 23% ($793,000,000,000) or any other handouts, for that matter. 43% of the total federal budget (which is well over a $1,000,000,000,000) being allocated for Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid alone should legitimately concern anyone about the power and scope of the welfare state.

Psychopathic authoritarian statists are not known for releasing what control they have on the reigns of power. Conservative statists judgmentally denigrate anyone who has been harmed by the Establishment as being inherently worthless, when the truth is quite far from that. Liberal statists intrinsically don’t like people, for if they did, they would understand that if given half a chance, those “needy” people could be self-sustainable quite easily if you just left them the fuck alone. Both are grossly in error, and do not exhibit any slight notion of true Christian charity.

The free market is life itself. Everything we have, everything we’ve done, everything we are is because we chose (in some way, shape, or form) to provide for ourselves and our loved ones by extracting the raw natural resources from this absurdly abundant planet, and mixing it with our creative genius and physical labor. No propaganda or coercion was required; just some old fashioned self-interest is all that is needed for providing the fundamental motivation necessary to produce what we require to not only survive, but also to thrive. And that is something no corporation or government can ever take away from you.

Either you have a belief in the supremacy of the individual and trust people with their own self-determination (or at least possess a great appreciation for the rational selfishness inherently rooted in the dynamic processes of the free market), or you don’t. At the end of the day, this is what the philosophy of Liberty demands. You cannot half-ass it by insisting that there needs to be some “reasonable” regulations, or that the “community” needs to intervene in the personal decisions of others by way of government in utter violation of the very purpose and end of the Law; ultimately, both are forms of trespass upon the natural liberty and human dignity of individuals.

Are there any morally sound exceptions to accepting handouts from the welfare state? The only two that have been proffered thus far are the notions of the professional leech and the mole-type activist. A professional leech, on a version of a theme of “going Galt,” decides to go out and apply for every form of government handout available to him. Unlike those who suffer under the illusion of “getting some of your tax money back,” the professional leech already knows better, but does it anyway in the hope that it will bring the welfare state down….somehow. The only problem with this approach is that the professional leech runs the risk of still being genuinely dependent on the welfare state, as well as also being a total hypocrite. At that point, it would be better to be more consistent with the values you claim to follow by becoming self-reliant, which can be done very cheaply if you dumpster dive and live in a travel-trailer.

Claire Wolfe is noted in libertarian circles for suggesting that there are three types of activists: the agitator, the ghost, and the mole. It is the mole-type activist that I am concerned with here, for in this context, if you remain in your government job, you might be able to help the resistance in some way, shape, or form. While I can appreciate beating the secret police at their own game (or simply doing a workaround), I don’t think it is particularly wise for dissidents to choose this role, for the very simple reason that it is better suited for those disgruntled “civil servants” who desire to seek revenge against their current (or perhaps former) employers (they’re better suited at faking conformity, anyway). It is much more productive for all lovers of liberty who are currently government agents to become more consistent with the values they profess to follow by quitting their “public sector” offices and getting a real job within the remnants of the free market.

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, but in the interest of full disclosure, the one government handout I still willingly use is the local public library. The only reason I do this is because I am technically one of those 53% of all college graduates who are either unemployed or underemployed. I do realize that my good intentions for writing my own book reports as a way to increase my own liberty (as well as of those who also benefit from my literature reviews) is helping to pave the way to hell, yet I do not know what my other options realistically are, at this juncture. Pay for books from a corporation? I used to do that during Bush Jr.’s Reign of Terror, but I quickly realized any college textbooks you can get used, or for free, are just as good as brand new ones (unless the professor makes it compulsory for his students to get a particular edition, in which case, they’re screwed, as I was several times). Delay on reading and writing book reports until such time that I can comfortably afford purchases from said corporations? My answer to that is, how is wasting any more precious time, that I can never get back, going to be beneficial in terms of securing my liberties? Whatever sins I may have incurred from my previous actions and continuing behavior to still use the public library, they are mine solely to bear, and no one else’s.

I am simply trying to make the best of a bad situation, and if I am morally culpable for willingly benefiting from it, even minutely, then I freely choose to bear the cost of it, until such time I can free myself more completely. In other words, I am taking a guerrilla approach to the very act of acquiring temporary access to books for the purpose of trying to figure out how I can escape, and eventually destroy, the Establishment. As the fictional character, Professor de la Paz, said:

 

“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame… as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world… aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure. [emphasis added]”

 

Who knows? Perhaps I am allowing myself to be unproductively dismayed by self-knowledge of my own failure in this regard. I can only hope that my work can serve as a form of reparation, or even restitution, for my own faults as they may infringe upon the liberties and property of others; only time will tell.

So, what can be done to stop the welfare state? First, and most importantly, DO NOT ACCEPT any of the following:

 

  • Food stamps
  • Housing allowances
  • Medicaid
  • Medicare
  • Social Security
  • Corporate subsidies (even those subsidies for small businesses)
  • Government contracts (for example, the military-industrial complex is just another handout)
  • Government jobs (this includes, but is certainly not limited to, legislators, judges, bureaucrats, all of their assistants and staff, as well as soldiers and especially police officers)
  • Discretionary “guaranteed incomes”
  • Any other form of government handout, unique privilege (such as incorporation), or “special consideration” (usually via bribery…*ahem* “lobbying”).

 

As Hazlitt put it, “The only real cure for poverty is production.” While it is true that 6.8 million jobs were lost in the private sector between 2008 – 2010, 3.9 million jobs were added between 2010 – 2012, so the markets are trying to recover as best as they can (I find it humorously ironic that immediately as a result of the 2009 bailouts, 31 thousand some odd government jobs were added between 2008 – 2010, yet 475,704 government jobs were lost between 2010 – 2012). Of course, even the federal government’s own numbers demonstrate that total imports exceeds total exports; combine this with the real unemployment rate of 22.3%, as well as the astronomical increases in both the total budget deficit and the national debt, it should become clear that a service-based economy cannot not even maintain the accumulated wealth as exemplified in both physical infrastructure and personal property. Americans don’t even make anything anymore. If the welfare state is to be eventually defeated, a serious effort to reestablish a manufacturing base must be undertaken. Consider small-scale manufacturing, especially additive manufacturing such as 3D printing, using either abandoned factories you refurbish or even as something you can do in your own home.

Next, consider participating in the underground (or counter) economy. Before you make a decision though, realize first that this necessarily requires committing civil disobedience, thereby violating mala prohibita. If (or when) such time you are ready to take quite a profound step, make sure to prepare the ground ahead of time in order to reduce your chances of being caught by agents of the State. Remember, you are fundamentally trading risk for profit.

