Tag: politics

How to Deal with a Virus? Vax or Naturally?

Sorry to disappoint, as I am not talking about the Covid-19 novel virus, but the virus that is a whole lot worse and has a horrible half-life. That virus is government.

Governments come and go, they run the gambit from totalitarian “democratic/socialist” ones that kill millions of their own people, to totalitarian “communist/marxist” ones that kill millions of their own people, to monarchies that can do the same.

While the nomads in history had other things that threatened their lives, and pioneers the same in new lands, there is nothing like a government that has the ability to take out large swaths of people.

Oh sure on the front end of these governments the talk is all about “safety”, only in time do we understand that to mean safety for THEM. It only took until the 21st century to allow police officers in the “land of the free” to be told by the highest court in the land that they did not have to protect the people, but that their first priority was to protect themselves.

So here we are in 2020 which is turning out to be an epic year for governments around the globe, almost in sync, to rise up and control everyone. From small businesses to people who live on property in the middle of nowhere, the way this government addresses 330M people assumes that they all live in the city. Supposedly even Google is providing them data on how people are venturing out > 2 MILES away from their primary residence. For some people, that is just doing chores on the ranch!

Centralized government’s virus downsides have been noted most succinctly just before the American Revolution in much literature which then gave the Founding generation an opportunity to experiment one more time with a government in mind that might be, as they say, “exceptional”. Maybe this would be a government virus that was held in check by a vaccine like the Articles of Confederation (AoC)?

The problem is that after the independence from the British Empire, the idealists became pragmatists and many in the founding generation in their old age once again thought more of safety than of freedom, thought that a different BIG centralized government might be MORE beneficial (to them, the caretakers). Was the vaccine (AoC) too effective?

So from 1783’s Treaty of Paris under the Articles of Confederation came a whole new “operating system” (OS) .. the US Constitution. That coup d’etat forever changed the trajectory of the united colonies to become a united state. This vaccine actually still allowed the virus to grow, but at a slower rate, or as one might say, they flattened the curve!

The downside of having to travel down the centralized rails a bit is that once the momentum is there, there is little you can do to stop it. During the War of 1812, northern states contemplated secession as this war hurt the Northeast/New England region the hardest. It was after this war that arose a person who in time began to see clearly the “side-effects” of this virus. This man’s name was John C. Calhoun. One of the latest Abbeville Institute articles that deals with this 1619 initiative helps to paint why Federalists were mad at him from the War of 1812 until his death in 1850 and are still mad at him in 2020!

Side-note: This world also lost another prophet in 1850, Frederic Bastiat, whose thoughts I covered somewhat in these two posts here and here.

One should realize by now that those who propose the proper track to be on rather than the centralized government / totalitarian / empire track are marginalized from politics well before these ideas are squashed in the public square. So it comes as no surprise that John C. Calhoun, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, was:

… the last eloquent political philosopher to stand against the ideology and intentions of the Federalists. He was the last to stand firmly in the halls of the Senate and articulate exactly what it would mean to allow power to become centralized under an unconstrained federal government.

Talk about flattening the curve, this virus gained ground in 1865 with the Union’s brutal victory not just over the Confederate army that was protecting people’s homeland, but over the Southern region itself as Reconstruction again drove home the point that the virus (central / totalitarian government) was king. Everything beyond this point just added to this virus’ spread .. the Spanish-American War in 1898 based on a false flag, progressive movement in 1900, creation of the Federal Reserve and implementation of the DIRECT taxing of Americans (income tax) in 1913, WWI entry in 1918, FDR’s socialization and debt programs (New Deal) of the 1930s followed by a cover-up war (WWII) in which he economically goaded Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor WHILE keeping his navy commanders there in the dark, for the greater good. Since WWII this virus has gone out of control, but has been oblivious to millions that were educated in government schools reading government textbooks. The most ignorant generation in history is the most “educated” ones!!

In summary:

The Anti-federalist position, as proven by what has become of the Republic, was the only true, realistic and conservative position in 1788. The Federalist position, as evidenced by history, turned out to be totalitarian in nature, it is the power behind progressivism, it was from the start the seeds of the eventual destruction of the Republic; debt, discord, endless wars, less liberty. One simply could not have enacted the federal income tax, the New Deal, social security and all the enormous government and taxation that came from that without the Federalist position winning out.

Again, this did not happen overnight, so I call this a stealth-virus!

