http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca Blogging Canadians Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:08:59 -0700 en http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-president-and-an-entity-other-than-the-united-states/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-president-and-an-entity-other-than-the-united-states/ Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:08:59 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-president-and-an-entity-other-than-the-united-states/

IA



111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION

H. J. RES. 41


Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit the President from entering into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States.

__________________


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 25, 2009

Mrs. BACHMANN (for herself, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. KIRK, Ms. FOXX, Mr. PITTS, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. McCLINTOCK, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. WAMP, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. FLEMING, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ISSA, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. CULBERSON, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. JONES, Mr. POSEY, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, and Mr. CONAWAY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

__________________


JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit the President from entering into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘‘ARTICLE -

‘‘The President may not enter into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States.''.

O

1 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/your-leader/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/your-leader/ Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:08:59 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/your-leader/

6 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/work-27/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/work-27/ Mon, 06 Sep 2010 08:08:37 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/work-27/
Working Man

Song lyrics by Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson

Performed by "Rush"
Album: Rush (1974)


I get up at seven, yeah,
and I go to work at nine.
I got no time for livin'.
Yes, I'm workin' all the time.

It seems to me
I could live my life
a lot better than I think I am.
I guess that's why they call me,
they call me the workin' man.

They call me the workin' man.
I guess that's what I am.

I get home at five o'clock,
and I take myself out a nice, cold beer.
Always seem to be wond'rin'
why there's nothin' goin' down here.

It seems to me
I could live my life
a lot better than I think I am.
I guess that's why they call me,
they call me the workin' man.

They call me the workin' man.
I guess that's what I am.

Well they call me the workin' man.
I guess that's what I am.

4 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-tax-collecting-bondholders-and-the-state/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-tax-collecting-bondholders-and-the-state/ Sun, 05 Sep 2010 10:08:17 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-tax-collecting-bondholders-and-the-state/
Don't Buy Government Bonds

by Frank Chodorov

The following essay is reprinted from Out of Step: The Autobiography of an Individualist (New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1962). It has been edited in terms of its content.


IN 1800 the United States Treasury owed $83 million. The population was then three million. Every baby born that year was loaded down with a debt-burden of about $28; if the interest rate was 6%, the new-born citizen could look forward to paying a service charge on the national debt of $1.68 per year. [In 1962] the debt-load of the nation [came] to well over $290 billion, and the population [wa]s, in round figures, 180 million. Thus, while the population [. . .] increased by 60 times [between 1800 and 1962], the national debt [. . .] increased by 3600 times; and figuring the interest rate at 4%, the cost of handling this debt [in 1962 wa]s, roughly, $68 per citizen[.] The child [in 1962 was] loaded down at birth with a debt-load of $1700. . . . These figures might be adjusted to the increased production per citizen, and to the decreased value of the dollar. Even so, the fact sticks out that posterity does not pay off anything of the national debt, that each administration adds to the debt left to it, and that the promise of liquidation implied in every bond issue is a false promise.

The bulk of the rise in the national debt [between 1800 and 1962] occurred [between] 1933 [and 1962], when Franklin D. Roosevelt abolished the gold standard and thus made money redeemable in-money. When money was redeemable in gold, the inherent profligacy of government was somewhat restrained; for, if the citizen lost faith in his money, or his bond, he could demand gold in exchange, and since the government did not have enough gold on hand to meet the demand, it had to curtail its spending proclivity accordingly. But, Mr. Roosevelt removed this shackle and thus opened the floodgates. The only limit to the inclination of every politician to spend money, in order to acquire power, is the refusal of the public to lend its money to the government. Of course, the government can then resort to printing money, to make money out of nothing, but at least the people will not be compounding the swindle. Therefore, I offer the following gratuitous advice:

Don't buy bonds.

The advice is based on purely moral, not fiscal, grounds. I could point out that when the government issues a bond it is diluting the value of all the money in existence. Every bond is, in effect, money: the fact that the indenture bears the seal and imprint of the government makes it so, even though it may not enter the market place as money; it does not become monetized for some time. That is, every bond issued by the government is inflationary, and thus robs the savers of the value of their savings. That, of course, is a swindle and is immoral. But, the immorality of bonds runs much deeper.

In the first place, when the State spends more money then it receives in taxes-a fact indelibly written into the bond-it is deliberately committing an act of bankruptcy. If your neighbor should do that you would promptly put him down as a dishonest person. Is the dishonesty transmuted into its opposite when committed by a legal entity? By what multiplier can robbery be made a virtue? The act of borrowing against imaginary income is a fraud, no matter who does it, and when you make a loan to that borrower you aid and abet a fraud.

The State's excuse for borrowing is that it invests the proceeds of its bonds for the benefit of posterity. Instead of putting the entire burden of meeting the cost of its beneficial acts on the living it proposes to demand of unborn children their share of the cost. Quite plausible! But is this not the impossible doctrine of control of the living by the dead? What would you think of a prospective father who deliberately put a debt load on his expected offspring? That is exactly what you do when you cooperate with the State's borrowing program. You are loading on your children and your children's children an obligation to pay for something they had no voice in, and for which they may not care at all. Your investment-for-posterity may earn you nothing but the curses of posterity.

The use of the word "investment" in connection with a bond issued by the State is a treacherous euphemism. When you buy an industrial bond you lend your money to a corporation so that it can buy a machine with which to increase its output of things wanted by the market. The interest paid you is part of the increased production made possible by your loan. That is an investment. The State, however, does not put your money into production. The State spends it-that is all the State is capable of doing-and your savings disappear. The interest you get comes out of the tax-fund, to which you contribute your share, and your share is increased by the cost of servicing your bond. In effect, you are paying yourself. Is that an investment?

When you depart from this earth you pass on to your heirs both the tax-collecting bond and the tax-paying obligation it represents. Or, as is usually the case-for the history of bonds is that ownership tends to concentrate in a few hands-if you sold your bond, the new owner in due time passes on to his heirs a claim on the production of your offspring. Your great-grandchildren are called upon to labor for his great-grandchildren. The bond thus becomes a legacy of slavery.

The fact is that posterity never pays off its ancestral debts-or not in the way you are led to believe by the bond-selling State. The present generation is posterity to all the generations that have gone before. Are we paying off any of the debts incurred by our forebears? Hardly. We have spending of our own to do and must leave to our posterity some new debts as well as those we inherited. They, in truth, will do likewise.

Whether or not there is any obligation on the living to liquidate the debt left by an arbitrary ancestry, the political machine prevents its being done. Actual liquidation would necessitate increased taxation, on the one hand, and a curtailment of State spending on the other. Increased taxation the State always welcomes, for any increase in taxes means an increase in State power, and the politicians are always for that; it can never spare a sou for the reduction of the national debt. No State-absolutist or constitutional-has ever put aside its ambitions to make good on its promissory notes. The "posterity should pay" argument, in the light of this historic fact, becomes the equipment of a confidence game.

What, then, becomes of the national debt? It grows and grows until, like a balloon, it bursts. But, though this is inevitable, thanks to the money-making monopoly of the State, it takes a long time before the balloon does burst, and certain conditions must prevail to cause the explosion.

When the promissory paper of a small nation is held by a powerful one, some semblance of financial rectitude is maintained by means of the marines; the economy of the defaulting State is impounded until the debt is liquidated, and sometimes for a longer period. Internal debts, on the other hand, are never liquidated. When the burden of meeting the service charges becomes economically unbearable, and the State's credit is gone, repudiation or inflation is resorted to.

Of these two methods, repudiation is by far the more honest. It is a straightforward statement of fact: the State declares its inability to pay. The wiping out of the debt, furthermore, can have a salutory effect on the economy of the country, since the lessening of the tax-burden leaves the citizenry more to do with. The market place becomes to that extent healthier and more vigorous. The losers in this operation are the few who hold the bonds, but since they too are members of society they must in the long run benefit by the improvement of the general economy; they lose as tax-collectors, they gain as producers.

Repudiation commends itself also because it weakens faith in the State. Until the act is forgotten by subsequent generations, the State's promises find few believers; its credit is shattered. [. . . .]

Anyhow, since honesty and politics are contradictory terms, the State's standard method of meeting its debt obligations is inflation. It pays off with engraved paper. To be sure, even as it issues its new I.O.U.s to pay off its defaulted ones, the inflationary process is on, for every bond is in fact money; like money, it is a claim on production. The bond you buy increases the circulatory medium, thus depressing its value, and you are really exchanging good money for bad. You are cheating yourself. That is demonstrable by comparing the purchasing power of the dollar at the time you bought the bond with its purchasing power at maturity.

As Germany did in the 1920's, the State can make inflation and repudiation synonymous; it can inflate for the purpose of repudiation. This is what is called "uncontrolled" inflation, another impostor term. There is really no such thing as "uncontrolled" or "run away" inflation, because the printing presses do not run themselves; somebody must start and keep them going until the desired end, the wiping out of the national debt, is accomplished. The disadvantage of this process, as against outright repudiations, is that in wiping out the debt it also wipes out the values which the citizenry have laboriously built up; it wipes out savings. However, no nation has ever resorted to "uncontrolled" inflation until its economy has been destroyed by war, until production was unable to meet the expenses of the political establishment, to say nothing of the debt piled up by its predecessors.

But, how about the natural pull of patriotism? In the face of national danger, is it not right that we put our all into the common defense? Of course it is right; and people being what they are, the pooling of interests is spontaneous when community life is threatened, as in the case of a flood, an earthquake or a conflagration, or when the Indians attacked the stockade. In such catastrophes we give, we do not lend. Patriotism weighted with profit is of a dubious kind. Bonds do not fight wars. The instruments and materials of war are forged by living labor using the existing stock of capital; the expense must be met with current production. The bonds are issued because laborers and capitalists are reluctant to give their output for the common cause; they put a greater value on their property than on victory. Were confiscatory taxation the only means of carrying on the war its popularity might wane; the war would have to be called off.