In the overall aggregate though, all of these previous recommendations really only serve to ameliorate the effects of the welfare state on your life alone. At this late hour, unfortunately, nothing less than a completely full out and widespread effort at regaining control of the current government structure from outside the mainline political process is going to stand even a modicum of a chance of actually working. The psychopathic authoritarian statists and their various despotic special interest cronies have so firmly entrenched themselves, using both the soft and hard powers of the State, that treating the rampant property theft and wealth redistribution schemes as if it were a single item political issue is already doomed to failure from the start. Fundamentally, the handouts are systematic and interwoven with other control mechanisms (such as fractional reserve lending and the warfare state), so even if you oppose their actions on principle, they still retain forceful control of the physical infrastructure that you must use in order to live, thus rendering you complicit, one way or another.

These welfare benefit entitlement handouts are nothing more than an insidious plot to devalue and denigrate the property, liberty, and even lives of the American people. It is a mockery of the philosophy of Liberty, of any sense of justice, and even of human dignity. Nobody who claims to be a follower of Christic principles (or who otherwise tries to be morally straight) is able to remain faithful, or even good, in the face of this totalitarian nightmare.

Travel-Trailer Homesteading Under $5,000

Home ownership is archetypical of the American Dream, but very few actually achieve it (at least in the sense of owning their homes “free and clear”). The American Reality is that everyone has a 30-year mortgage where, while you do get one house, you end up paying for three. Rural homesteading on the cheap might be the only realistic way to escape the trap of conformist suburbia.

 

 

Earning enough good money to be able to afford a mortgaged suburban home, driving new cars, paying the never-ending stacks of bills, and mindlessly shopping did not allow the author the time to just stop and smell the roses. Not having the precious time to write the books he wanted, or even think, he decides to take a vacation and pursue the vision he was able to have of owning his own property out in the country.

Unzoned counties, lack of covenants, and low taxes are considered desirable by Kelling when gauging where you want to buy land. It is best to pay the principal in full if at all possible, but barring that, pay as much of the principle initially so as to reduce the overall amount of interest you will have to pay when you send in your monthly payments. Tax liened properties are really only good for temporary real estate investment anyway, so don’t have any illusions about getting the property extra cheaply.

Admittedly, living in a 1972 Concord Traveler is much more probable with a hermit bachelor rather than a couple, much less a small family. Skirting the trailer is beneficial for improvising some storage underneath the floor board (perhaps as an impromptu basement?). At the very least, it’s much more plausible than my original idea that I had, during my intemperate youth, when I wanted to live in the back of a van.

Constructing a septic system can also be done on the cheap, so making do with an outhouse is no longer your only option. Having a pickup truck is not only necessary to move the travel-trailer, but also to haul water (since installing your own well is cost prohibitive, at least initially for the time being). Using a combination of solar panels and electric generators should be more than enough to supply power to your intrepid homestead.

Brian Kelling’s Travel-Trailer Homesteading Under $5,000 is an unique look at how escaping urbanization can be done on a budget. In terms of the necessary sequence of events, I can see Kelling’s book being the first one you should read if you are seriously considering moving out to the sticks. Even if you want to live in a nice log cabin home like the one Robert Williams built, you’ll still need a place to live in the interim for a few years, which is where the travel-trailer comes in. Also, canning your own food becomes economically feasible as well, even while you’re still living in your travel-trailer. Keep in mind though that this book was published in 1999, so in terms of homesteading for less than $5,000, make sure to account for inflation.

Man vs. The Welfare State

All species of parasites are inherently greedy for the resources that their hosts naturally accumulate. They suck them dry nearly to death, regardless of the danger to the existence of them both. Such creatures are at odds with the very nature of reality, for they expect something for nothing.

 

 

As the author clearly states:

 

“The welfare state can arise and persist only by cultivating and living on a set of economic delusions in the minds of the voters.”

 

These delusions are only possible because those voters are gullible and don’t understand the difference between corporatism and capitalism (much less the free market itself). The “monopolistic pricing” that Hazlitt claims is the real problem, as promulgated by the corporations, is only possible because of the undue favor that these corporations receive from the government, at the cost to both customers and actual entrepreneurs. Confusing corporate fat cats, who privatize gains while simultaneously socializing losses, with the truly entrepreneurial industrialists, who privatize both gains and losses, is intellectual dishonesty on its face.

Henry Hazlitt rips apart the welfare State by showing how it is inimical to economic liberty. Currency debasement, minimum wage statutes, price controls, subsidized agriculture, social insurance, guaranteed income, artificial job creation, corporate taxation, central planning, foreign aid, unlimited administrative rule-making, monetary inflation, and perpetual debt all clearly demonstrate how prosperity can not be created out of the barrel of a gun. No one’s liberty is safe when sycophantic totalitarians advocate and enforce their unrealistic desires by way of government.

Take for instance, the utterly fallacious pretext that charity must be provided to the poor through the force of government. As Hazlitt describes it:

 

“Let me add that the argument that we must respect the liberty of the poor by giving them handouts solely in cash is spurious from still another standpoint. It overlooks the liberties of the industrious and prudent people from whom money is being either withheld or seized, in order to pay the cash handouts. It makes no sense to preserve the ‘liberty’ of the irresponsible at the expense of the liberty of the responsible.”

 

What is at play here is a lack of understanding about property rights on the part of the welfare statists. If they had wanted to support the poor, they are perfectly at liberty to do so through private charities and the friendly societies of old, but they are not free to infringe on the natural liberty of others by stealing their justly acquired property through government coercion. Hazlitt observes:

 

“Everywhere we turn today we find the welfare state – the state that promises guaranteed jobs, guaranteed incomes, the guaranteed life, security from cradle to grave, the quick if not overnight elimination of poverty. And the principal way in which it undertakes to achieve these goals is to seize from those who have and give to those who have not.”

 

The pervasive nature of the Nanny State is paternalistic in the extreme, and is insulting to any notion of responsibility. While some humans unfortunately need to be governed because of their irresponsibility, I don’t think it is fair for those who are responsible adults to be penalized by the government for what the irresponsible children do, or not do.

I find Hazlitt’s support of the night-watchman state to be ironic. On one hand, Hazlitt admits:

 

“The State is a shadowy entity that apparently gets its money out of some fourth dimension. The truth is, of course, that the government has nothing to give to anybody that it doesn’t first take from someone else.”