Calhoun, despite his flaws, despite the fact that the rights he defended are offensive to our modern sensibilities, despite all that, Calhoun was right on some important foundational issues. Progressivism could never have raised its head to expand government without the efforts of the Federalists from 1788-1870; no federal income tax, no prohibition and the resultant birth of organized crime, no New Deal, no dysfunction of government at the Federal level (because the Federal government would matter a lot less) no massive debt, no tariffs, no endless wars. This is the legacy of the Federalists.

Calhoun was prophetic in all this, and like all others who have raised the issues of the cost of this virus, continue to be marginalized and forgotten especially in these days.

So now that the centralized government is on display today as a totalitarian state that can shut down any business they want and make you mind (like a dog or a sheep), I can’t help but think of Toby Keith’s song:

How do you like me now
Now that I’m on my way
Do you still think I’m crazy standing here today
I couldn’t make you love me
But I always dreamed about living in your radio
How do you like me now?!

Same thing only different .. but do you feel the Gov-Love now?

Peace out.

-SF1

PS How about a “natural” way to deal with this virus .. go underground like the 1st century Christians who found their way around an empire’s persecution to help people “off the record”? The fix for government (virus) is never in politics, it is in building up a natural immunity!!!

 

What Would the American Revolution Have Been Like Without Francis Marion?

The path our descendants took had a significant impact on who was present in certain societies in the midst of particular events. Who would have thought that a 2nd generation French Huguenot immigrant (grandson of French Huguenot Gabriel Marion born in 1732), a Continental officer who happened to break an ankle exiting a rowdy officer party in Charles Town, which meant he was to be recuperating at home near the Santee River when the British captured Charles Town, would then morph into a guerilla leader to lead the region in freedom from the British Empire?

I guess I am curious as to the kind of people whose character is shaped by their existing situations as well as the history their family had experienced. Basically, what is the difference between Francis’ ancestors who left France after religious persecution left them few options but to emigrate the the New World, specifically the Carolinas .. and my own ancestors who left the Netherlands in 1846 for the New World, to Michigan?

What triggered this thought was reading Bionic Mosquito’s post called War. Bionic was reviewing a work called ” Rebel in the Ranks: Martin Luther, the Reformation, and the Conflicts That Continue to Shape Our World“, by Brad S. Gregory. This work gives a lot of background material to what is commonly called an era of religious wars was actually political strife at its root.

“What started as a reform of one Church produces an open-ended array of competing churches, which virtually no one at the time considers a good thing.”

So we are talking about a time in this world when the Holy Roman Empire and the wedding of politics and religion was providing the masses (no pun intended), were challenged on a variety of fronts. How this played out depended on the countries and cultures that were present:

The Reformation played out differently in Germany, France, England, and the Low Countries.

I was drawn to the parts that pertained to Francis Marion, and myself.

Regarding Francis’ grandfather’s experience, there was an attempt in Germany to mend the rift between the Catholic church and the reformers:

Catholic leaders reject the most fundamental Protestant premise: The Church offers false doctrines. On a second and also important premise, there are plenty of Catholic leaders that recognize that there are and have been sinful abuses and a lack of holiness among both clergy and laity.

Further attempts are made at some sort of reconciliation between the Reformers and the Church. The final meaningful attempt was made at Regensburg in 1541, the Colloquy (or Diet) of Regensburg.

So when dialog and reason fail ..

… then come the wars. Catholic against Protestant; Catholic and Magisterial Protestants against other Protestant sects. Next comes the Peace of Augsburg, “a Holy Roman Empire with two religions, Lutheran and Catholic.”

So in France, where Gabriel Marion lives:

There is no Lutheranism in France. Calvinism arrives in the form of the Huguenots. Pamphlets, trials, executions. As late as 1554, there are still no established Calvinist churches in France – although the number of underground believers is growing. By 1562, perhaps 800 such churches exist. Most are far from Paris, in the south. The growth emboldens the Huguenots: they destroy church art, deface alters and harass clergy.

They make up perhaps ten percent of the population, but a much larger proportion of the nobility – a problem because still in the sixteenth century no ruler could rule without noble support.

There is blow-back from this violent revolt:

Beginning in 1562, a series of eight civil wars ensue; from start to finish, these last longer than the Thirty Years’ War with perhaps 3 million deaths .. wars for political power: a dynastic power struggle between powerful noble families in the line for succession to the French throne – one Catholic and the other Reformed – with the reigning royal family trying to stride the middle in the form of Catholic conciliation.

