Posts Tagged ‘madison’

Tyranny by Regulation

Sunday, May 24th, 2015

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
? James Madison

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, no human being ever born could begin to know and understand all the laws, regulations and codes that make up modern American jurisprudence. It would take a speed reader a lifetime to simply scan the Federal Register let alone understand them. Moreover, there are thousands of bureaucrats, people who we have little or no choice in selecting, working diligently eight hours every day, writing more. The amount of laws and regulations in the federal register alone written on paper is a mass of books that boggles the mind. Many of those regulations and laws are mutually exclusive making them incoherent. Add to that the fact that some groups are above the law and others are below the law and what our government has built is arbitrary rule, instead of law.

Examples of people who are above the law are legion, from Tim Geithner chiseling on his taxes, nanny gate, the House banking scandal, Fast and Furious, and the Benghazi cover up to Obama’s many extra Constitutional actions, the elite are increasingly above the limits law sets for the rest of us. any of which if you or I did them, we would be arrested, tried and jailed. Those who fall below the law’s protections are just as numerous, you or I could be arrested and held for twenty four hours without charge or access to a lawyer, there is no way a member of the elite would be subject to such unconstitutional actions. Land owners who have had their land taken for “Eminent domain,” where the property is not used for a road, public works or bridge, but to allow some member of the elite to build a hotel, casino or shopping mall, a business owner who must violate his or her faith else face punishment and you intellectual property can be stolen by the elite anytime they see fit, Eli Whitney being the most famous example. If you are charged by the bureaucracy you might not have the “privilege” of a lawyer, trial or facing your accuser, you are merely charged, tried and punished by the bureaucracy. Examples abound where the people are denied the protections of our Constitution and therefore are below the law’s protections.

The damage to our economy is horrendous. The application of all the regulations we live under cannot but limit economic growth. The damage to our economy from regulation is structural, not cyclical and so cannot be grown out of, lived past or is temporary, they are permanent hindrances to our economic growth. Due to the crushing weight of regulations we now have structural limits to the amount of people who can be employed, our wages are diminished daily by them and our standard of living is dropping. For the first time in US history the growth of small businesses is negative! Virtually every problem in our economy is the result of arcane regulations.

Lawyers must increasingly specialize. Law has become so convoluted, no lawyer could possibly be able to generalize anymore, and actually serve his or her client’s interests. I listened to a radio broadcast the other day where an expert was talking about the rules regarding inheriting a parent’s assets upon their death. In a half hour talk, the only thing that came out that was really understandable, was that you need an attorney to die today, else the government will penalize your children. The rules regarding simply inheriting a parent’s IRA are as counter intuitive as they are absurd. There is no corner of law today where that isn’t the case. Law and regulations have become counter intuitive and absurd.

I have heard that the average person today commits three felonies every day and has no idea they have done it. That statement speaks volumes on how arcane our regulations have become. You might fill in a wet spot on your lawn and have violated the wetlands protection act, you could get all the local permits to build a house and run afoul of some arcane regulation limiting the number of windows you are allowed to put in your house, you might make furniture in your garage and violate some foreign law, you could be having a bad day and yell at some stranger who stepped on your toe, the list of laws you violate every day is as endless at the federal register.

Imagine it, you are going about your daily activities, and without intention or malice, you violate some arcane regulation that would result in a felony if the government wanted to push it. Think about it for a moment, if that is the case, and it is considered truth by many pundits, lawyers and economists, you could be arrested and jailed at any time by a government that wants to shut you up, take your property, or just punish you for the way you vote or think. The slippery slope has become glare ice and has steepened to the point it is nearly vertical.