 

But on the other, he seems to radically change his tune:

 

“The essential function of the State is to maintain peace, justice, law, and order, and to protect the individual citizen from aggression, violence, theft, and fraud. More than a century ago Herbert Spencer was pointing out that ‘in assuming any office besides its essential one, the State begins to lose the power of fulfilling its essential one.’ As more and more functions are assumed by the State, the truth of this becomes more and more obvious.”

 

So, which is it? Hazlitt also seems pretty confused on how to apply the Non-Aggression Principle:

 

“Again we need not accept Spencer’s own ‘first principle’ (as laid down in his Social Statics in 1850) for determining the function of law and the limits of the State: ‘Every man has freedom to do all he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.’ Taken literally, this could be interpreted to mean that a thug has the right to stand at a corner with the club and beat over the head everybody who comes round it, provided he acknowledges the right of any of his victims to do the same.”

 

Acting on Spencer’s behalf in order to rebut Hazlitt’s interpretation, I will say that the thug with the club beating everybody is a criminal initiating force upon those whom he arbitrarily chooses (much like government), and thus, he is in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Probably the reason why Hazlitt views this the way he does is because he gives primary credence to the Common Law:

 

“At least, Spencer’s principle seems to permit any amount of mutual annoyance except constraint. It is entirely true, as Locke pointed out, that ‘the end of the law is, not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.’ But the only short formula we can use to describe the function of the law would be that it should maximize liberty, order, and happiness by minimizing constraint, violence, and harm. The detailed application of any such simple formula presents many difficulties and problems. We need not go into them here, except to say that the Common Law, developed from ancient custom and a hundred thousand decisions of judges, has been solving problems through the ages, and that in our age jurists and economists have been further refining these decisions.”

 

While Hazlitt seems to support the absence of restraint upon economic liberty, he would seem to be more than happy with monopolistic courts and police, which is at the root of statism. It is statism that eventually gave rise to the very existence of the welfare state that he is ostensibly opposed to in the first place! I will give Hazlitt the benefit of the doubt anyway, since he is a minarchist (and thus a lover of liberty), even if his notion of “the rule of law” does absolutely nothing to provide actual justice since the courts are subject to an authoritarian rebel government.

So, what is to be done about this state of affairs? Hazlitt concludes that:

 

“The condition of poverty, moreover, is relative rather than absolute…. [t]he only real cure for poverty is production.”

 

Just as there is sliding scale between tyranny and liberty, there is likewise one between poverty and production, in the sense that the more of one there is, the less there is of the other. If you detest tyranny, you must increase liberty; if you loathe poverty, you must increase production. Also be wary of those who advocate or enforce the Galbraith thesis of central planning; they are the statists who want to render you impotent:

 

“When we discuss ‘economic planning.’ we must be clear concerning what it is we are talking about. The real question being raised is not plan or no plan, but whose plan?….[n]ow the Planner wants to substitute his own plan for the plans of everybody else. At best, he wants the government to lay down a Master Plan to which everybody else’s plan must be subordinated…..[t]he natural conclusion from all this – and Galbraith does not hesitate to draw it – is that consumers ought to be deprived of freedom of choice, and that government bureaucrats, full of wisdom – of course, of a very unconventional wisdom – should make their consumptive choices for them. The consumers should be supplied, not with what they themselves want, but with what bureaucrats of exquisite taste and culture think is good for them.”

 

Unfortunately, I do take issue with Hazlitt’s other recommendations, especially his notion that if libertarians simply provided a better intellectual defense in more specialized areas of government policy, then that will eventually help us secure our Liberties. What he fails to understand is that at the end of the day, the only thing that counts is force, whether it be the immoral initiation of coercion or morally sound self-defense (and this also includes its collective version, the right of revolution). Sure, other things can serve as support functions, but the crux of this lies primarily in the action and movement within this realm of reality, not clever rhetoric that almost nobody takes seriously. Hazlitt lists his other suggestions thusly:

 

  1. We must start reducing the grossly extended powers of all levels of government; local, State, and Federal.
  2. Stop the profligate spending.
  3. To stop the inflation, the government must stop expanding the issue of paper money and credit.
  4. Repeal all minimum wage laws.
  5. Let the government refrain from all ‘guidelines’ for prices or wages, all controls of prices, wages, interest rates or rents, and all threats of such controls.
  6. Stop the continuous increase in the national burden of Social Security, housing subsidies, farm subsides, and the rest of the proliferating ‘antipoverty’ programs.
  7. The graduated personal income tax should be abandoned in favor of a strictly proportional income tax.
  8. The present appalling power and omnipresence of government must be forced back within tolerable limits.

 

The fundamental problem here is that Hazlitt is assuming that the mainline political process still works in terms of securing anyone’s liberty. All that this “eight point program” demonstrates is that Hazlitt is no strategist. It is going to take much, much more than simply free market economic analysis to secure our Liberties.

Henry Hazlitt’s Man vs. The Welfare State is an decent examination into the system of welfare benefit entitlement handouts, given from the Austrian perspective. This book is best for those who are still trying to see through the fog, as well as for those dissidents who don’t yet have a firm grasp of market dynamics. Otherwise, Hazlitt’s book is completely useless, especially considering that his suggestions are completely impractical. Assuming that there is somehow a peaceful solution to the problem of statism is naïve in the extreme. Tyrants never give up their power willingly, and betting that by pleading and begging psychopathic authoritarian statists to “please, be nice” to us is a gamble that we are sure to lose.

Warfare State

Imperialistic wars of aggression are the State at its finest. In one arena, you have the central bankers exercising their monopoly over the issuance of currency and credit, giving more and more loans to the government; in another, the corporatists are selling incredibly expensive high-tech equipment to the military, with very little competition, thanks to government regulation. The only reason to whip up war hysteria, via the corporate whore media, is to propagandize the parents of those who are within fighting age to go fight and die for the State; other than that, the government and its various special interest cronies can (and do) run their games of military conquest without appealing to the hapless citizenry, because they simply do not need them.

At the root of it, though, are all three branches of the federal government; the Congress either fails to formally declare war (as required by the Constitution) or tacitly consents to whatever the President wants to do. The Executive Office of the President has been formally and informally endowed with such incredible powers that it dwarfs the European monarchs of old, and the Supreme Court either refuses to hold the other two branches accountable for their unconstitutional violations, or worse, tacitly consents to whatever the Congress or President wants to do. This unmitigated tyranny is ironically accomplished through a paradoxical combination of systematic acquiescence and deliberate corruption.