Massacres, conversions, refugees, assassinations, acts of revenge. After thirty-six years, in 1598, King Henry IV signed the Edict of Nantes, granting the Huguenots substantial rights but leaving them with no army. Fearing an erosion of these rights – as would soon enough prove a rational fear – hundreds of thousands of Huguenots flee France for Calvinist territories in England, the Dutch Republic, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Carolina Coast of the New World.

So the “type” of person that Francis’ grandfather was, was someone who opted for the relative unknown of the colony of Carolina over that of England and the Dutch Republic. A true pioneer, this man saw a vision of religious freedom AND hard work of the land to provide his family, in the long term, better opportunities for life and freedom in a ‘new world’.

I can only think that Francis’ character was part DNA and part stories of his grandfather adventures in Europe.

On to my own side note, it seems that my ancestors were able to stay in Europe another 150 years as they happened to be a part of the Dutch Republic:

Belgium and the Netherlands; the northern provinces take their independence from Spain and support Reformed Protestantism; the southern provinces remain Catholic.

The development of the Reformation in many ways parallels developments in other regions of central Europe: Lutheran and Anabaptist heresies followed by executions – more than 1,300 executions by 1566, and more than in any other region. Charles V is working hard to contain the heretics.

Nevertheless, in the Netherlands Reformed Protestantism continues to increase; Charles cedes control of the Low Countries to his son, Philip II, king of Spain. Nobles petition for a softening of anti-heresy laws; the Spanish king sharply rebuffs them, saying he would rather lose all his lands than rule over heretics.

So whenever a king feels their authority threatened, the normal reaction is to reject all appeals to opening that door for freedom. Sometimes, depending on the tenacity of the culture, or of certain underground leaders in society, revolt surges:

Be careful what you wish for, I guess: In April 1566, three-hundred armed nobles ride into Brussels and present Margaret, the king’s regent, with the Compromise of the Nobility – with a demand, backed by arms, of reducing the anti-heresy laws. Margaret has no choice but to relent; in the wake, Calvinism explodes and denunciation of Catholic idolatry and Spanish tyranny boil over.

So when you or your tribe gets the power that others abused, what is the tendency? Revenge …

Monasteries attacked and destroyed, the start of what we now know as the Eighty Years’ War. Philip sends an army of more than 10,000 men, headed by the Duke of Alva: trials of more than 12,000 people take place; 9,000 are deprived of property; more than 1,000 are executed. New taxes are imposed, provoking Calvinists and Catholics alike.

Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction …

Dutch Calvinist pirates begin seizing coastal towns, eventually taking all major cities in the province except Amsterdam. They drive out the priests and kill over 130 of them. Philip can little afford the cost of wars against the Calvinists in the north while at the same time battling the Ottoman Turks. Troops in the Low Countries go unpaid, so they mutiny – sacking Antwerp, killing 8,000 and destroying more than 1,000 homes. What a mess.

Independence is finally achieved:

The Dutch Republic is formalized in 1581; the southern provinces (essentially Belgium) go their own way.

.. but all is not yet well. There is still Catholics now under Calvinist leaders and there is always a chasm it seems with collectivism tendencies:

Yet the conflicts continue:

“In the judgement of some, Catholicism under Spanish control is better than the violent aggression wrought by militant Calvinists.”

The fighting continues on and off until 1648 with more bloodshed and more refugees. This is resolved along with resolution of the Thirty Years’ War in the Peace of Westphalia.

In the end, the Dutch Republic and the Spanish Netherlands are the same thing only different. The Dutch choose a different path politically:

In the Dutch Republic there is no state church, as there are in France, Spain, England, German Lutheran territories, Scandinavian countries, or the Reformed Protestant territories of the Holy Roman Empire.

People in the Republic do not have to belong to a particular religion; while there is a state-supported church, only a small minority of the population belong to it. The Republic becomes a haven for religious groups of all sorts, and especially in Amsterdam political authorities are relatively tolerant…

“…allowing almost anyone to believe and worship together however they wish, provided they worship behind the closed doors of “hidden churches” and remain politically obedient.”

As with all politics, there is NEVER a live and let live mentality. Whenever power is achieved in a culture or society, there will never be a willingness to give away that power. This is a very broken world, and government/politics is part of that brokenness (from this article):

Even the worst features of the statist reality, Hayek showed, “are not accidental byproducts” but phenomena that are part and parcel of statism itself. He argued with great insightfulness that “the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful” in any society in which government is seen as the answer to most problems. They are precisely the kind of people who elevate power over persuasion, force over cooperation. Government, possessing by definition a legal and political monopoly of the use of force, attracts them just as surely as dung draws flies. Ultimately, it is the apparatus of government that allows them to wreak their havoc on the rest of us.