Madison wrote his opinion of a society where the laws are so complex, no one, even a trained attorney could understand them, in his letters and in the Federalist papers. His argument was that under such a system, anyone could be charged with a crime at any time, and so since it has become impossible to avoid violating such laws, everyone is a criminal. Where everyone is a criminal everyone lives and breathes at the suffering of government. When that is the case, government has become all powerful, and must be arbitrary in it’s appliance of those arcane laws and regulations. By James Madison’s definition, one of our premier founding fathers, thinkers and a patriot, we have become a tyranny.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Pseudo Wars

Monday, November 10th, 2014

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
? James Madison

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, all the “wars” the US has engaged in as of late, are nothing but pseudo wars, not wars at all but a way to take away the liberty of the people. I am of course talking about the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on terror, the war on obesity, and so forth. These cannot be termed wars anymore than any other policy a government enters into to meet a non corporeal problem. War is violent, terrifying and expensive way to defeat a corporeal threat. Moreover, calling such things wars, lowers the brutal reality of what war is, and creates a situation where the elite can keep a nation in a state of perpetual war. The appointing of “Czars” to oversee these “wars” is more proof they are overtly a means to evolve us to tyranny, war has generals, Czars are despots. If we want to stop the slide to tyranny we must examine the ways the elite evolve a nation to despotism and demand they be stopped.

Let’s face facts, a war on fatty food is an unwinnable war, like a war on terror or a war on poverty, by their very definitions they cannot be won. It is impossible to eliminate fat from foods. Fat is an essential nutrient that provides the calories we need to live. Like anything that is good, when overused, like the term war, it leads to all sorts of bad consequences. To fight a war on the strategy of an enemy, so as to avoid naming that enemy, is as certain a way to loose the war with the unnamed enemy, as it is to loose the war on their strategy. Imagine how the Second World War would have turned out of the allies fought a war on Blitzkrieg instead of the Nazis. Poverty will always be with us it is a human condition. The definition shows how absurd it is to fight a war on poverty, poverty is the lowest ten percentile of a people, economically, it is a relevant statistic. Even if a government were to execute the poorest ten percent there would still be a poorest ten percent. Even if ninety nine percent of the population were executed there would still be relative poor!

Embarking on fictitious wars has the propaganda value of claiming the government is doing something about a perceived problem. The term war focuses the mind and implies all a nation’s might will be brought to bear on the problem. The leader who coins the war will be thought of as really caring, to be so adamant about fighting such and such a problem, that they go to war with it. The value is only to the politician who names it… not the people, government, society or culture, they are damaged by the “war” effort. Everyone but the politicians must give up some sovereignty, money and liberty to the politicians during times of war, and so a fictitious war is a way of prying our liberty’s and largess from us, not to achieve some excellent goal.

War cannot be fought against an idea, tactic, class or food, it can only be fought against an enemy nation by killing and maiming real human beings, and destroying the infrastructure that supports their war effort. Von Clausewitz said that war is politics by violence. No one wants our government to do violence to the poor, we already do violence to our food simply by eating it, and ideas cannot be suppressed by violence. Look at the Second World war again, it was supposed to be against fascism, but how many fascists nations did the US and Europe support during the Cold War? WWII was against the Axis powers of Germany, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Finland and Italy. Four of which were not fascists at all! The war was against those nations, not the tactics they used, not the food they ate and not the political systems of their various governments… the war was against those states, period.

War against an idea, tactic or some other nebulous “enemy” is an absurd distraction from solving a real problem. It gives the people the idea something substantial is being done, but in fact what is really being done is, the liberty of the people is being stolen. The propaganda of a war against a non corporeal enemy is effective at reducing a country to despotism through the costs of continual warfare and a war mindset. It does nothing to solve the problem the elite are ostensibly waging war against, but through a constant chipping away it destroys the wherewithal of a people, saps our resolve to meet actual existential threats, and the lack of any possible victory corrodes our self esteem. War can only be fought against corporeal enemies that can be killed, maimed, impoverished and thereby forced to knuckle under. Further, to wage war against an enemy’s tactic, to avoid naming that enemy, is a sure way to loose the war with that enemy. It is time to complain loudly and forcefully whenever our leaders claim we should launch into another war against a non corporeal enemy and stop the ones our leaders have pulled us into already. Else our lot and the lot of our children will be despotism and poverty.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Shall Not Be Infringed

Monday, October 27th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, guns are the most regulated tools in the United States, despite the clear prohibition against gun regulation in the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Those who oppose limits on government, limits that are the very reason for our Constitution in the first place, spuriously argue the Second Amendment is to give government the right to keep and bear arms, which of course is absurd on the face of it and is based on perverting the meaning of the word “militia,” and ignoring the phrase, “being necessary to the security of a free State.” They bolster their argument by claiming guns are dangerous, and as dangerous tools they must be regulated, for the safety of us all. But, is that really why guns are so regulated, or are these just distractions to the real purpose of gun control? I would posit that the real reason the political, cultural and social elite seek gun control is for a far more insidious agenda.