It isn’t just the neocons that are the problem, but also the liberal statists who flippantly acquiesced to whatever the chicken-necked war hawks wanted to do, lest they be perceived by some as being “too soft.” This is why the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq lasted as long as it did, and why the undeclared War in Afghanistan is still ongoing today. Keep in mind though, all of this is happening without a formal declaration of war from the Congress, which is unconstitutional on its face, and thus is worthy of punishment for those who “authorized” these travesties upon the property, liberty, and lives of foreigners (and even against some of the domestic citizenry alike). What is it going to take, to paraphrase Adam Kokesh, to understand that the enemies of the old Republic are not to be found in the sands of some far off land, but right here at home?

You cannot be fiscally conservative and enthusiastically support these imperialistic wars of aggression. While it is true that conservative statists will cite the federal domestic spending on social insurance schemes and welfare entitlement benefits as exceeding that of total military spending, what they oh-so-conveniently neglect to mention is that total military spending has increased exponentially at least since 2000, from ~ $300,000,000,000 to over $700,000,000,000. How does a steady increase of $400,000,000,000 over 10 years fit any notion of fiscal conservatism? If anything, it would seem to indicate that the chicken hawks are just as conspicuous consumers of central banking like their liberal statist counterparts seem to be, at least in principle.

What of the devastation in the countries that experienced the wars firsthand? Body counts for the Iraqi invasion and subsequent occupation range from 111,152 – 121,465 people. The death toll for Afghans is worse in one sense because it is so imprecise; the most accurate figures currently available suggest that between 15,500 – 17,400 civilians were killed by coalition forces over the past ten years. Depleted uranium rounds affect all humans in, and adjacent to, the battlefield. After experiencing the house of horrors that was Abu Gharib, is it any wonder that foreigners the world over look upon the notion of American Exceptionalism with suspicion? Who, in good conscience, could blame them?

Consider also all the soldiers who aren’t killed in action; when they come back stateside, what becomes of them? The suicide rate for returning veterans, as of 2012, averaged one a day. Soldiers who have been deployed overseas during the past 6 years have a 20 % chance of being diagonosed with PTSD (that’s 300,000 plus service members experiencing nightmarish flashbacks on a regular basis). In 2011, returning veterans had an unemployment rate of 30.4%. Such does not bode well for these former soldiers at all.

What if it had been Americans on the receiving end of imperialistic occupation? Just as Ron Paul said in his now legendary “Imagine” speech, what if Texas was invaded and occupied by the Chinese Communists? Would the “insurgents” be justified in defending their homes and communities against a criminal aggressor that could literally care less about their families, property, or liberty? Or would they be considered as “freedom fighters” by those living in the unoccupied “free America” areas outside of Texas? Might the other 49 states of the Union just might consider sending aid and supplies to the Texan resistance? How would this be any different from Allied assistance towards the Maquis in France during the last world war?

But if you were to believe the chicken hawks (none of whom ever had to dodge a bullet in their lives), you’d think that just because they’ve illegally declared the enemy to be brown-skinned heathens (because they worship a different, albeit monotheistic, deity than most Americans do), then of course they must be evil and somehow vindictive towards American Exceptionalism, right? Can’t possibly bear the thought that they just might be a tad bit ticked off at having to deal with multi-national conglomerates ruining their nation. Is it possible they simply want to be left alone in order to determine, on their own merits, what they want to develop into without undue influence and pressure on their natural folkways? Banish the thought!

It should become apparent to anyone now that it matters not whether authoritarian communists or totalitarian fascists inhabit the White House or the United States Capitol; the Establishment always remains in power. There are no exceptions to this rule. You cannot “infiltrate” the State and turn it against itself. Arguably, the best attempt at doing just this were Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns; and he failed, miserably. Despite running on a firm antiwar stance that served as the third key pillar of his platform, Dr. Paul still could not secure the GOP nomination both times, despite his well-known popularity amongst the grassroots.

Sincere liberal statists would have to agree that the Tyrant-in-Chief lied about bringing the troops home, and thus it should come as no surprise to anyone that significant portions of these folks supported Ron Paul, if for no other reason than his promise to permanently end the military adventures abroad, should he be elected. Some have speculated that even if President Paul had initiated recalling the troops stateside, it wouldn’t have mattered, for either the bankers or the corporatists (perhaps both) wouldn’t hesitate to assassinate the good doctor. Unfortunately, we’ll never know that for certain.

Some think that if you resist war taxes, regardless of your specific political ideology, then at least you can be an effective activist. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially if you understand economics. As former Federal Reserve Bank of New York Chairman Beardsley Rumi said:
 

“The dollars the government spends become purchasing power in the hands of the people who have received them. The dollars the government takes by taxes cannot be spent by the people, and, therefore, these dollars can no longer be used to acquire the things which are available for sale. Taxation is, therefore, an instrument of the first importance in the administration of any fiscal and monetary policy.”

 

In other words, the government doesn’t even need taxation; it can fund most of its tyrannical actions through debt and inflation, both of which are conducted by the central bank anyway. One of the brighter pupils in the class would ask, at this point, that if the government technically doesn’t need taxes, then why does it have a tax code that it enforces upon the overall population in the first place? Perhaps more importantly, if all of those monies aren’t being allocated towards domestic spending (whether they be applied to physical infrastructure, social insurance scams, or welfare benefit entitlement schemes), then where does the tax money go? Mostly, it ends in up in the hands of the bankers, for the ostensible reason of paying the interest on the national debt that was incurred when those congresscritters wanted something for nothing, and all they got for nothing was less than nothing.

While resisting paying taxes is good in principle, it is currently little more than a diversion intended to stir up deep seated emotional reactions towards systematic property theft (which interestingly enough, are curiously absent when it comes to debt and inflation), the effects of which have been used to divert the necessary energies for securing our Liberties towards a specific effort that, at best, can only offer marginal successes (if that), and at worst, steer necessarily finite labors away from those other things that can actually have a realistic chance of permanent success.

If elections and tax resistance are not going to cut it, then what will work in stopping the imperialistic wars of aggression? At this late hour, unfortunately, nothing less than a completely dedicated widespread effort at regaining control of the current governmental structure from outside the mainline political process is going to work. The corporate war profiteers and psychopathic authoritarian statists have so firmly entrenched themselves, using both the soft and hard powers of the State, that treating the wars as if it were a single item political issue is already doomed to failure from the start. Fundamentally, the wars are systematic and interwoven with other control mechanisms (such as fractional reserve lending), so even if you oppose their actions on principle, they still retain the forceful coercion of government to make you complicit, one way or another.