We will forever experience havoc in this world from the very entity that so many put their faith and trust in, not God, but government.

So very sick and so very sad that the masses will never awake to this truth.

-SF1

The Core of Government: Necessary Evil?

From the Burning Platform post, Doug Casey challenges popular theory that different cultures can’t live in a more peaceful harmony, community by community:

Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together peaceably in Palestine, Lebanon, and North Africa for centuries until the situation became politicized after World War I. Until then, an individual’s background and beliefs were just personal attributes, not a casus belli. Government was at its most benign, an ineffectual nuisance that concerned itself mostly with extorting taxes. People were busy with that most harmless of activities: making money.

But politics do not deal with people as individuals. It scoops them up into parties and nations. And some group inevitably winds up using the power of the state (however “innocently” or “justly” at first) to impose its values and wishes on others with predictably destructive results. What would otherwise be an interesting kaleidoscope of humanity then sorts itself out according to the lowest common denominator peculiar to the time and place.

Politics again is the poison, but the promises of safety seem to trump all other concerns …

… collectivism grows because the “thing” can’t deal well with individuals .. it is too messy and takes too much time. Even the Hebrews mandated the need for a king to replace judges (1 Sam 18 – The Bible). They were warned what would be the consequences of “good” intensions:

“This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

Basically:

Doug goes on to say:

Sometimes that [a certain group gaining power] means along religious lines, as with the Muslims and Hindus in India or the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland; or ethnic lines, like the Kurds and Iraqis in the Middle East or Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka; sometimes it’s mostly racial, as whites and East Indians found throughout Africa in the 1970s or Asians in California in the 1870s. Sometimes it’s purely a matter of politics, as Argentines, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and other Latins discovered more recently. Sometimes it amounts to no more than personal beliefs, as the McCarthy era in the 1950s and the Salem trials in the 1690s proved.

Throughout history government has served as a vehicle for the organization of hatred and oppression, benefiting no one except those who are ambitious and ruthless enough to gain control of it.

Those of us who know real history are awake to this truth, but these days, our own history is being removed .. Milan Kundera sais:

“The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long that nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around it will forget even faster.“

The alternative that Doug Casey has is the effectiveness of markets, however, when an empire blows through your neighborhood, how good will the market be to achieve a better way for family, friends, community and society?

That’s not to say government hasn’t, then and now, performed useful functions. But the useful things it does could and would be done far better by the market.

I don’t have the answers here .. just questions.

-SF1

Definition of anarchy:

How Understanding History Helps Understanding the Present and the Future

Lew Rockwell today shared his reflections of a recent book released by Hans-Hermann Hoppe called ‘Getting Libertarianism Right“. In it, Hans shares an insight he himself learned from Murray Rothbard, which is …:

never to trust official history, invariably written by the victors, but to conduct all historical research instead like a detective investigating a crime. Always, first and foremost and as a first approximation, follow the money in search of a motive

It is only by knowing the true history can one form the proper frame of mind to understand current issues as well as the future state for our kids and grand-kids.

I have to be honest, when I read how this was not talking just about a libertarian approach to life as being fundamentally and logically correct, but that the word “right” also meant as opposed to left, I hesitated. But in true Hoppe form, Hans can take the logical route and prove that in the long-term, the left as it is defined today is a destructive course. Not because the right, as it exists today, has a great record, it doesn’t, but there is a fundamental aspect of the right that is essential in understanding life.

“Knowing libertarian theory — the rules of peaceful interactions — is like knowing the rules of logic — the rules of correct thinking and reasoning. . . just as every logician who wants to make good use of his knowledge must turn his attention to real thought and reasoning, so a libertarian theorist must turn his attention to the actions of real people. Instead of being a mere theorist, he must also become a sociologist and psychologist and take account of ’empirical’ social reality, i.e., the world as it really is” says Hans

OK, but what about right verses left thinking? Lew summarizes Hans’ thoughts:

The Right accepts the reality of human differences but the Left does not. Because Leftists try to make everyone equal, they favor massive interventions by the State to abolish human differences.

So true. Anyone alive today has to eventually see through the left’s agenda. True equality is not what they want, because they would be out of a job. Their effort is the “process”, which can never be successful, of making everyone equal. This is so very similar to the progressive path that came out of the 19th century and flourished toward building some utopia, that of course had government as a key initiator and sustainer in.  You know, like a god!