This specious resort to spurious patriotism reaches its ultimate in the textbook justification for the public debt. It runs something like this: citizens who have a financial stake in the State, by way of bonds, take a livelier interest in its doings. Thus, love of country is made contingent on the probability of returns, both as to capital and to booty. This smacks of the kind of patriotism which motivated the money-brokers of the Middle Ages; once they invested in their king's ventures they could not afford to become lukewarm in their fealty.

It is not patriotism that is engendered by the borrowing State. It is subservience. With its portfolio chock-full of bonds, the financial institution becomes in effect a junior partner whose self-interest compels compliance. An allotment of bonds to a bank carries force because its current large holdings might lose value if doubt were thrown on the credit of the State. A precipitate drop in the prices of federal issues would shake Wall Street out of its boots; hence new issues must be taken up to protect old issues. The concern of heavily endowed universities in their holdings of bonds is such that professorial doubt of their moral content could hardly be tolerated. Even the pacifist minister of a rich church would have to be circumspect in voicing his opinion of the public debt. That is, the self-interest of the tax-collecting bondholders, not patriotism, impels support of the State.

Taken all in all, the bond is a thoroughly immoral institution. I would not be caught dead with one of these papers on me.

4 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/a-rich-mans-world/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/a-rich-mans-world/ Sat, 04 Sep 2010 08:08:19 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/a-rich-mans-world/

Money, Money, Money

Song lyrics by Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus

Performed by "ABBA"
Album: Arrival (1976)


I work all night, I work all day
to pay the bills I have to pay
ain't it sad
and still there never seems to be
a single penny left for me
that's too bad
in my dreams I have a plan
if I got me a wealthy man
I wouldn't have to work at all
I'd fool around and have a ball

Money, money, money
must be funny
in the rich man's world
money, money, money
always sunny
in the rich man's world
aha, aha
all the things I could do
if I had a little money
it's a rich man's world

A man like that is hard to find
but I can't get him off my mind
ain't it sad
and if he happens to be free
I bet he wouldn't fancy me
that's too bad
so I must leave, I'll have to go
to Las Vegas or Monaco
and win a fortune in a game
my life will never be the same


Money, money, money
must be funny
in the rich man's world
money, money, money
always sunny
in the rich man's world
aha, aha
all the things I could do
if I had a little money
it's a rich man's world

4 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/a-form-of-tyranny/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/a-form-of-tyranny/ Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:08:22 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/a-form-of-tyranny/
Legalize Drunk Driving

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

As posted: Ludwig von Mises Institute
October 3, 2006


In November 2000, Clinton signed a bill passed by Congress that ordered the states to adopt new, more onerous drunk-driving standards or face a loss of highway funds. That's right: the old highway extortion trick. Sure enough, states passed new, tighter laws against Driving Under the Influence, responding as expected to the feds' ransom note.

The feds have declared that a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent and above is criminal and must be severely punished. The National Restaurant Association is exactly right that this is absurdly low. The overwhelming majority of accidents related to drunk driving involve repeat offenders with blood-alcohol levels twice that high. If a standard of 0.1 doesn't deter them, then a lower one won't either.

But there's a more fundamental point. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government's "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.

Sure, we can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over some period of time. But at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals. That's not the way law is supposed to work. Indeed, this is a form of tyranny.

Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.

This is why the campaign against "racial profiling" has intuitive plausibility to many people: surely a person shouldn't be hounded solely because some demographic groups have higher crime rates than others. Government should be preventing and punishing crimes themselves, not probabilities and propensities. Neither, then, should we have driver profiling, which assumes that just because a person has quaffed a few he is automatically a danger.

In fact, driver profiling is worse than racial profiling, because the latter only implies that the police are more watchful, not that they criminalize race itself. Despite the propaganda, what's being criminalized in the case of drunk driving is not the probability that a person driving will get into an accident but the fact of the blood-alcohol content itself. A drunk driver is humiliated and destroyed even when he hasn't done any harm.

Of course, enforcement is a serious problem. A sizeable number of people leaving a bar or a restaurant would probably qualify as DUI. But there is no way for the police to know unless they are tipped off by a swerving car or reckless driving in general. But the question becomes: why not ticket the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it? Why indeed.

To underscore the fact that it is some level of drinking that is being criminalized, government sets up these outrageous, civil-liberties-violating barricades that stop people to check their blood - even when they have done nothing at all. This is a gross attack on liberty that implies that the government has and should have total control over us, extending even to the testing of intimate biological facts. But somehow we put up with it because we have conceded the first assumption that government ought to punish us for the content of our blood and not just our actions.

There are many factors that cause a person to drive poorly. You may have sore muscles after a weight-lifting session and have slow reactions. You could be sleepy. You could be in a bad mood, or angry after a fight with your spouse. Should the government be allowed to administer anger tests, tiredness tests, or soreness tests? That is the very next step, and don't be surprised when Congress starts to examine this question.

Already, there's a move on to prohibit cell phone use while driving. Such an absurdity follows from the idea that government should make judgments about what we are allegedly likely to do.

What's more, some people drive more safely after a few drinks, precisely because they know their reaction time has been slowed and they must pay more attention to safety. We all know drunks who have an amazing ability to drive perfectly after being liquored up. They should be liberated from the force of the law, and only punished if they actually do something wrong.

We need to put a stop to this whole trend now. Drunk driving should be legalized. And please don't write me to say: "I am offended by your insensitivity because my mother was killed by a drunk driver." Any person responsible for killing someone else is guilty of manslaughter or murder and should be punished accordingly. But it is perverse to punish a murderer not because of his crime but because of some biological consideration, e.g. he has red hair.

Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content.

There's a final point against Clinton's drunk-driving bill. It is a violation of states rights. Not only is there is no warrant in the Constitution for the federal government to legislate blood-alcohol content - the 10th amendment should prevent it from doing so. The question of drunk driving should first be returned to the states, and then each state should liberate drunk drivers from the force of the law.

____________

Lew Rockwell is president of the Mises Institute, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty. Send email to Rockwell@mises.org. See Lew's columns on Mises.org. Comment on the blog. This article was published November 3, 2000.

5 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-justice-system-and-those-who-are-meant-to-uphold-it/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-justice-system-and-those-who-are-meant-to-uphold-it/ Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:09:30 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-justice-system-and-those-who-are-meant-to-uphold-it/
Judge disclosed 'problem'

Embattled justice removes self from bench as allegations investigated

by Mike McIntyre

As originally posted: Winnipeg Free Press
September 2, 2010


A Manitoba judge disclosed details of a private sex scandal to the committee that ultimately approved her appointment to the bench years before it became public and forced her temporary reassignment.

Lori Douglas, the associate chief justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, family division, announced Wednesday she would remove herself from active duty while the Canadian Judicial Council reviews a sexual harassment complaint recently filed against her.

"In the interests of the judiciary and of the court, Associate Chief Justice Douglas has requested to be temporarily relieved of her duties as a sitting judge of the Court of Queen's Bench," Chief Justice Marc Monnin said in a statement. Douglas will continue to work behind the scenes in an "administrative capacity" pending completion of the probe, which could take at least two more months.

Douglas made the move only hours after a Winnipeg computer programmer filed three lawsuits seeking $67 million in damages against the judge, her husband and the law firm at which both used to work. Alex Chapman claims he is the victim of "assault, harassment, misfeasance in public office, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress" in his statement of claim.

"It is hard to believe that the integrity of our judicial system has been so tarnished by those who are meant to uphold it," Chapman wrote in a summary that accompanied his lawsuits. None of the allegations has been proven and the parties have one month to file a statement of defence.

The Law Society of Manitoba has also launched a professional-misconduct investigation of Douglas's husband, Jack King, who is a family lawyer in private practice. Chapman first met King in 2002 when he retained him to act in his ongoing divorce case. King has admitted he tried to recruit Chapman to have sex with Douglas in early 2003. Chapman says King told him his wife, who is white, was interested in having sex with black men like him.

King's lawyer, Bill Gange, told the Free Press Wednesday Douglas previously disclosed details of her husband's issues with Chapman to the committee that was vetting her nomination as a Queen's Bench judge in 2005.

"She disclosed that there had been a problem. I don't know how detailed it was, because frankly I don't know how much Lori knew," said Gange.

In the lawsuit, Chapman documents several lunch meetings at the Pony Corral restaurant in which King allegedly pointed Chapman to a pornographic website which contained explicit photos of Douglas posted under the name of "White Princess." The site also contained numerous images of sexual activity between white women and black men. Chapman said in his lawsuit King also sent him more than 50 similar photos of Douglas in an attempt to entice him to have sex with her.


"They were most explicit, disgusting, obscene and offensive," Chapman says in his lawsuit. "King's tone was very aggressive, commanding almost."

Chapman is also alleging in his lawsuit Douglas was an active and willing participant in her husband's sordid efforts. He has filed transcripts of several emails and phone calls from King he claims supports that fact, along with details of two personal meetings he had with Douglas.

There is no evidence Douglas knew what King was doing. King has claimed, through his lawyer, that Douglas may not have even been aware of his attempts to solicit other men to have sex with her or the fact he had distributed and posted the pictures.

The question of what Douglas knew, and what she disclosed, is important because aspiring judges are required to answer the following question: "Is there anything in your past or present which could reflect negatively on yourself or the judiciary?"

In the comments accompanying the lawsuit, Chapman claims Douglas began "inappropriately touching him" and inviting him to come to their home in Birds Hill during a second meeting.

In one email allegedly sent by King following his initial meeting with Douglas, he tells Chapman "Alex, she rather liked you." King then passed on several descriptions used by Douglas toward Chapman, including "Significantly neat," "Very intelligent," "Very big."

During one exchange, Chapman said he asked King how Douglas felt about what he was doing.