So, how does one get started with an all out effort to “take our country back?” I would suggest taking some relatively small, yet significant, steps at the beginning. First, never voluntarily join the military; if the costs of being chronically unemployed, suffering from PTSD, or meeting the Almighty a whole lot sooner than you would have liked isn’t sufficient reason for you, then you should also consider the fact that you are morally culpable for your own individual actions during your tour(s) of duty, even if you were “just following orders.” If you are already a veteran, then I most strongly implore you to find liberty loving Americans and teach them how to defend themselves using the skills you learned in the military, preferably working them up to the point where they become proficient in small unit tactics (whether you do this on a pro bono basis, or for a nominal fee, is your choice).

Second, I must insist that you study how to conduct a “people’s war.” Many libertarians, especially, misunderstand how (counter) revolutions work, or what is needed to actually make them happen. What they fail to realize is that the right of revolution is the foundational basis for the civil disobedience they revere so much; guerrilla warfare is the next rational step once the Law has failed to secure our property and liberty, because partial or universal plunder reigns supreme through the coercive arbitrary edicts from the State. Any government that is powerful enough to commit democide against foreign nations with impunity, is also powerful enough to commit democide against you and your family, by first depriving you of your property, then your liberty, and eventually your life; and worst of all, they can choose to do it any damn time they wish.

The imperialistic wars of aggression by the military-industrial complex are immoral, illegal, and totally destructive not only to those foreigners physically affected by it, but also to our very way of life right here at home. It is a mockery of the philosophy of Liberty, of any sense of justice, or even of common decency. Nobody who claims to be a follower of Christic principles (or who otherwise tries to be morally straight) is able to remain faithful or good if they don’t oppose, in some way, the absolute domination of other peoples that is committed in their name. Now is the time to make a choice as to where you stand during this on-going process of making history that we all participate in.

Public “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “public” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and “Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

 

 

 

(Ballantine’s)

Adjective: Belonging to the entire community. Unrestricted in participation.

Noun: The people. The populace; the community. “That vast multitude, which includes the ignorant, the unthinking, and the credulous, who, in making purchases, do not stop to analyze, but are governed by appearance and general impressions” [J. W. Collins Co. v. F. M. Paist Co. (DC Pa) 14 F2d 614].

It is conceded that the public does not mean all the people in the state or any county or town. The public is a term used to designate individuals in general without restriction or selection [Garkane Power Co. v. Public Service Co. 98 Utah 466, 100 P2d 571, 132 ALR 1490].

The word sometimes has the meaning of international sometimes national, and sometimes state [see Morgan v. Cree, 46 Vt 773].

 

(Bouvier’s)

  1. By the term the public, is meant the whole body politic, or all the citizens of the state; sometimes it signifies the inhabitants of a particular place; as, the New York public.

  2. A distinction has been made between the terms public and general, they are sometimes used as synonymous. The former term is applied strictly to that which concerns all the citizens and every member of the state; while the latter includes a lesser, though still a large portion of the community [Greenl. Ev. 128].

  3. When the public interests and its rights conflict with those of an individual, the latter must yield [Co. Litt. 181], if, for example, a road is required for public convenience, and in its course it passes on the ground occupied by a house, the latter must be torn down, however valuable it may be to the owner. In such a case both law and justice require that the owner shall be fully indemnified.

  4. This term is sometimes joined to other terms to designate those things which have a relation to the public; as, a public officer, a public road, a public passage, a public debt.

(Black’s)

Pertaining to a state, nation, or whole community; proceeding from, relating to, or affecting the whole body of people to, or affecting the whole body of people or an entire community. Open to all; notorious. Common to all or many; general; open to common use [Morgan v. Cree, 46 Vt. 786, 14 Am. Rep. 640; Crane v. Waters (C. C.) 10 Fed. 621; Austin v. Soule, 36 Vt. 650; Appeal of Eliot, 74 Conn. 586, 51 Atl. 558; O’Hara v. Miller, 1 Kulp (Pa.) 295].

  • A distinction has been made between the terms “public” and “general.” They are sometimes used as synonymous. The former term is applied strictly to that which concerns all the citizens and every member of the state; while the latter includes a lesser, though still a large, portion of the community. [1 Greenl. Ev §128].

As a noun, the word “public” denotes the whole body politic, or the aggregate of the citizens of a state, district, or municipality [Knight v. Thomas, 93 Me. 494, 45 Atl. 499; State v. Luce, 9 Houst. (Del.) 396, 32 Atl. 1076; Wyatt v. Irrigation Co., 1 Colo. App. 480, 29 Pac. 906].

  • Public appointments: public offices or stations which are to be filled by the appointment of individuals, under authority of law, instead of by election.

  • Public building: one of which the possession and use, as well as the property in it, are in the public [Pancoast v. Troth, 34 N. J. Law, 383].

  • Public law: that branch or department of law which is concerned with the state in its political or sovereign capacity, including constitutional and administrative law, and with definition, regulation, and enforcement of rights in cases where the state is regarded as the subject of the right or object of the duty, – including criminal law and criminal procedure, – the law of the state, considered in its quasi private personality, i.e as capable of holding or exercising rights, or acquiring and dealing with property, in the character of an individual [see Holl. Jur. 106, 300]. That portion of law which is concerned with political condition; that is to say, with the powers, rights, duties, capacities, and incapacities which are peculiar to political superiors, supreme and subordinate [Aust. Jur]. “Public law,” in one sense, is a designation given to “international law,” as distinguished from the laws of a particular nation or state. In another sense, a law or statute that applies to the people generally of the nation or state adopting or enacting it, is denominated a public law, as contradistinguished from a private law, affecting only an individual or a small number of persons [Morgan v. Cree, 46 Vt. 773, 14 Am. Rep. 640].

  • Public offense: a public offense is an act or omission forbidden by law, and punishable as by law provided [Code Ala. 1886, § 3699, Ford v. State, 7 Ind. App. 567, 35 N. E. 34; State v. Cantieny, 34 Minn. 1, 24 N. W. 458].

  • Public passage: a right, subsisting in the public, to pass over a body of water, whether the land under it be public or owned by a private person.

  • Public place: a place to which the general public has a right to resort; not necessarily a place devoted solely to the uses of the public, but a place which is in point of fact public rather than private, a place visited by many persons and usually accessible to the public [see State v. Welch, 88 Ind. 310; Gomprecht v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 434, 37 S. W. 734; Russell v. Dyer, 40 N. H. 187; Roach v. Eugene, 23 O. 376, 31 Pac. 825; Taylor v. State, 22 Ala. 15].