Hans points out that even the most ardent leaders of the left’s agenda deep down knows the truth. I mean, even the common man on the street knows the honest truth. Hans does not mince words .. he too knows that this agenda benefits some and not others:

“The egalitarian worldview of the Left is not only incompatible with libertarianism, however. It is so out of touch with reality that one must be wondering how anyone can take it seriously. The man-on-the-street certainly does not believe in the equality of all men. Plain common sense and sound prejudice stand in the way of that. And I am even more confident that no one of the actual proponents of the egalitarian doctrine really, deep down, believes what he proclaims. Yet how, then, could the Leftist worldview have become the dominant ideology of our age? At least for a libertarian, the answer should be obvious: the egalitarian doctrine achieved this status not because it is true, but because it provides the perfect intellectual cover for the drive toward totalitarian social control by a ruling elite”

So in the present state (no pun intended), many people are caught up in this dream world for the future that they will never see. By the time they realize this, it will be too late for them to enjoy the freedom of every person, being uniquely created and uniquely gifted to accomplish their unique work in this world that can make societies and communities a better place.

So what does Hans attribute this drift and now free-fall away from libertarian principles? The keystone seems to be a supreme judicial authority that quickly became politically aligned. I suggest, and Thomas Jefferson agreed, that America from the get-go was an experiment. The tweak in this experiment from the Articles of Confederation in 1781 to the Constitution in 1787 broke it even more. By the 1790s, Americans were paying more in taxes than they were in 1775!

Hans shares his insight:

“Predictably, the monopolist will use his position as ultimate decision-maker not only to resolve conflict between contending property owners, but increasingly also to initiate or provoke conflicts with private property owners, in order to then decide such conflicts in his own favor, i.e., to expropriate the just property of others to his own advantage on the basis of his own made-up laws. And on the other hand, the price to be paid for justice will rise. In fact, the price of justice will not simply be a ‘higher price’ that justice seekers may or may not be willing to pay (as would be the case for any other monopoly), but a tax that justice seekers must pay whether they agree to it or not.”

With this capstone, the effort that most people assume is that the drive is to control the state apparatus as history shows political struggles becoming at times physical wars (War of 1812, War Against Southern Independence, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, etc. * I got tired of typing all the wars the US has fueled). However, Hans turns this thought on its head as well:

“Only with democracy, however, i.e., the free and unrestricted entry into the State, are all moral restraints and inhibitions against the taking of others’ lawful property removed. Everyone is free to indulge in such temptations and propose and promote every conceivable measure of legislation and taxation to gain advantages at other people’s expense. That is, whereas in a natural order everyone is expected to spend his time exclusively on production or consumption, under democratic conditions, increasingly more time is spent instead on politics, i.e., on the advocacy and promotion of activities that are neither productive nor consumptive, but exploitative and parasitic of and on the property of others.”

More time spend on politics, that are not productive, but exploitative and at its root, parasitic towards the property of others! Ain’t that the truth. Everyone these days wants government money (the government has no money of its own, just the power, the sword, the gun to extort money from you). This is not sustainable, but the average politician is in this only for short-term gains. They have zero concerns about our kids and grand-kids. ZERO! Speaking of politicians, Hans has a few things to say:

“If measured by the standards of natural law and justice, all politicians, of all parties and virtually without any exception, are guilty, whether directly or indirectly, of murder, homicide, trespass, invasion, expropriation, theft , fraud, and the fencing of stolen goods on a massive and ongoing scale. And every new generation of politicians and parties appears to be worse, and piles even more atrocities and perversions on top of the already existing mountain, so that one feels almost nostalgic about the past. They all should be hung, or put in jail to rot, or set to making compensation.”

The very people who lied us into the Iraq War (and other wars) walk free today and yet the very people who broke the truth about these and other wars are now behind bars and are not free (Assange, Manning, others). Justice has been turned upside-down. We are not free. The lie has been for sometime that our troops have been fighting for our freedom. This is only a convenient cover for a parasite (global elites, US Empire, Washington DC, Deep State all the way down to the local police state) sucking all it can out of its people as well as those around the world that they sanction, drone and harass for “freedom”.

I plan to read this 120 page book by Hans this weekend and will get back to you. It has come to that. We need to be very aware of the past so we can understand the red flags around us (the ‘red flag laws’ popped in my mind, that is another post), and then prepare ourselves, our family and friends for the future. Not just physically, but psychologically as well!