"Alex, I think she likes you. She suggested this evening (not as a result of anything I said) that you should be invited out here. I suggest that she knows what I have in mind, but she is not going to say it," King wrote. Days later, he said, "Hope we can see you tomorrow. I think she is interested. She also (I suspect from something she said) knows what I have in mind."

King resigned from Thompson Dorfman Sweatman in June 2003, taking a one-year medical leave and agreeing to pay Chapman $25,000. In exchange, Chapman signed a confidentiality agreement stating he would not take any legal action, would never speak publicly about the issue and would turn over and destroy all photos he had of Douglas.

Chapman now admits he has breached those terms by coming forward. He says his personal life is "in turmoil" and believes he is being discriminated against by the justice system based on his previous dealings with Douglas and King.

In his lawsuit, Chapman said he feared how this would impact his divorce case and two civil lawsuits he had filed, including one against the Winnipeg Police Service that was settled in June.

Chapman says his lawyer, Ian Histed, told him that, during a private case conference, the judge pressured them to settle for an amount Chapman felt was unfair. Chapman says Histed told him the presiding judge is a "good friend" of Douglas and worried that if they didn't settle, all of the hidden details about her and King would come out into the open, because the civil lawsuit was tied to his divorce case and settlement. Chapman says he ultimately agreed to the amount but wasn't happy with it.

King's lawyer Gange accused Chapman of originally trying to "extort" $100,000 from King only to settle for much less and said King and Douglas likely have several legal avenues to pursue against Chapman's allegations.

www.mikeoncrime.com

4 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/manitoba-lawyer-jack-king/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/manitoba-lawyer-jack-king/ Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:08:23 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/manitoba-lawyer-jack-king/

In 2003, Mr. King was made aware that Mr. Chapman claimed to have been offended by comments made in discussions between Mr. King and Mr. Chapman. The complaint came as a surprise to Mr. King as Mr. Chapman had never suggested to him that the discussions caused him any discomfort. Mr. Chapman through legal counsel demanded a sum of money to resolve his complaint. Mr. King through his legal counsel apologized to Mr. Chapman for any offence that Mr. King may have caused. A settlement was achieved between Mr. Chapman and Mr. King. As part of that settlement, Mr. Chapman agreed to return all documents sent by Mr. King to him uncopied and to delete from his computer system all electronic documents. The matter was resolved 7 years ago. Mr. Chapman signed a confidentiality agreement to reflect the private nature of the dispute and the settlement.




At the time of the incident Mr. King was suffering from depression related to the long drawn out deaths of a close friend and Mr. King's brother. Following the incident he took a medical leave and sought counselling. Mr. King eventually returned to his legal career. Over the past seven years there have been no other complaints to the Law Society in any way related to conduct similar to the incident with Mr. Chapman.




Mr. King was dismayed to be advised by the CBC that Mr. Chapman had not abided by the terms of the settlement agreement and that in fact Mr. Chapman had retained documents that he had certified he had returned to Mr. King's counsel. Mr. Chapman had no right to possession of the documents after the settlement agreement was reached. It is equally disconcerting that the CBC has refused to honour the demand that has been made of it to deliver to Mr. King's counsel the documents that Mr. Chapman wrongfully provided to the CBC.






William S. Gange

760-444 St. Mary Avenue

Winnipeg, MB R3C 3T1

(204)953-5401

wsg@gangegoodmanfrench.ca

http://www.gangegoodmanfrench.ca/

4 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/all-these-people-in-a-legal-field-who-conduct-themselves-inappropriately-and-get-away-with-it/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/all-these-people-in-a-legal-field-who-conduct-themselves-inappropriately-and-get-away-with-it/ Wed, 01 Sep 2010 06:09:17 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/all-these-people-in-a-legal-field-who-conduct-themselves-inappropriately-and-get-away-with-it/
Nude photos of judge contained in complaint

CBC NEWS
August 31, 2010


Naked photographs of a senior Manitoba judge engaged in bondage are part of a man's complaints to legal watchdogs about the judge's past and that of her husband, CBC News has learned.

A formal complaint was filed in July with the Canadian Judicial Council against Lori Douglas, associate chief justice of Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench (family division). Another complaint has been lodged with Manitoba's Law Society against Douglas's husband, Jack King, 64, a Winnipeg family lawyer.

The complainant, computer specialist Alexander Chapman, 44, alleges that King harassed him in 2003 by pressing him to have sex with Douglas, who was a lawyer at the time.

Over several weeks, Chapman said King showed him about 30 sexually explicit photos of Douglas, showing her naked in various forms of bondage, in chains, with sex toys and performing oral sex.


Chapman said he became so bothered by King's overtures that he began sleeping at his St. Mary Avenue office, pretending he was too busy with work to meet Douglas.

King's lawyer, Bill Gange, said King was suffering from depression at the time and didn't tell his wife that he had shown the pictures to anyone - or that he had posted the photos on a porn website.

An Ottawa legal expert said that even if Douglas, who was appointed a judge in 2005, was the unwitting victim of a scheme, the presence of the photos on the internet raises issues about her ability to perform as a judge.

"If pictures of you naked end up on an internet site, it's quite difficult to say you have the credibility to be a judge," said Sébastien Grammond, dean of civil law at the University of Ottawa.

Grammond said a judge ultimately represents the ideal of justice and therefore the judge's conduct and image reflect on the justice system as a whole. The judge is, in a sense, the embodiment of the justice system, something the Supreme Court has noted in a past judgment.

Grammond doubts that Douglas would have been appointed a judge if she had disclosed the fact that there were nude photographs of her on the internet in her application.

There is a question in the application that asks, "Is there anything in your past or present which could reflect negatively on yourself or the judiciary and which should be disclosed?"

"I think the facts are sufficiently suspect to warrant disclosure and to raise very important questions as to whether such a person should have been appointed a judge," Grammond said.

Douglas has refused to comment to CBC News on the allegations.


'Disgusting' pictures

Chapman said he first met Douglas's husband, Jack King, in 2002, when he retained him from the Winnipeg law firm Thompson Dorfman Sweatman to handle his divorce.

Five months later, Chapman said King invited him out for a drink and mentioned a porn website devoted to interracial sex, particularly between black men and white women.

"He was talking to me about websites and stuff, and … he gave me a website to go to called Darkcavern.com," said Chapman, who is black and originally from Trinidad.

King supplied him with a password, Chapman said, and told him to look at a section called "Our White Princesses," where white women post photos to attract black men. Numerous nude photos of King's wife, who was a lawyer at the same firm her husband worked at, were posted there, Chapman said.

"I wanted to puke," Chapman said. "[The pictures] were disgusting. I couldn't believe my lawyer was doing this to me."

It apparently wasn't the first time King sought out a black man to have sex with his wife. An ad on the Darkcavern site, seen by CBC News, shows nude photos of Douglas and seeks a "smooth black male or Mexican" to join the couple during an trip to Cancun in February 2002.

The ad specifies that the man is wanted "to seduce her with the intent of getting her enmeshed in the submissive, multi-partner, interracial sex scene."

"Husband will help and facilitate," it goes on to say.

Photos of Douglas have since been removed from the Darkcavern site.


'He looked at me as being a sex object'

Over the next few weeks, Chapman said King sent him more pictures of his wife and continued to encourage him to engage in a sexual relationship with her.

Chapman said he was emotionally distraught by the advances and didn't know how to handle his lawyer's persistent proposals. "As a black person, a black guy, I'm really sad that he looked at me as being a sex object."

He said he didn't have enough money to switch lawyers and had been warned by a judge not to delay his divorce case any further.

As Chapman's divorce was wrapping up, he said he eventually agreed to meet King and his wife at a Winnipeg restaurant, fearing his lawyer would not properly represent him if he didn't comply. King left Chapman alone with Douglas, and they chatted, according to Chapman's July 14, 2010, complaint to the Manitoba Law Society. In his complaint, Chapman described the meeting as feeling like "a first date."

Chapman said the couple invited him to their home in Birds Hill, northeast of Winnipeg, but he never went and he denies ever having sexual relations with Douglas.

When his divorce concluded, Chapman said he filed a complaint to the managing partners at Thompson Dorfman Sweatman. Soon after the complaint, King left the firm.


Chapman decides to come forward

Chapman received a $25,000 cash payment from King in return for promises not to take legal action against King and his partners. As part of the settlement, Chapman said he was required to not speak about the matter and to destroy all emails, photos and other materials sent to him by King. He said he signed, but kept the material.

After seven years of silence, however, Chapman decided to come forward, saying he felt distraught about the matter for a long time and worried it may have influence in civil court cases he's involved in, which is related to the divorce he obtained in 2003. CBC News has seen no evidence of such influence.

Chapman said he plans to sue both Douglas and King for sexual harassment and discrimination.

"I decided I'm tired of protecting Lori Douglas, Jack King and all these people in a legal field who conduct themselves inappropriately and get away with it," Chapman said.


Douglas unaware of posting: lawyer

Gange, King's lawyer, citing King's depression at the time, said the events Chapman alleges were part of an isolated incident and that King's wife didn't know he was soliciting a client to have sex with her. Gange said Douglas also was unaware her husband was posting pictures online.

Gange told CBC News King took time off work on a sick leave after his interaction with Chapman, and was put under the care of a doctor. Gange said King's behaviour at the time is not in any way consistent with his behaviour before or since.

King, in a letter to the Manitoba Law Society, acknowledged that he did meet and talk about sex with Chapman, but only after Chapman obtained his divorce in April 2003. He said Chapman would often initiate the conversations.

"At no time did I have an impression that Mr. Chapman felt uncomfortable having these discussions with me," King wrote in the letter, dated Aug. 12, 2010.

He acknowledged that he talked about the possibility of Chapman having an affair with Douglas, but denied that she had knowledge of it.

"I do regret that I had any conversations or any contact at all with Mr. Chapman that did not relate strictly to his divorce issues," he said. "I apologized to Mr. Chapman through Mr. Gange upon being advised that my conduct had offended Mr. Chapman."