  • Public purpose: in the law of taxation, eminent domain, etc. this is a term of classification to distinguish the objects for which, according to settled usage, the government is to provide, from those which, by the like usage, are left to private interest, inclination, or liberality [People v. Salem, Tp. Board, 20 Mich. 485, 4 Am. Rep. 400, see Black Const. Law (3d Ed.) p. 454, et seq.

  • Public service: a term applied in modern usage to the objects and enterprises of certain kinds of corporations, which specially serve the needs of the general public or conduce to the comfort and convenience of an entire community, such as railroads, gas, water, and electric light companies.

  • Public, true, and notorious: the old form by which charges in the allegations in the ecclesiastical courts were described at the end of each particular.

  • Public use: in constitutional provisions restricting the exercise of the right to take private property in virtue of eminent domain, means a use concerning the whole community as distinguished from particular individuals. But each and every member of society need not be equally interested in such use, or be personally and directly affected byt it; if the object is to satisfy a great public want or exigency, that is sufficient [Gilmer v. Line Point, 18 Cal. 229; Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517, 12 Sup. Ct. 468, 36 L. Ed. 247].

  • Public ways: highways [q. v.]

  • Public welfare: the prosperity, well-being, or convenience of the public at large, or of the whole community as distinguished from the advantage of an individual or limited class [see Shaver v. Starrett, 4 Ohio St. 499].

(Webster’s)

PUB’LIC, a. [L.publicus, from the root of populus, people; that is, people-like.]

1. Pertaining to a nation, state or community; extending to a whole people; as a public law, which binds the people of a nation or state, as opposed to a private statute or resolve, which respects an individual or a corporation only. Thus we say, public welfare, public good, public calamity, public service, public property.
2. Common to many; current or circulated among people of all classes; general; as public report; public scandal.
3. Open; notorious; exposed to all persons without restriction.
           Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded    to put her away privily. Matt.1.
4. Regarding the community; directed to the interest of a nation, state or community; as public spirit; public mindedness; opposed to private or selfish.
5. Open for general entertainment; as a public house.
6. Open to common use; as a public road.
7. In general, public expresses something common to mankind at large, to a nation, state, city or town, and is opposed to private, which denotes what belongs to an individual, to a family, to a company or corporation.

Public law, is often synonymous with the law of nations.

 

PUB’LIC, n. The general body of mankind or of a nation, state or community; the people, indefinitely.

The public is more disposed to censure than to praise.

In this passage, public is followed by a verb in the singular number; but being a noun of multitude, it is more generally followed by a plural verb; the public are.

In public, in open view; before the people at large; not in private or secrecy.

In private grieve, but with a careless scorn,
In public seem to triumph, not to mourn.

Eat the Rich

The Establishment, especially through their organ of the corporate whore media, makes it a point to overcomplicate the field of economics to where it becomes utterly incomprehensible for the average man. If individuals understood that property rights formed the foundation for their own natural liberty, then people would appreciate what property they already owned, built, voluntarily traded for, and homesteaded. Realizing this, captive minds are freed from propagandized misconceptions (like the supposed validation of the tragedy of the commons and the broken window fallacy), and this gives the power back to them, instead of reinforcing this horrid system of democratically flavored indentured servitude where everyone belongs to everybody else, as long as the majority is persuaded to agree and you are allowed to choose your own occupation.

 

 

“Why are some places wealthy and other places poor?,” forms the driving question the author postulates for this book. He also tries to decipher among the three concerns of humanity – love, death, and money – why the first two are clearly understood and ceaselessly recycled in popular culture but anything to do with money is not. Actually, what he fails to realize is that microeconomics IS macroeconomics; whatever are the principles of voluntary exchange on an individual basis are just as applicable on any larger scope, whether that be an entire business, a whole industry, or even a border delineated State. If you already understood that the individual forms the necessary basis for any sort of collective, then you also understand that you cannot subjugate or even ignore the individual at the behest of the collective, whether that collective be a country, the economy, or even a family.

While I would agree that (satirically speaking) Cuba is an example of “bad” socialism whereas Sweden has “good” socialism, O’Rourke’s claim that Wall Street is evocative of “good” capitalism is really far off the mark. If O’Rourke understood corporatism, then he would have to acknowledge that Wall Street does not produce anything of real value, besides the fact that they are intensely regulated by the government. And Albania does not exemplify “bad” capitalism; it is more evocative of some post-apocalyptic hellhole with everyone scavenging for whatever happens to be left (they’re not exactly big on production, even with regards to manufacturing).

It is truly too bad that Hong Kong was ceded to the Communists by the British in 1997. As O’Rourke describes the inhabitants:

 

“The bippity-beep of cell phones all but drowns the air-conditioner racket. And each time a cell phone rings, everyone within earshot goes into a self-administered frisk, patting himself down to find the wee gadget. You can go weeks without talking to an answering machine, because you’re not really dialing a telephone, you’re dialing an armpit, purse, shirt pocket, or bikini top.”

 

Apparently, entrepreneurship was alive and well, at least until the Hong Kong industrialists had to comprise with the ChiComs and establish “Chinese-styled” corporatism for their own survival.

P. J. O’Rourke’s Eat the Rich: A Treatise on Economics is pretty good satire on market behavior. As he sums up:

 

“A belief in the free market means a belief that people have an innate right to the fruits of their endeavors, and the right to dispose of that fruit the way they see fit, as long as other people don’t get pasted in the face with a rotten peach or something.”

 

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Trespass “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “trespass” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and “Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

 

 

 

(Ballantine’s)

A misfeasance, transgression, or offense which damages another’s person, health, reputation, or property [Cox v. Strickland, 120 Ga 104, 47 SE 912]. In the widest application of the term, any transgression or offense against the laws of nature or society whether relating to person or property [Grunson v. State, 89 Ind 533]. The equivalent of tort or wrong [Bichenor v. Hayes, 41 NJL 193]. An unauthorized entry on another’s property [Holler v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. (CA2 NY) 265 F 192, 17 ALR 823, 825]. A common-law form of action which lies for the recovery of damages inflicted by the direct application of force. An action which lies whenever an injury is the immediate result of the force originally applied by the defendant, and the plaintiff is injured thereby [52 Am J1st Tresp § 2].

In its widest signification, trespass means any violation of law. In its most restricted sense, it signifies an injury intentionally inflicted by force either on the person or property of another. But still has a signification in law much more narrow than the first, and more enlarged than the second meaning given, and embraces all cases where injury is done to the person or to property, and is the indirect result of wrongful force [Hill v. Kimball, 76 Tex 210, 13 SW 59].