At the end of the day I trust that the Judge will make all things right and all things new, but even His Son who lived in this broken world knew that critical thinking would be needed to navigate life under an empire, in His case, the Roman Empire. His example was to sell a coat for a sword, but also to have hope that there is a better day coming, as the Father would present us something fantastic, not only peace in the middle of the storm of this very broken world, but a future home where there would be no tears.

Signing off

-SF1

 

Pick One: Democracy, Monarchy, Theocracy, Federated Republic or Anarchy?

Most US educated people will no doubt prefer a “democracy” because that is what has been taught to them by government schools for well over a hundred years. Most people also dislike monarchies but seem to love “kings” by other names (i.e. presidents, politicians, rock stars and celebrities). Most dislike theocracies since they associate them with Islamic extremists and not the Israel of Hebrew people they might have heard about from the Bible. Most will also be confused by the term ‘federated republic’ and would absolutely nix the term “confederated” (even though the colonies had a weaker form of government governed by the Articles of Confederation). Anarchy is also a scary term for most since they think this means chaos or no rules, but they fail to understand that the local Farmer’s Market is essentially anarchy in action:

It does seem that while anarchy does yield the most freedom for responsible individuals, most will opt for the safety from some other form of government servitude and eventually want and get “democracy”, which is always a stepping stone to socialism, marxism and eventually communism.

One of my favorite writers is Hans-Hermann Hoppe who wrote a book a few years ago called “Democracy: The God that Failed“. (The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order (Perspectives on Democratic Practice)).

The core of this book is a systematic treatment of the historic transformation of the West from monarchy to democracy. Revisionist in nature, it reaches the conclusion that monarchy is a lesser evil than democracy, but outlines deficiencies in both. … Informed by his analysis of the deficiencies of social democracy, and armed with the social theory of legitimation, he forsees secession as the likely future of the US and Europe, resulting in a multitude of region and city-states. This book complements the author’s previous work defending the ethics of private property and natural order. Democracy – The God that Failed will be of interest to scholars and students of history, political economy, and political philosophy.

While this is a rather intense read, it is an extremely valuable exercise in understanding not just cause and effect, but unintended consequences as well. To whet your appetite, try this YouTube video where Hans shares about this book in under ten minutes:

If there is one quote from this book that I would share at this time it would be the following:

“… Thus, privilege and legal discrimination — and the distinction between rulers and subjects — do not disappear under democracy. To the contrary. Rather than being restricted to princes and nobles, under democracy, privileges come into the reach of everyone: Everyone can participate in theft and live off stolen loot if only he becomes a public official. Likewise, democratically elected parliaments are, just like any absolute or constitutional king, not bound by any superior, natural law, i.e., by law not of their own making (such as and including so-called constitutional law), but they can legislate, i.e., they can make and change laws. Only: While a king legislates in his own favor, under democracy everyone is free to promote and try to put into effect legislation in his own favor, provided only that he finds entry into parliament or government…”

Furthermore, even worse than monarchies:

“In sharp contrast, the selection of state rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position not owing to their status as natural aristocrats, as feudal kings once did, i.e., based on the recognition of their economic independence, outstanding professional achievement, morally impeccable personal life, wisdom and superior judgment and taste, but as a result of their capacity as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of state government.”

This last quote shows how easy it is for the SWAMP to grow .. the fact is, this swamp started growing even before the thirteen sovereign colonies emerged from the American Revolution / secession from the British Empire in 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed.

But it gets even worse:

“Worse: Under democracy the social character and personality structure of the entire population will be changed systematically. All of society will be thoroughly politicized. During the monarchical age, the ancient aristocratic order had still remained somewhat intact. Only the king and, indirectly, the members of his (exclusive) court could enrich themselves — by means of taxation and legislation — at other people’s and their properties expense. Everyone else had to stand on his own feet, so to say, and owed his position in society, his wealth and his income, to some sort of value-productive efforts. Under democracy, the incentive structure is systematically changed. Egalitarian sentiments and envy are given free reign. Everyone, not just the king, is now allowed to participate in the exploitation — via legislation or taxation — of everyone else. Everyone is free to express any confiscatory demands whatsoever. Nothing, no demand, is off limits. In Bastiat’s words, under democracy the State becomes the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. Every person and his personal property come within reach of and are up for grabs by everyone else.

Are we seeing this in full force today or what? But I digress.

I do hope to share more about this book in the weeks to come. In the mean time, check out the video above or buy the e-book, paperback or hard cover BUT know, when a book commands $40 for paperback and $440 for hardcover .. you know it is a good one!

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H. L. Mencken

-SF1