He said he was coping with the deaths of his best friend and his brother at the time.

A spokesperson for Thompson Dorfman Sweatman said King quit the firm after the alleged incident on the advice of his doctor.

Douglas remained a partner at Thompson Dorfman Sweatman until 2005, when she was appointed to the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. She was later named associate chief justice and now sits on the Canadian Judicial Council, an agency that sets policies for the federal judicial system.

The council is the same agency that hears complaints about the conduct of federally appointed judges, and the same agency Chapman sent his complaint to.

Because Douglas is a judge, the council is the only professional body that can hear a complaint against her.

A Canadian Judicial Council complaint investigation typically takes three months.

A federally appointed judge can only be removed upon order of Parliament.

5 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/all-evil-today/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/all-evil-today/ Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:08:54 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/all-evil-today/
Money

Song lyrics by Roger Waters

Performed by "Pink Floyd"
Album: The Dark Side of the Moon (1973)


Money, get away
Get a good job with more pay and you're o.k.
Money it's a gas
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash
New car, caviar, four star daydream
Think I'll buy me a football team

Money get back
I'm all right jack keep your hands off of my stack
Money it's a hit
But don't give me that do goody good bullshit
I'm in the hi-fidelity first class travelling set
And I think I need a Lear jet

Money it's a crime
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie
Money so they say
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for a rise it's no surprise that they're
giving none away

3 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/all-seven-wauchula-city-commissioners/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/all-seven-wauchula-city-commissioners/ Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:08:43 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/all-seven-wauchula-city-commissioners/
Wauchula Officials Take Plea Deals on Sunshine Law Charges

Commissioners faced charges they held meetings closed to the public.

by Jason Geary

As originally posted on: TheLedger.com
August 11, 2010


BARTOW | All seven Wauchula city commissioners have taken plea deals on charges they held closed-to-the-public meetings.

In May, the State Attorney's Office charged the commissioners of the Hardee County city with breaking the law by having private meetings Sept. 14, 2009, and March 1, 2010. Complaint affidavits state that the commissioners' actions showed "a purposeful intent to keep sensitive subject matter regarding city employees away from the public."

At the private meetings, the commissioners discussed issues facing the city, including the possible terminations of the police chief and city manager as well as perceived leadership problems with the city manager, the affidavits state.

Six commissioners faced two counts of violating Florida's Sunshine Law. They are David Royal, Valentine Patarini, Yeavone Spieth, Daniel Graham, Delois Johnson and Jerry Conerly.

One commissioner, Clarence Bolin, faced one count because he was accused of attending one of the two meetings.

The second-degree misdemeanors carried a maximum punishment of up to 60 days in jail and six months of probation.

As part of a plea agreement, they each pleaded no-contest June 30 to a single count of violating Florida's Sunshine Law, said Chip Thullbery, a spokesman with the State Attorney's Office.

Each was ordered to pay $325 for fines and court costs. Royal must also pay $500 for the cost of prosecution, and the other six commissioners are required to pay $300 apiece for the cost of prosecution.

Circuit Judge J. David Langford withheld adjudication - a formal finding of guilt.

[ Jason Geary can be reached at jason.geary@theledger.com or 863-802-7536. ]

4 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/former-new-york-city-criminal-court-judge-james-gibbons/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/former-new-york-city-criminal-court-judge-james-gibbons/ Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:08:17 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/former-new-york-city-criminal-court-judge-james-gibbons/
Judge's pix called kid porn

by Laura Italiano

As originally posted: New York Post
August 28, 2010


The naked teen girls pictured in the work computer of disgraced ex-Manhattan Criminal Court Judge James Gibbons definitely appear underage, multiple law-enforcement sources said yesterday.

"These appear to be from illegal sites, with illegal content," said one source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

But whether computer forensic investigators - who are still "dumping" files from the ex-judge's hard drive - can prove the teens depicted in the porn were actually underage remains a question, sources said.

"The girls definitely look underage," said a second law-enforcement source, who also asked to not be identified. "If she looks 14, is she really 14? Or is she 17, and so it's not illegal?"

Gibbons, 47, was on paternity leave when he resigned on Aug. 17. Under New York law, it is illegal to possess pornographic images of a child under age 16.

3 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-banker/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-banker/ Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:08:24 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-banker/
German officials blast banker's remarks as racist

by Kirsten Grieshaber

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 29, 2010


BERLIN - Top German officials and immigrant leaders on Sunday condemned remarks by a board member of Germany's federal bank as racist and anti-Semitic. Chancellor Angela Merkel said the Bundesbank should discuss dismissing the banker.

Thilo Sarrazin of the Bundesbank came under fire for telling the weekly newspaper Welt am Sonntag that "all Jews share the same gene." He also said Muslim immigrants across Europe were not willing or capable of integrating into western societies.

Last year, Sarrazin, who previously served as finance minister for Berlin, told a magazine that "I do not need to accept anyone who lives on handouts from a state that it rejects, is not adequately concerned about the education of their children and constantly produces new, little headscarf-clad girls."

He later apologized for those remarks.

However, Sarrazin, 65, would know full well that his country has had little tolerance for anti-Semitic remarks since the Holocaust, and that many of Germany's immigrants have complained about racist remarks and xenophobic behavior.

On Sunday, several German lawmakers demanded that Sarrazin step down from his post as board member at the Bundesbank and resign his party membership of the left-leaning Social Democrats - demands that Sarrazin rejected.

Merkel told German public Television ARD that "the choice of words, the discrimination of entire groups, the ostracism and the contempt is unacceptable and does not lead to a solution."

Asked whether she wanted Sarrazin to step down, Merkel said while the Bundesbank was independent in making such decisions, she was convinced it would discuss his replacement.

"I'm very certain that they will also talk about this at the Bundesbank. We know that they talk not only about financial problems, but that the Bundesbank is also representing our entire country, domestically and internationally as well," Merkel said.

She also said that while Sarrazin's comments on integration hindered a sober debate about the issue, it was important that "whoever lives here must be willing to integrate into society, learn the language and participate in school - and there we still have a lot of work to do."

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said in an interview with weekly Bild am Sonntag that "remarks that feed racism or even anti-Semitism have no place in our political discourse."

Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg said Sarrazin had "overstepped the borders of provocation."

Leaders of Germany's Jewish and Muslim communities also condemned the banker's remarks.

Stephan Kramer of the Central Council of Jews in Germany told German news agency DAPD: "Whoever tries to identify Jews by their genetic makeup succumbs to racism."

A leading member of the Turkish community in Germany, Kenan Kolat, urged Merkel to expel Sarrazin from his Bundesbank post.

In his Welt interview on Sunday, Sarrazin said that "Muslim immigrants don't integrate as well as other immigrant groups across Europe. The reasons for this are apparently not based on their ethnicity, but are rooted in the culture of Islam."

While most lawmakers have condemned his accusations as racist, some newspapers and TV stations have said an open debate about the country's integration of Muslim immigrants is greatly needed.

Maria Boehmer, the German government official responsible for immigrant affairs, said in a statement Sunday that while it was undisputed that mistakes had been made in the integration of immigrants for decades, that had also been lots of improvement, which Sarrazin always failed to mention.

"Sarrazin paints a distorted picture of integration in Germany, which will not withstand any kind of scientific research," Boehmer said, adding that among other things, the education level of young immigrants had improved significantly during recent years. "We need to support this potential, not discriminate against them."

A government survey in 2009 found that the Muslim population in Germany likely is between 3.8 million and 4.3 million - meaning Muslims make up between 4.6 and 5.2 percent of the population. About 63 percent of those report Turkish heritage.

The overall number of Germans with immigrant roots - including Muslim and non-Muslim immigrants - reached more than 16 million, or nearly 20 percent of the country's 82 million inhabitants in 2009.

Sarrazin has a new book out on the topic that he will introduce next week in Berlin. In some of the excerpts that have already been published by German media, he writes that immigrants have profited much more from Germany's welfare system than they have contributed to it, and claims that immigrants are making German society "dumber" because they are less educated but have more children than ethnic Germans.

The head of the Social Democrats, Sigmar Gabriel, called Sarrazin's comments "linguistically violent" and said last week "if you were to ask me why he still wants to be a member of our party - I don't know either."

3 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/a-learned-and-methodical-jurist/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/a-learned-and-methodical-jurist/ Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:08:21 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/a-learned-and-methodical-jurist/
Manhattan criminal judge investigated for possible underage porn

by Laura Italiano, Joseph Goldstein and Larry Celona

As originally posted: New York Post
August 26, 2010


A highly-respected Manhattan judge - already on paternity leave after fathering a child with a Legal Aid lawyer - has resigned and is under investigation after officials found questionable pornography on his work computer, The Post has learned.

The ex-judge, James Gibbons, who handles misdemeanor and pre-indicted criminal cases, was already on thin ice ethics-wise after impregnating the public defender - a possible conflict of interest had she appeared before his bench, multiple sources involved in the investigation told The Post.

Then court officials learned earlier this month that he had been surfing questionable pornography sites, and, suspecting the porn could involve underage girls, turned the matter over to the DA's office while both the lawyer - Jeane Emhoff, a pretty blonde ten years his junior - and the judge were on leave caring for their new son, sources said.

Gibbons, 47, resigned Aug 17. A Harvard-educated former prosecutor with the Manhattan DA's appeals bureau and a Giuliani appointee, he is widely regarded as a learned and methodical jurist.

His high-profile defendants have included Naomi Campbell - for whom Gibbons nearly issued a bench warrant when she missed a court date on charges she flung a cell phone at a maid .

Investigators said rumors were already swirling about the judge drinking during non-work hours with a clique of Legal Aid lawyers - public defenders who represent many of the defendants before him, sources said. Then Emhoff became pregnant.

"He likely would have faced judicial sanctions for that - even though it's not illegal," said one law enforcement source.

"It was only after one of them got pregnant, and it came out that he was the father, that they began investigating him for possibly not recusing himself," said another law enforcement source said.