Of course regulation is the very definition of an infringement. Regulation and laws are there to keep people from doing something, or having something, the elite have decided are bad. In infringing on an action, product or thought, the argument is always that it is for the greater good. In the case of laws against murder, the reason for them is that if a person’s life is taken, that person has been denied his or her fundamental individual Right to exist. In the case of laws against theft, the rational is that people have the Right to their possessions, and taking something from someone denies them the enjoyment of that possession. Right law protects individuals – not society. In all cases law that is in keeping with Our Constitution are there to protect our person, property or liberty. Gun control however is different, gun laws are there to deny us the ability to defend our lives, to protect our property and to make it possible to remove our liberty, the exact opposite of right law.

The rabid gun control advocate demands all people, especially law abiding citizens give up guns so the fearful man or woman can feel safer. In that the crux of their argument is “guns are dangerous and therefore they must be regulated, the Constitution can go to Hell.” But in making such arguments they forget that all the Rights enumerated in the Constitution are dangerous. The Right to free speech is very dangerous, far more dangerous than the Right to keep and bear arms. The most an armed lunatic can kill is a hundred, maybe a few more, but the damage an armed terrorist can visit on humanity is limited by the response of law abiding armed citizens as well as law enforcement. The damage a pamphleteer can do to the well ordering of society is exponentially worse. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf which in large part abetted the slaughter of sixty million human beings and the rewriting of the world’s map. Marx and Engels penned The Communist Manifesto which to date has justified the extermination of well over one hundred million innocent people! Clearly, if safety is what the gun control advocate wants, freedom of speech is far more dangerous then the Right to keep and bear arms, and so must be outlawed.

If we examine the results of gun control laws, both in the united States and elsewhere, a clear pattern emerges. In the cities with the greatest infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms, violence of all kinds is out of control, especially gun violence. In those places where guns are the least regulated, there is the least violence, especially gun violence. Furthermore, where guns are outlawed most of the violence is stranger on stranger violence, and where guns are legally protected, almost all the violence is between people who know each other, in other words, crimes of passion. In countries where guns have been outlawed, like Australia, gun violence has skyrocketed. So the argument that gun laws keep people safe is obviously untrue.

The new class elite who seek to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, argue that since the Right was prefaced by the term Well regulated Militia, it was meant to apply to the government and not to individuals. Even a perfunctory examination of this argument shows it to be absurd. That the founders would place a Right in the Bill of Rights that gives government a Right, that has already been granted elsewhere is clearly spurious, that they would place a government Right among Rights specifically designated for individuals to protect us from tyranny, shows it to be sophistry of the most diabolical kind. The Bill of Rights was specifically designed, under great debate, to protect the people from a despotic government. Certainly not to empower government to become despotic! Madison himself said, Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. At the time the Bill of Rights was written militia meant all able bodied men. Like I said, even a cursory glance at the spurious claim that the Second Amendment is to give government the sole power to keep and bear arms is absurd.

The Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution as a secondary bulwark against government becoming despotic. Madison initially objected, arguing what need a of a Bill of Rights, since the Constitution forbade government from doing anything it is not specifically allowed to do under the Constitution. Going further he reasoned, if the Bill of Rights forbade the regulation of jumping jacks, could it then therefore regulate tiddlywinks? He eventually came on board with the Federalists who called for a Bill of Rights and wrote them himself. But as we now see, our government has become so extra constitutional, even the “parchment barriers” of our Bill of Rights can be ignored by a government intent on ignoring them. Now that our Constitution, and even our Bill of Rights means nothing, tyranny cannot be far away. That my friends is why we need to add a Fourth Branch… but that is another article for another time.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Faction in the Modern World

Monday, August 20th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that faction is a bigger threat to our Constitutional republic today than at any time in our history. That is a pretty big statement, considering that we have fought a Civil War, as atonement for the evil of slavery, and all the other times faction has threatened our liberties. The threat of faction has been known and understood since Madison wrote Federalist Paper #10. That faction is a bigger threat today, speaks more about the characteristic of faction in modern society, than the nature of faction as a whole. If I am correct, and faction poses a greater threat to our freedoms and the liberties of our children than at any other time in American history, we must all wake up and address this threat, else we will leave our children a far worse state of affairs, than our parents did us.

In Federalist paper #10 Madison wrote that faction is the biggest threat to a republic. Faction, being like fire and liberty being like oxygen, the way to control faction is not to starve it of oxygen, (liberty) but to pit faction against faction. I am of course paraphrasing his words but the meaning is correct. By pitting faction against faction his theory, and the theory of the US Constitution, is that if faction is always fighting turf wars, no one faction can grow sufficiently large to take over the apparatus of the State. Madison warned that if some faction gained total control of two of the branches of government then our liberty would be threatened. He was adamant about this.

One of the bulwarks against this happening is the free press enjoyed in the US. The free press being able to point out when any single faction in society is becoming too large. A free press was considered one of the controls on the predilection of the Elite to usurp power. This control has worked sometimes better, sometimes worse, but all in all it has been a moderately sufficient safeguard in the past. Today however, we have a media that calls itself unbiased, yet they have a demonstrable bias toward a single faction, showing absolute contempt for our intelligence. This faction was briefly in charge of all three branches of government and still has hegemony over two. The Executive and the Judicial. Control of the Legislative branch is tenuously limited, by the inclusion of a few that are not in that faction, but they are incessantly vilified by the unbiased press for it.

The two party system was another protection against the vicissitudes of faction. If there are only two parties, then all factions must squeeze into one or the other party, thus limiting their overall power. Various factions would have to commingle within each party in order to have some seat at the table. The two party system worked well throughout most of our history but recently has become an impediment due to the pernicious nature of the one faction. This faction has penetrated both parties. The democrat party is under total control of this faction and the Elite in the republican party are loyal to this faction as well. There is only a small minority, growing to be sure, but nevertheless a small faction within the republican party that resists the advance of these people.

Joesph Schumpeter said that free markets and liberty cannot long last. His dire prediction was based on the fact that, once a person becomes wealthy their first order of business is to close the door behind them, so that no one else can pass through the portal to wealth, they did. This doesn’t make the rich bad… it makes them human. The means to this end being ever increasing regulation. As Milton Friedman said, when a business man is confronted with a superior competitor he has two options, the first is to ramp up his business to effectively compete and the other is to turn to government and regulate the competitor away. It is the responsibility of the electorate to control the avarice of the wealthy by the popular vote.

Now we have one faction that seeks to regulate the people while resisting the most basic controls on their actions. They use populist rhetoric to convince us that they work in our best interests, but even a cursory knowledge of human nature shows, this is mere folly. No one works against their own interests. Those very few that have, are given the attribution… Saints and the Christ. To believe that people who seek to control us with arbitrary power, only seek the interests of society, eschewing their own is blindness. The progressive faction is nearing their complete victory over our Constitutional republic, destroying their mortal enemy, the free market and imposing arbitrary rule on us and our children.

All is not lost however. We still have suffrage and the unconventional media. This blog being an example. We can use that power given to us by the Founding Fathers and turn the tide, for at best a few more years, or we can stand aside and allow the demise of our republic, and with it, our liberty, opportunity and safety. It is up to us to be rational maximizers, to stand in the way of the progressive agenda, for the sake of those we love most, or, we can accept the part of useful idiot. I for one, have no interest in being a useful idiot and ceding our republic to a single faction, no matter how flowery their rhetoric… Do you?

Sincerely,

John Pepin