 

(Bouvier’s)

  1. An unlawful act committed with violence, ti et armis, to the person, property or relative rights of another. Every felony includes a trespass, in common parlance, such acts are not in general considered as trespasses, yet they subject the offender to an action of trespass after his conviction or acquittal (see civil remedy).

  2. There is another kind of trespass, which is committed without force, and is known by the name of trespass on the case. This is not generally known by the name of trespass (see CASE).

  3. The following rules characterize the injuries which are denominated trespasses, namely: To determine whether an injury is a trespass, due regard must be had to the nature of the right affected. A wrong with force can only be offered to the absolute rights of personal liberty and security, and to those of property corporeal; those of health, reputation and in property incorporeal, together with the relative rights of persons, are, strictly speaking, incapable of being injured with violence, because the subject matter to which they relate, exists in either case only in idea, and is not to be seen or handled. An exception to this rule, however, often obtains in the very instance of injuries to the relative rights of persons; and wrongs offered to these last are frequently denominated trespasses, that is injuries with force.

  4. Those wrongs alone are characterized as trespasses the immediate consequences of which are injurious to the plaintiff; if the damage sustained is a remote consequence of the act, the injury falls under the denomination of trespass on the case.

  5. No act is injurious but that which is unlawful; and therefore, where the force applied to the plaintiff’s property or person is the act of the law itself, it constitutes no cause of complaint [Hamm. N. P. 34; 2 Pbil. Ev. 131; Bac. Abr. h. t.; 15 East R. 614; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.; as to what will justify a trespass, see BATTERY].

(Black’s)

Any misfeasance or act of one man whereby another is injuriously treated or damnified [3 Bl. Comm. 208].

An injury or misfeasance to the person, property, or rights of another person, done with force and violence, either actual or implied in law [see Grunson v. State, 89 Ind. 536, 46 Am. Rep. 178; Southern Ry. Co. v. Harden, 101 Ga. 263, 28 S. E. 847; Blood v. Kemp, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 173l Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. McLaughlin, 63 Ill. 391; Agnew v. Jones, 74 Miss. 347, 23 South. 25; Hill v. Kimball, 76 Tex. 210, 13 S. W. 59, 7 L. R. A. 618].

In the strictest sense, an entry on another’s ground, without a lawful authority, and doing some damage, however inconsiderable, to his real property [3 Bl. Comm. 209].

  • Trespass, in its most comprehensive sense,

In practice: a form of action, at the common law, which lies for redress in the shape of money damages for any unlawful injury done to the plaintiff, in respect either to his person, property, or rights, by the immediate force and violence of the defendant.

  • Continuing trespass: one which does not consist of a single isolated act but is in its nature a permanent invasion of the rights of another; as, where a person builds his own land so that a part of the building overhangs his neighbor’s land.

  • Permanent trespass: one which consists of a series of acts, done on successive days, which are of the same nature, and are renewed or continued form day to day, so that, in the aggregate, they make up one indivisible wrong [3 Bl. Comm. 212].

  • Trespass de bonis asportatis: (trespass for goods carried away) in practice; the technical name of that species of action of trespass for injuries to personal property which lies where the injury consists in carrying away the goods or property [see 3 Bl. Comm. 150].

  • Trespass for mesne profits: a form of action supplemental to an action of ejectment, brought against the tenant in possession to recover the profits which he has wrongfully received during the time of his occupation [3 Bl. Comm. 205].

  • Tresspass on the case: the form of action, at common law, adapted to the recovery of damages for some injury resulting to a party from the wrongful act of another, unaccompanied by direct or immediate force, or which is the indirect or secondary consequence of such act. Common called, by abbreviation, “case.” [see Munal v. Brown (C. C.) 70 Fed. 968; Nolan v. Railroad Co., 70 Conn. 159, 39 Atl. 115, 43 L. R. A. 305; Christian v. Mills, 2 Walk. (Pa.) 131].

  • Trespass quare clausum fregit: (trespass wherefore he broke the close) the common-law action for damages for an unlawful entry or trespass upon the plaintiff’s laud. In the Latin form of the writ, the defendant was called upon to show why he broke the plaintiff’s close; i.e. the real or imaginary structure inclosing the land, whence the name. It is commonly abbreviated to “trespass qu. cl. fr.” [see Kimball v. Hilton, 92 Me. 214, 42 Atl. 394].

  • Trespass to try title: the name of the action used in several of the states for the recovery of the possession of real property, with damages for any trespass committed upon the same by the defendant.

  • Trespass vi et armis: trespass with force and arms. The common-law action for damages for any injury committed by the defendant with direct and immediate force or violence against the plaintiff or his property.

(Webster’s)

TRES’PASS, v.i. [L. trans, beyond, and passer, to pass.]

1. Literally, to pass beyond; hence primarily, to pass over the boundary line of another’s land; to enter unlawfully upon the land of another. A man may trespass by walking over the ground of another, and the law gives a remedy for damages sustained.
2. To commit any offense or to do any act that injures or annoys another; to violate any rule of rectitude to the injury of another.
If any man shall trespass against his neighbor, and an oath be laid upon him– 1 Kings 8. See Luke 17. 3. and 4.
3. In a moral sense, to transgress voluntarily any divine law or command; to violate any known rule of duty.
In the time of his disease did he trespass yet more. 2 Chron.28.
We have trespassed against our God. Ezra 10.
4. To intrude; to go too far; to put to inconvenience by demand or importunity; as, to trespass upon the time or patience of another.
 

TRES’PASS, n. In law, violation of another’s rights, not amounting to treason, felony, or misprision of either. Thus to enter another’s close, is a trespass; to attack his person is a trespass. When violence accompanies the act, it is called a trespass vi et armis.

1. Any injury or offense done to another.
If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matt.6.
2. Any voluntary transgression of the moral law; any violation of a known rule of duty; sin. Col.2.
You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins. Eph.2.

May You Live in Interesting Times…

In order to succeed in any worthwhile effort, people need to be able to work with each other reliably. If this is systematically disrupted by controlled opposition (or more than likely, just your run-of-the-mill useful idiot), it then breeds a culture of fear where everyone is automatically suspicious of everyone else. A certain minimal amount of trust is necessary for there to be some feeling of comraderie.