"Then Bam!" said the source. "They come across child pornography."


Gibbons' supporters at 100 Centre Street, where he worked, said he and his girlfriend plan to marry and are raising their son together. Gibbons could not be reached for comment; Emhoff declined comment when approached by reporters at the couple's Park Slope apartment.

Office of Court Administration spokesman David Bookstaver declined to comment on the matter, other than to say, "When we become aware of a possible crime, we refer such issues to the appropriate authorities."

Gibbons could not immediately be reached for comment. Erin Duggan, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan DA's office, said it was office policy not to confirm whether someone is under investigation.

Rebecca Harshbarger contributed to this story

3 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/knucklehead/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/knucklehead/ Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:08:15 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/knucklehead/
The porn supremacy?: Smut-obsessed judge is a real Knucklehead.

As originally posted on: NY Daily News
August 28, 2010


Someday a Newton or an Einstein will find scientific proof for the First Law of Knucklehead Dynamics. That being: Sexual obsession and IQ move in inverse proportion.

As the former increases, the latter decreases. Endless anecdotal evidence supports the hypothesis, the latest entry in the journals being Manhattan Criminal Court Judge James Gibbons.

At a time when all the world knows that employers frown on pornography in the workplace, and all the world knows that employers check their computers for same, Gibbons loaded his desktop with sexually explicit images, some of females whose ages are yet to be determined.

Gibbons' doing so in a court system that monitors computer use and would have zero tolerance for porn on the bench or in chambers serves only to suggest that "id" is the true root of the word "idiot."

So, too, the fact that Gibbons first drew the attention of his superiors by fathering a love child with a Legal Aid lawyer who had argued cases before him. That's kind of hard to overlook, no?

So he has fled from the courthouse and into a New York trivia hall of fame.

As Sydney Biddle Barrows is the Mayflower Madam and David Berkowitz is the Son of Sam, James Gibbons will forever be the Porn Judge.

Oh, and Knucklehead.

2 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/my-country/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/my-country/ Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:07:47 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/my-country/
Proud To Be An American

Song lyrics by William Spooner

Performed by "The Tubes"
Album: Young & Rich (1976)


I'm proud
to be an American
I'm proud
of the groovy things we've done
There's television, free religion, Rock 'n' roll, Standard Oil,
Times Square, Jimmy Darren, Corey Wells, and Smokey Bear,
price reduction, reconstruction, Peace Corps, and lots more
Culture that we got to lend


I'm proud
to be an American
And I'm proud
Had a great time bein' one
There's your school and my school and both of us in high school,
surfboards, cigarettes, homework, Southern Comfort
Boy's dean was real mean,
Made us keep our locker's clean
Failed nearly every class
Ditchin' was a gas

I'm proud
to be a young American
I'm proud, just think about it
All the far out things that we've begun
There's revolution, constitution, land, sea, and air pollution,
cold wars, hot wars, gas wars, and confrontutions,
constipation, consternation, open hearted palpitations
Muscular Dystrophy

I'm proud to be an American
Because we got department stores
full of cheap guitars
But when Sputnik plays 'em, you just go go go go

I'm proud to be an American - we got two chickens in every garage
And I wish every other kid could be one - in my country, the medium is the massage
'Cause it's impossible to give
Equality and justice to inferior foreigners
too jealous to trust us

Gimme your weak and your homeless
How 'bout checkin' the oil ah, fella?

I'm proud to be an American

4 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-state-apparatus/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-state-apparatus/ Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:08:12 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-state-apparatus/
Government Borrowing

by Murray N. Rothbard

The following is excerpted in its entirety from Appendix A to Chapter 12 of Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles with Power and Market: Government and the Economy [2nd ed., 1993; 2nd ed., 1977], 2nd rev. ed. (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2009), pp. 1025-28. It has been slightly edited in terms of content (simply, to remove an irrelevant reference to other parts of the book), and has been edited from its original formatting.


The major source of government revenue is taxation. Another source is government borrowing. Government borrowing from the banking system is really a form of inflation: it creates new money-substitutes that go first to the government and then diffuse, with each step of spending, into the community. [. . . .] This is a process entirely different from borrowing from the public, which is not inflationary, for the latter transfers saved funds from private to governmental hands rather than creates new funds. Its economic effect is to divert savings from the channels most desired by the consumers and to shift them to the uses desired by government officials. Hence, from the point of view of the consumers, borrowing from the public wastes savings. The consequences of this waste are a lowering of the capital structure of the society and a lowering of the general standard of living in the present and the future. Diversion and waste of savings from investment causes interest rates to be higher than they otherwise would, since now private uses must compete with government demands. Public borrowing strikes at individual savings more effectively even than taxation, for it specifically lures away savings rather than taxing income in general.

It might be objected that lending to the government is voluntary and is therefore equivalent to any other voluntary contribution to the government; the "diversion" of funds is something desired by the consumers and hence by society.[1] Yet the process is "voluntary" only in a one-sided way. For we must not forget that the government enters the time market as a bearer of coercion and as a guarantor that it will use this coercion to obtain funds for repayment. The government is armed by coercion with a crucial power denied to all other people on the market; it is always assured of funds, whether by taxation or by inflation. The government will therefore be able to divert considerable funds from savers, and at an interest rate lower than any paid elsewhere. For the risk component in the interest rate paid by the government will be lower than that paid by any other borrowers.[2]

Lending to government, therefore, may be voluntary, but the process is hardly voluntary when considered as a whole. It is rather a voluntary participation in future confiscation to be committed by the government. In fact, lending to government twice involves diversion of private funds to the government: once when the loan is made, and private savings are diverted to government spending; and again when the government taxes or inflates (or borrows again) to obtain the money to repay the loan. Then, once more, a coerced diversion takes place from private producers to the government, the proceeds of which, after payment of the bureaucracy for handling services, accrues to the government bondholders. The latter have thus become a part of the State apparatus and are engaging in a "relation of State" with the tax-paying producers.[3]

The ingenious slogan that the public debt does not matter because "we owe it to ourselves" is clearly absurd. The crucial question is: Who is the "we" and who are the "ourselves"? Analysis of the world must be individualistic and not holistic. Certain people owe money to certain other people, and it is precisely this fact that makes the borrowing as well as the taxing process important. For we might just as well say that taxes are unimportant for the same reason.[4]

Many "right-wing" opponents of public borrowing, on the other hand, have greatly exaggerated the dangers of the public debt and have raised persistent alarms about imminent "bankruptcy." It is obvious that the government cannot become "insolvent" like private individuals-for it can always obtain money by coercion, while private citizens cannot. Further, the periodic agitation that the government "reduce the public debt" generally forgets that-short of outright repudiation-the debt can be reduced only by increasing, at least for a time, the tax and/or inflation in society. Social utility can therefore not be enhanced by debt-reduction, except by the method of repudiation-the one way that the public debt can be lowered without a concomitant increase in fiscal coercion. Repudiation would also have the further merit (from the standpoint of the free market) of casting a pall on all future government credit, so that the government could no longer so easily divert savings to government use. It is therefore one of the most curious and inconsistent features of the history of politico-economic thought that it is precisely the "right-wingers," the presumed champions of the free market, who attack repudiation most strongly and who insist on as swift a payment of the public debt as possible.[5]



__________

[1] A recent objection of this sort appears in James M. Buchanan, Public Principles of Public Debt (Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, 1958), especially pp. 104-05.

[2] It is incorrect, however, to say that government loans are "riskless" and therefore that the interest yield on government bonds may be taken to be the pure interest rate. Governments may always repudiate their obligations if they wish, or they may be overturned and their successors may refuse to honor the I.O.U.'s.

[3] Hence, despite Buchanan's criticism, the classical economists such as Mill were right: the public debt is a double burden on the free market; in the present, because resources are withdrawn from private to unproductive governmental employment; and in the future, when private citizens are taxed to pay the debt. Indeed, for Buchanan to be right, and the public debt to be no burden, two extreme conditions would have to be met: (1) the bondholder would have to tear up his bond, so that the loan would be a genuinely voluntary contribution to the government; and (2) the government would have to be a totally voluntary institution, subsisting on voluntary payments alone, not just for this particular debt, but for all in transactions with the rest of society. Cf. Buchanan, Public Principles of Public Debt.

[4] In the same way, we would have to assert that the Jews killed by the Nazis during World War II really committed suicide: "They did it to themselves."

[5] For the rare exception of a libertarian who recognizes the merit of repudiation from a free-market point of view, see Frank Chodorov, "Don't Buy Bonds," analysis, Vol. IV, No. 9 (July, 1948), pp. 1-2.

3 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/barack-the-plumber-and-the-federal-welfare-state/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/barack-the-plumber-and-the-federal-welfare-state/ Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:08:55 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/barack-the-plumber-and-the-federal-welfare-state/

4 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-american-way/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-american-way/ Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:08:17 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-american-way/
[Untitled]

by Steve Raker

As originally posted on: The Aristocrats
August 10, 2010


the American Way is Bribery
the American Dream
is being on the receiving end

3 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/an-undeniable-conspiracy-against-the-people-of-california-their-constitution-and-belief-system/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/an-undeniable-conspiracy-against-the-people-of-california-their-constitution-and-belief-system/ Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:08:24 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/an-undeniable-conspiracy-against-the-people-of-california-their-constitution-and-belief-system/
No April Fools - Brown Using Taxpayer Funds To Perpetuate State Bar Conspiracy

As originally posted: The Elite Lawyers and Judges Whistleblower Network of America
July 25, 2010


Attorney General Jerry Brown, the California Department of Justice and other state and federal agencies are spending taxpayer revenues to cover up and perpetuate the State Bar Conspiracy against California's poor and middle class.

"This is an undeniable conspiracy against the people of California, their Constitution and belief system," Network CEO Phil Stimac said. "It's been going on for decades and is bigger than any one person, court or government agency.

"The general public and even State Bar members have no idea, no idea whatsoever of the incredible corruption, political tampering, ex parte communications, overcharging, lying, perjury, falsification of court records and disbarment summaries and fixing of cases in the State Bar Court.

"The only reason it continues is because Attorney General Brown is of the mind-set and philosophy that stonewalling, denying, attacking citizens, then going out and raising even more "string- attached" campaign money, instead of respecting the law, the truth and the people he serves is the answer."

"Unfortunately for a man of Brown's background, experience and opportunities he was blessed with in life, this simply is not good enough.The fact he refuses to even sit down with intelligent professionals who have been risking their lives and careers to address problems which clearly fall under his job description and at least try to look for solutions is not only inexcusable, it is un-American.

4 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/le-carcan-canadien/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/le-carcan-canadien/ Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:07:55 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/le-carcan-canadien/
L'Accord du Lac Meech et l'avenir du Québec

by Guy Leclair

As originally posted on: Le blogue du Parti Québécois
July 12, 2010


Récemment sur ce blogue, Alexandre Cloutier démontrait avec efficacité comment, 20 ans après l'échec de l'Accord du Lac Meech, l'impasse constitutionnelle dans laquelle se trouve le Québec demeure la plus totale. Cette intervention de mon estimé collègue m'a fait réaliser à quel point il est impératif de rappeler aux Québécois, particulièrement aux jeunes électeurs qui ne l'ont pas vécu directement, l'importance que revêt cet épisode de notre histoire pour bien saisir les enjeux concernant l'avenir du Québec.

Bref rappel des faits

Je ne tiens pas à revenir en détails sur l'ensemble des tenants et aboutissants relatifs au débat ayant entouré l'Accord du Lac Meech. Je vous invite plutôt à consulter le résumé préparé à ce sujet par l'Université de Sherbrooke (http://bilan.usherbrooke.ca/bilan/pages/collaborations/3488.html). Rappelons seulement que l'entente visait à réintégrer le Québec dans le giron constitutionnel canadien en répondant à cinq demandes minimales qui avaient été formulées par le gouvernement libéral de l'époque, soit :

1. La reconnaissance du caractère distinct du Québec au sein du Canada;

2. Un droit de veto sur les changements aux institutions du Canada;

3. L'enchâssement dans la constitution de l'accord qui donne au Québec une assez large autonomie en matière de sélection des immigrants;


4. Un droit de retrait avec compensation pour les futurs programmes fédéraux en juridictions québécoises;


5. La permanence de la présence de trois juges québécois à la Cour suprême.

Deux visions irréconciliables

Ces demandes, qui ne représentaient qu'un minimum aux yeux d'un gouvernement fédéraliste, ont tout de même été rejetées du revers de la main par le Canada anglais. Pourtant, malgré cet humiliant affront, de nombreux Québécois gardent toujours espoir que le Québec et le Canada puissent finir par trouver un terrain d'entente susceptible de satisfaire les deux parties. C'est du moins ce que confirme un récent sondage commandé par les Intellectuels pour la souveraineté (IPSO) et le Bloc Québécois dont fait état Jean-François Lisée sur son blogue.

Ce même sondage démontre toutefois avec éloquence l'impossibilité qu'une telle entente ne survienne, étant donné l'énorme fossé qui sépare le peuple québécois du peuple canadien. En effet, on y apprend que 83 % des Canadiens s'opposent à ce que le Québec soit reconnu comme une nation, 71 % sont contre l'idée d'un nouveau partage des pouvoirs entre Ottawa et Québec, 79 % sont en désaccord avec le fait que le Québec puisse s'exprimer et signer des traités à l'international lorsque ses champs de compétence sont concernés, 77 % rejettent la possibilité que le Québec puisse avoir la pleine juridiction en matière d'immigration sur son territoire, etc.

Bref, le message est on ne peut plus clair à l'effet que le peuple canadien n'a aucunement l'intention d'accepter les réformes désirées par les Québécois. Le Canada est à prendre ou à laisser, point final.

Vers la souveraineté !

Dans ces circonstances, nous devons tirer les conclusions qui s'imposent. La seule voie d'avenir pour le peuple québécois est d'enfin accepter de faire le grand pas en avant qui lui permettra de voler de ses propres ailes. Le prochain gouvernement du Parti Québécois doit donc, dès son élection, adopter une démarche de gouvernance souverainiste qui donnera aux Québécois un avant-goût des réalisations que nous pourrons accomplir une fois devenu souverain ainsi qu'une idée précise des limites à l'intérieur desquelles nous enferme le carcan canadien. Si nous accomplissons cette tâche avec efficacité et conviction, le peuple québécois optera finalement pour la seule option qui soit en mesure de nous sortir de l'impasse actuelle, la souveraineté du Québec.

3 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/npcs-and-canadas-courts/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/npcs-and-canadas-courts/ Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:08:09 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/npcs-and-canadas-courts/
METIS NATION COURTS TO TRY ..NPC'S..

by Fortunat Guiboche

As originally posted on: THE METIS STATE
April 17, 2008


Good Morning Folks....

Nation to Nation is the way Nation's operate...When A not-for-profit-corporation ...

Called the mmf/inc ...or ....mnc/inc declare that they speak for you .....and Blatantly take step;s to Canada,s courts to settle some dispute .....that give them a little attention but settle's nothing !!!!!!...They will one day have to acct for this action directly to the metis people !!!!!! A Metis Nation Court will be held where they will be Prosecuted to the full extent of metis law!!!!!and punishment will be carried out ....has ordered by the Metis Nation Court.....they will be charged with Treason against the metis nation.....

F.G. APRIL 17 TH 2008

5 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-north-carolina-justice-system/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-north-carolina-justice-system/ Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:08:23 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-north-carolina-justice-system/
When Are The People Of This State . . .

by Dr. Mary Johnson

As originally posted on: Dr.J's HouseCalls
August 18, 2010


. . . going to wake up and realize that the North Carolina justice system . . . presided over FOR YEARS by deep-blue Governor-wannabe Roy Cooper . . . is a pathetic joke?

Of course, some of us have known it for quite a while. It ain't just about Roy's glaring short-comings.

4 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/mr-cash-strapped-housewife-of-the-mmf-and-the-housewives-of-the-mmf/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/mr-cash-strapped-housewife-of-the-mmf-and-the-housewives-of-the-mmf/ Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:08:27 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/mr-cash-strapped-housewife-of-the-mmf-and-the-housewives-of-the-mmf/
Mr. Cash Strapped Housewife?

by Clare L. Pieuk

As originally posted on: CyberSmokeBlog.blogspot.com
August 13, 2010


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "Is MMF cash strapped?"

MMF is cash strapped, ass backwards, Diamond, Crystal, Platinum and Gold hungry. "And for those not so rich yet would like to contribute to David Chartrand's cause $2,500 buys you "Silver." Whaa wha that's


pretty pathetic. The Federation might as well be known as, "The housewives of the MMF..... hahahahaha .... I could be GAGA again, high priestess even! .....

And he's always signing off with 'Meegwetch'..... (my ass) that's the language of Bill C-31's eh?

All Metis know that a real Michif says it in Michif eh? So here's how to do it Mr. Cash Strapped Housewife of the MMF.

Marsii Marsii,

O/gaga

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear O/gaga:

Thank you for writing. Mr. Cash Strapped Housewife?

Clare L. Pieuk

4 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-current-economic-and-political-system/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-current-economic-and-political-system/ Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:08:06 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-current-economic-and-political-system/
Is Pro Se Defense a Good Idea?

by "FSK"

As originally posted on: FSK's Guide to Reality
November 4, 2008


There's a lot of propaganda saying "People who choose to represent themselves pro se are stupid." Is that accurate? My reaction is "If there's a lot of propaganda advising against something, then it must be a good idea (or seriously worth considering)!"

In the late 18th century, pro se legal representation was common. Anybody could work as a lawyer. Lawyers lobbied for State licensing requirements for lawyers. They made sure the law was so complicated that it was inaccessible for the average person. Things went downhill from there.

The publicly hyped cases of pro se defendants are cases where the defendant was just plain nuts, there was overwhelming evidence, and he was getting convicted anyway.

I read that, when the judge orders a competency test for a defendant, it usually is because the defendant asked to represent himself.

I researched Jack Kevorkian a little. He fired his lawyers and tried representing himself. All his previous trials had ended in mistrials. After a mistrial, the State gets a mulligan and may retry you. Also, the law was changed to more clearly define what Jack Kevorkian was doing as illegal. Perhaps his lawyers refused to present a jury nullification defense? He must have had a good reason for firing his lawyers. I couldn't find a source where he explained why.

That appears to be a common trick that the bad guys use. If someone is doing something they don't like, then they change the law to redefine such behavior as more clearly illegal. For example, E-Gold was accused of breaking laws that were passed after E-Gold started operating. Assisted suicide was a legal grey area, and it was redefined to be clearly illegal.

I found an article in favor of pro se defense.

Mossman also found that pro se defendants had some advantages in court. They had a greater opportunity, for instance, to develop a rapport with the jury, or they had access to details that helped them in cross-examinations.

This is the best argument in favor of pro se defense, *IF* you're a good public speaker. If you make a personal connection with the jury members, you'll get a more favorable result.

Suppose I was the victim in a tax resistance trial. What would my lawyer advise me to do? My lawyer would probably advise me to not testify. My lawyer would do all the speaking. I would have no opportunity to make a personal connection with the jury.

The impression I got was that lawyers who attempt to present a jury nullification defense are silenced by a judge. I don't have any firsthand experience, but I read some stories, especially in cases involving victimless crimes (tax resistance and possession of marijuana).

One argument against pro se defense is that the judge will be biased against a pro se defendant. If a lawyer makes a technical error, the judge will usually let him correct it. If a pro se defendant makes a technical error, then the judge won't let him correct it. On the other hand, if the judge acts like a jerk in front of the jury, then that creates sympathy for the defendant. If I attempt to describe jury nullification and the judge silences me, then I can validly point out to the jury that the judge is biased against me.