 

1280_The_Betrayal

 

Well over a year ago, I was one of the very few individuals who blew the whistle on the prevalence of infighting within the Patriot Community; I even went so far as to coin the term, “internal balkanization,” stating also that it was the #1 threat to American patriots, as well as being the chief reason why they can’t seem to accomplish much of anything positive (in the collective aggregate). Besides the lack of concrete milestones by which to measure any progress in securing our Liberties, it is also very true what Randy Mack has said time and time again – as he puts it, “We cannot learn to work together.” Unfortunately, such is still the case today as I write this; both Randy and I (not to neglect the handful of others who also know better) have been proven correct (exceptions to the rule notwithstanding).

Thankfully, all is not lost. Ever since the advent of the Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (CoS-CLC), there has been a steady (albeit painfully slow) effort to “clean house” of all the narcissistic demagogues, sycophantic cowards, and assorted miscreants. The only organization amongst the many political dissident circles to take the problem seriously, the CoS-CLC has provided a way to exercise the right of trial by jury outside the confines of the enemy rebel government. Without succumbing to the horrendous practice of “trial by press,” the CLC’s Grand Juries have been able to fairly judge the accusations brought before them, with the corresponding evidence, by reaching a determination. How many other groups (of one flavor or another) can claim such a level of teamwork that produces, at the end of the day, such a result?

So, what has the CLC discovered? Oh, quite a bit, I assure you. Let’s begin with Mascarenas v. Stachowiak, Verdict #110401, where wannabe “resistance leader” James Stachowiak (alias Jim Stach) was found guilty by the Grand Jury on 4 counts of defamation, 3 counts of slander, 2 counts of incitement, and 1 count of threat against Randy Mack. It would seem to be the case here that “Freedom Fighter” has no concept of interpersonal diplomacy and certainly does not keep his own counsel, considering that he was more than willing to throw Randy (whom you would assume he would have thought of as a fellow brother-in-arms, even if only in spirit) under the bus without hesitation; might it even suggest where his loyalties truly lie?

Debra Swan brought charges against WRAM founder and chief administrator Rick Light (alias Minuteman) in Swan v. Light, Unanswered Indictment #120201, whom was found, under probable cause, to have committed 3 counts of libel, 2 counts of defamation, 1 count of threat, 1 count of entrapment, 1 count of extortion, 1 count of being inimical to the Patriot Community itself, and my personal favorite, 1 count of intimidating the CLC Grand Jury. I mean, who does this schmuck think he is? That he can just get away with lying about false death threats, knowingly give a child an “illegal” firearm, and threaten to beat up a woman who has caused him no harm?! Actions such as these are evocative of Mafiosi and redneck trailer trash, not what is the proper (or even just plain decent) behavior of those who claim to be “freedom fighters.”

Most recently, there has been the conclusion of Baez v. Rudkowski, Unanswered Indictment #120301, where the alleged founder of the political activist organization We Are Change, Luke Rudkowski, was found, under probable cause, to have committed 2 counts of libel, 1 count of embezzlement, 1 count of extortion, and 2 counts of fraud. Apparently, this “leader” of the “leaderless” WAC was more than happy to lie with a straight face about how any and all donations were to go to one of two sources, neither of which was his own personal bank account, which ironically is where the all the monies ended up anyway. Whatever he may or may not have done after 2009 is unknown at this time, but it is certain though that he cleared a cool $60,000 plus, starting in 2007. Everyone and anyone who crossed him, by simply asking for the financial records, was immediately demonized as a nutcase, and if they persisted, were blatantly accused of being not-so-undercover government agents. No trial, no jury, not even the faint equivalent of habeas corpus; just BANG!….discredited only by virtue of a baseless accusation without any proof. Sounds just like the same secret police game the Soviets played with their own citizens, doesn’t it?

As if that wasn’t bad enough, consider also the jurors who were negligent and/or uncommitted in their duties that they voluntarily signed up for. Robert Handel (alias Green Mountain Patriot) and James Sims (alias J Sims) both had to be placed on the CLC’s Wall of Shame for willfully failing to keep their commitments. Sims seems to be the worst of the two because he deliberately antagonized the Grand Jury Foreman, so at least Handel to his credit was considerate enough to at least be silently dishonorable. In one way, Handel reminds me of that juror from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress who negligently slept through a case he was supposed to be hearing (that juror was literally thrown out by the protagonist, Manuel O’Kelly, who was acting in the capacity of a judge).

And then there was Mark Koenig (alias Smiter13), who violated his Secrecy Oath that he willingly took when he volunteered to become a grand juror. Adding insult to injury, he completely lied about being strong-armed by government agents into sabotaging the Baez v. Rudkowski case by calling into The Crotch Shot Radio Show and baiting the host, Louie Bee. To top it all off, even the Washington State Militia ended up relieving him of his command; in other words, they kicked him out on his ass.

Now, a common point of confusion that comes up every time I’m interviewed about the CLC are misunderstandings concerning its enforcement mechanism. Even thinking back on it, I am pretty appalled about how clearly different types of political dissidents are still absurdly ignorant regarding the power of ostracism. Based on the liberty of association, ostracism is admitted by both libertarians and constitutionalists alike to be a peaceful way to deal with undesirables who seek to dominate and control others. Stefan Molyneux has said, “All we need to do is publish their crimes for all to see, and let the natural justice of society take care of the rest;” Gary Hunt takes in one step further by stating that, “It is time for us to be as serious about ridding ourselves of these subversive elements as we are about our individual causes, for all are doomed to failure unless we regain control of our own activities.” Both men are absolutely correct about the need for dissidents of all kinds to choose their compatriots carefully, for as the old adage goes, “You are judged by the company you keep.”

If there ever was a truly serious effort at taking the genuine alternative media back from the Carnival of Distractions, the CoS-CLC is it. By at least trying to act as a referee of sorts, the CLC is able to provide a neutral setting where each side can get a fair hearing. Upon completion of a case, the value of the CLC’s findings carry weight within the Patriot Community because of its credibility. If somebody tries to spew sensationalistic bullshit that ends up harming someone else, then as long as a complaint is filed with the CLC, then there is a realistic chance the real truth will eventually come out.

According to the old Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.” Yeah, no kidding…with all these dopes, windbags, and shills (wittingly or unwittingly) trying to discredit, demoralize, and discourage political dissidents from attempting to secure the Liberty that is rightfully theirs, “interesting times” is the understatement of the decade. I can only hope more good people start taking whom they choose to associate with much more seriously. And who knows? Maybe a brick-and-mortar version of the CoS-CLC will spring out of its strictly digital incarnation and greatly improve from there. Only time will tell.