I can describe the principle of jury nullification better than a lawyer. I can describe the injustice of the US taxation system and monetary system better than a lawyer. If I were the victim in a taxation trial, I want to present these arguments to the jury myself.

There's also the extortion problem. Suppose I am the victim in a taxation trial. Hiring a lawyer would cost me $100k+. I don't recover that expense if I am acquitted.

However, if offered a public defender, I might use the public defender for part of the trial and represent myself for parts. Maybe you should use a lawyer for pre-trial motion filing, and then speak yourself when addressing the jury.

If you're the victim in a trial, your audience is the jury, and not the judge. If you speak directly to the jury, you may gain their sympathy, if you're good at it.

You should avoid being the victim in a trial in the first place. By the time you're in front of a judge, you've already lost. The rules and procedures in a criminal trial are heavily biased against the defendant, whether you're using a lawyer or not. There's a presumption "If you were not guilty, then you wouldn't have been indicted."

Even if you're acquitted, you don't recover the lost time. You don't get compensated for the stress of a trial. A trial is designed to last for months, extracting a toll from the defendant.

The current economic and political system is unfair. What is the optimal strategy an agorist should follow, once they find themselves the victim of State violence and the victim in a trial?

Even if I hire a lawyer, how do I know if I'm getting someone good? The few lawyers I've personally dealt with seemed like ***holes.

I'm a good public speaker. I could represent myself better than a lawyer. Will I ever be tested? I hope not. On the other hand, it would be very good publicity if I present a sui juris defense and get acquitted.

I'm really undecided what approach I should take for agorism, once I make the transition to practical agorism. Should I attempt stealth-agorism or blatant-in-public agorism? If I attempt stealth-agorism, my reach is limited. If I attempt blatant-in-public agorism, I'll attract more customers, but I will also attract the attention of the bad guys.

"Hire a lawyer" might be good advice for an average person. I'm not sure if it's good advice for me, in the specific case of a tax evasion trial or a trial for agorist activity.

I found another article about a successful pro se defendant.

The jury has natural sympathy for someone representing himself. If you try to cut him off with objections, the jury thinks you're oppressive. If you let him go, he gets in all kinds of evidence that wouldn't usually be allowed.

That's exactly my point. Suppose I explain to the jury about jury nullification, the immorality of the income tax, the immorality of the Federal Reserve, or the immorality of government regulations. If the judge or prosecutor attempt to interrupt me, that creates sympathy for me. That's exactly what I'm looking for. A lawyer would be reprimanded for presenting those arguments. If a lawyer makes that argument and is interrupted, the jury will assume it's OK. If I make that argument and am interrupted, then the jury will think the judge is biased against me.

If I find myself the victim of frivolous criminal charges, I'll probably represent myself pro se. Everyone has to make that decision for themselves. If you're the victim of frivolous criminal charges, you can't hire me to represent you, because I don't have a State license to work as a lawyer!

2 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/government-muggers-and-fascist-pals/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/government-muggers-and-fascist-pals/ Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:08:18 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/government-muggers-and-fascist-pals/
Eminent Domain = Theft

by Lew Rockwell

As originally posted on: The LRC Blog
August 16, 2010


The rotten idea that government can steal your property for its socialist projects or fascist pals traces to the ancient notion that the ruler owns the country. Professor John Sophocleus has fought an heroic battle for his home against predatory, lying, and crooked officials. John Sophocleus is fighting for liberty, property, and everyone who might also be threatened by government muggers in this fashion. Go, John, go!

2 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/his-government-and-the-european-union-eu/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/his-government-and-the-european-union-eu/ Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:09:01 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/his-government-and-the-european-union-eu/
[Comment] EU membership? No thank you!

by Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson

As originally posted on: EUobserver
July 30, 2010


EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - European politicians and journalists visiting Iceland in recent months have been quite astonished to experience first hand how little interest Icelandic MPs and Icelanders in general have in joining the European Union.

So astonished in fact that Icelandic lawmakers have repeatedly been asked if the EU application delivered by the Icelandic government in 2009 is really serious. Well, quite frankly it isn't. It is a door bell prank. No one really is there when the bell rings and the door is opened.

There is a reason why Iceland has never before applied to join the EU. There has always been a strong opposition to membership in the country. The necessary support among the Icelandic people has in fact never been there and the present government was and is well aware of that.

Still the EU was deliberately told differently. And now the EU is waking up to a bad dream and realising that Icelanders quite simply don't want to join the EU and never have. That the EU application is in fact a lame duck.

Since last summer repeated opinion polls have shown more people against joining the EU than ever before. According to the latest one 60 percent of Icelanders want the EU application scrapped with only 26 percent wanting to carry on with it. Another recent poll showed that 70 percent would reject joining the EU in a referendum and yet another one that 58 percent don't trust the Icelandic government to defend Iceland's interests in talks with the EU. Finally the business community opposes membership.

There are a number of reasons why Icelanders don't wish to join the EU. First of all it is the self-determination, the independence. Icelanders believe and for a very good reason that by joining the EU their independence would be no more. As a token of this, people in Iceland felt insulted when the European Council decided on 17 June to recommend accession talks with Iceland. On that date Icelanders celebrate that Iceland became an independent republic a little more than 60 years ago.

Another important issue is fishing rights. Icelanders will never be willing to accept that any authority over Icelandic waters will be transferred to the EU. That means that the Lisbon Treaty could never have any authority over Icelandic fishing grounds whatsoever.

Agriculture is also very important to Icelanders when it comes to EU relations as polls have shown. The same goes for the right to conclude agreements with other countries on issues like free trade and shared fish stocks.

The Icelandic foreign minister has been active in feeding leading people in the EU with wrong information about the true situation in Iceland. He gave a speech in Brussels on the day accession talks between Iceland and the EU were formally launched in which he claimed that his government was united behind the EU application. On the same day the farm and fisheries minister told Icelandic media that the accession process should be stopped.

There is only one political party in Iceland which supports EU membership and that is the foreign minister's own governing Social Democratic Alliance. The EU application was merely the fruit of bargaining between the social democrats and their junior coalition partner, the eurosceptic Left Green Movement, when forming a government in the spring of 2009. Since then, opposition to the EU deal with the social democrats has been increasing fast within the ranks of the Left Greens.

In addition, this summer Iceland's largest political party, the conservative Independence Party, which is the most likely to enter government if the current fragile one should break apart, accepted the idea that the EU application should be withdrawn completely and without delay. The policy was overwhelmingly accepted at the party's national congress at the end of June and the party's chairman has said publicly that making it come to pass will be a top priority should the party enter into government.

In short it should be quite obvious to anyone that Icelanders don't want to join the EU. An application for EU membership should never have been made.

Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson is director of Civis, an Icelandic free-market think tank.

3 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-federal-reserve-bank-and-the-united-states-of-america-usa/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-federal-reserve-bank-and-the-united-states-of-america-usa/ Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:08:28 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-federal-reserve-bank-and-the-united-states-of-america-usa/
The following legislation has been edited in terms of both its original content and formatting.


A.B. 532
======================================================

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 532-COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

MARCH 24, 2003
___________

Referred to Committee on Constitutional Amendments

SUMMARY-Directs issuance of Nevada silver coins. (BDR 31-1297)


FISCAL NOTE:

Effect on Local Government: No.
Effect on the State: No.

~

[. . . .]

======================================================

AN ACT relating to state financial administration; directing the issuance of Nevada silver coins; providing that such coins are legal tender for all debts in this state; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Chapter 353 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto the provisions set forth as sections 2 and 3 of this act.

Sec. 2. The Legislature finds that:

1. The State of Nevada, at the time of its admission to the United States, was a sovereign entity on equal footing with the 13 sovereignties that formed the compact known as the Constitution of the United States.

2. In ratifying and approving the Constitution of the United States, Nevada agreed to delegate certain of her sovereign powers to three agencies of government, all in the form provided by the Constitution.

3. Among the powers delegated by Nevada was the sovereign power to issue money. That power was delegated by Nevada and its sister states to the Congress of the United States in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States, on condition that the Congress would issue all money.

4. Nevada also, in Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States, agreed not to issue its own money. This agreement was also conditioned upon the Congress discharging its obligation to issue money as the agent of Nevada and its sister states.

5. The purported delegation by the Congress of the power to issue money to the Federal Reserve Bank, a privately owned corporation, is a violation of the terms of the Constitution of the United States.


6. The failure of the Congress to discharge its obligation to issue all of the money pursuant to Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States absolves the State of Nevada from its constitutional obligation not to issue money.

Sec. 3. 1. The State of Nevada shall issue into circulation coins of the State of Nevada in the face amount of $50,000,000. The coins must contain 1 ounce of fine silver, must be alloyed to 90 percent fineness and must bear The Great Seal of the State of Nevada on one side and the words "Contains One Troy Ounce Fine Silver," "Twenty Dollars," "Nevada Legal Tender" and the year of issue on the other side. The coins so issued are legal tender for all debts, public and private, in this state.

2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, when the coins authorized by subsection 1 are received into the State Treasury, they must be reissued. The coins must not be held as a reserve except as the Legislature otherwise directs.

3. If the number of coins subject to the control of the State Treasurer diminishes to 500,000, the State of Nevada shall make successive issues of coins in accordance with subsection 1 in the face amount of $50,000,000, unless the total face value of the coins already issued is $500,000,000, in which case the State of Nevada shall issue no further coins without prior approval of the Legislature.

4. If the Legislature of the State of Nevada determines that the Congress of the United States is fulfilling its constitutional obligation to issue money by:

(a) Requiring the Federal Reserve Bank to retire its circulating notes; and
(b) Causing the issuance of sufficient notes of the United States and other currency to meet the needs of the commerce of the United States and of Nevada,

the State Treasurer shall retire the coins authorized by this section as they are received into the State Treasury.

Sec. 4. This act becomes effective upon passage and approval.

(30)

3 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-entire-system/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-entire-system/ Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:08:25 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-entire-system/
The cost of the EU's president

by Ben Lodge

As originally posted on: BETTER OFF OUT
August 13, 2010


Herman Van Rompuy is the infamous president of the European Council, a post created by the Lisbon Treaty. Of course the position is unelected, and as Lord Stoddart recently discovered, it is an expensive burden on the taxpayer. When asked how much the president of the European Council costs the taxpayer this was the response given by the government:

"In 2010, the cost of the office of the President of the European Council (including staff, travel expenses and salary) is 6 million euros (£4.98 million). The cost is being met this year from within the EU's annual budget, using funds which had been previously allocated to other Council projects. The budget for the office of the President of the European Council in 2011, like all other EU institutions, is currently being decided as part of ongoing negotiations on the EU's budget for next year."

This is an unbelievable amount of money given the size of our budget deficit and the need for cuts across the board. It has been said time and time again that the EU should be looking to cut its budget during these difficult times, but instead its budget is expanding, and with lavish spending such as this, its easy to see why. In response to this answer from the government Lord Stoddart replied:

"President van Rompuy is a very expensive insult to the taxpayers of Europe. He is unelected, having been chosen during a dinner. His annual salary of £273,814 is greater than that of President Obama and, although funded by the taxpayer, he cannot be voted out of office. However, this is a drop in the ocean compared to the £252 million being spent on the creation of a palace for him to work in. President van Rompuy is part of the new overpaid and unelected political elite which is now the real Government of Britain and all the other member states."

This sums up the situation perfectly, and we simply wouldn't accept this kind of irresponsible spending if it was happening domestically. That is precisely the problem with both a centralised government, and an undemocratic government, both of these features of the European Union combine to make the entire system entirely unaccountable to the people of the UK. We have to suffer cuts to our schools, police and armed forces whilst men like Van Rompuy face no such hardship . Its no wonder that the government is so afraid of giving the public a vote the EU, its obvious that we would decide that we are better off out.

4 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-american-political-system/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-american-political-system/ Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:08:04 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-american-political-system/
The Country Has Gone Backward

by Howie Klein

As originally posted on: DownWithTyranny!
August 15, 2010


Most of the conservative senators - and almost all of the corporate masters who pull their strings - don't really give a hoot about "issues" like abortion or gay equality or racial equality or any of the hot button issues that engender divisiveness in American politics - except that they do engender divisiveness. The rubes who support the careers of clowns like Chuck Grassley, Richard Burr, Ben Nelson, Jim DeMint and Miss McConnell have a role to play (making noise for the media and voting against their own interests) and they get a bone or two - even if only rhetorical - tossed in their direction from time to time. And this usually plays out best in Supreme Court confirmation battles. For conservatives there is only one issue; the rest of the stuff is window dressing. The issue is corporate supremacy.

Yesterday when we looked at the worst of the Republican Senate nominees, there was a glaring omission: Ron Johnson, the multimillionaire wingnut in Wisconsin - who just happens to own over $300,000 in BP stock but is furiously trying to backpedal his call for offshore drilling in the Great Lakes ("I think we have to get the oil where it is"). What does this have with the conservative jihad to ensure that only corporate-friendly judges serve on the Supreme Court? A clown like Johnson wouldn't even be taken seriously - not even by Republicans - if not for Supreme Court rulings that have made it possible for Big Business to literally buy elections.

Let me share a 1905 Wisconsin law with you. The law, governing campaign finance, was a breakthrough for reformers and was adopted in almost every state in America:

No corporations doing business in this state shall pay or contribute, or offer consent or agree to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money, property, free service of its officers or employees or thing of value to any political party, organization, committee or individual for any political purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing legislation of any kind, or to promote or defeat the candidacy of any person for nomination, appointment or election to any political office.

Read it again. Then think about what the American political system would be like if "we, the people," demanded such laws be reinstated and that corporate shills in long black dresses who have undermined such laws spend the rest of their lives in prisons. For one, thing, like I said above, there would be no Ron Johnsons. Nor would we be subject to grubby Wall Street-bought shills and political bosses like John Boehner, Rahm Emanuel, Roy Blunt, Eric Cantor, Steny Hoyer, Paul Ryan, Charlie Rangel, Pete Sessions, Mark Kirk, Chuck Schumer, Bob Menendez, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Mitch McConnell, etc. Imagine!

2 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/united-states-senatorial-election-candidate-alvin-greene-aka-al-greene/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/united-states-senatorial-election-candidate-alvin-greene-aka-al-greene/ Sun, 15 Aug 2010 08:08:01 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/united-states-senatorial-election-candidate-alvin-greene-aka-al-greene/
Greene indicted on porn charge

by Jessica Taylor

As originally posted on: POLITICO.com
August 13, 2010


South Carolina Democratic Senate nominee Alvin Greene was indicted Friday on felony charges of showing pornography to a college student.

Greene, an unemployed 32-year-old military veteran, had refused to discuss the charges, which surfaced after he was the surprise winner of the state's June Democratic primary over better-known Charleston City Councilman Vic Rawl.

Reached by phone by POLITICO briefly on Friday afternoon, Greene declined to comment and referred all inquiries to his attorney, Eleazer Carter. Carter also declined to comment.

A Richland County grand jury based in Columbia, S.C., handed down the indictment on Friday for disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity. He was also indicted on a misdemeanor charge of communicating obscene materials to a person without consent, the Associated Press reported.

Greene was arrested in November after police charged that approached a female University of South Carolina student in the school's library, showed her the lewd photos, and suggested they go to her dorm room.

Greene had originally asked for a court-appointed lawyer in the case, but after he paid the $10,440 filing fee to get on the Senate ballot and subsequently won, party leaders began to question how he got the filing fee if he could not afford a lawyer. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division launched a probe into origin of the filing fee, but closed their investigation in July after finding there was no evidence of wrongdoing. He has since hired his own lawyer.

Greene is considered a long-shot candidate against Republican Sen. Jim DeMint this fall.

3 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/our-political-world/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/our-political-world/ Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:07:56 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/our-political-world/
"To the Size of States There Is a Limit": Measurements for the Success of Secession

by Kirkpatrick Sale

As originally posted: Middlebury Institute
February 6, 2010


Yes, Aristotle declared there to be a limit to the size of states: "a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements; for none of these retain their natural power when they are too large…, but they either wholly lose their nature, or are spoiled," so he said. But, really, what the hell did he know? He lived at a time when the entire population of the world was somewhere around 50 million people-about the size of England today-the population of the Greek-speaking city-states, which were not united in a nation, in all may have been 8 million, and Athens, where he lived, considered a large city, would have been under 100,000 people. Limits? He couldn't even imagine a world (ours) of 6.8 billion, a nation (China) of 1.3 billion, or a city (Tokyo) of 36 million. How is he going to help us?

It is because, firstly, he did know that there are limits: "Experience shows that a very populous city can rarely, if ever, be well governed; since all cities which have a reputation for good government have a limit of population. We may argue on grounds of reason, and the same result will follow: for law is order, and good law is good order; but a very great multitude cannot be orderly." And it doesn't matter if that city is 1 million or 36 million - political entities at such sizes could certainly not be democratic in any sense, could not possibly function with anything approaching efficiency, and could exist only with great inequities of wealth and material comfort.


And because, secondly, he did know that human beings are of a certain limited size of brain and comprehension, and that putting them in the aggregate does not make them any smarter-or as another philosopher, Lemuel Gulliver, once said, "Reason does not extend itself with the bulk of the body." There is a human scale to human politics, defined by human nature, that functions well only in such aggregations as do not overstress and overburden the… quite capable and ingenious but limited human brain and human capacity.

So political units, Aristotle said-he thought mostly in terms of cities, not knowing nations-but even if we may extend those units with the experience of 2000 more years to larger units such as nations, they have to be limited: limited by human nature and human experience. And it is with that maxim of Aristotle's that we now may start contemplating what in today's world would constitute the ideal, or let us say the optimum, size of a state, with these two overriding criteria: "sufficient," in Aristotle's words, " for a good life in the political community"-that would be some form of democracy-and "the largest number which suffices for the purposes of a good life"-that would be efficiency. Democracy and efficiency.

And hark - this is not some sort of idle philosopher's quest. It is, or could be, the foundation of a serious reordering of our political world, and a reordering such as the process of secession-indeed, only the process of secession, as I see it-could provide. We have abundant evidence that a state as large as 305 million people is ungovernable-some scholar said in the paper just this past Sunday that we are in the fourth decade of the inability of Congress to pass a single measure of social consequence. Bloated and corrupted beyond its ability to address, much less solve, any of the problems as an empire it has created, it is a blatant failure. So let us be bold to ask, what could replace it, and at what size? The answer, as will appear, is the independent states, that is to say nations, of America.

Let us start by looking first at real-world figures of modern-day nations to give us some clue as to population sizes that actually work.

Of all the world's political entities-there are 223 of them, counting the smallest independent islands-45 are below 250,000 people, 67 below 1 million, 108 below 5 million; in fact 50 per cent of nations are below 5.5 million, and a full 58 per cent are smaller than Switzerland's population of 7.7 million (Wikipedia: World populations by rank). That says right there that it is obvious that most countries in the world function with quite relatively small populations. And looking at the nations that are recognized models of statecraft, there are eight of them even below 500,000-Luxemburg, Malta, Iceland, Barbados, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and San Marino-and the example of Iceland, with the world's oldest parliament and an unquestioned beacon of democracy (troubles of its banking aside), suggests that 319,000 people is all you would need. Going up a bit in size, there are another nine models of good governance below 5 million, including Singapore, Norway, Costa Rico, Ireland, New Zealand, Estonia, Luxembourg, and Malta.

Next, let's look at the size of the most prosperous nations ranked by per capita Gross Domestic Product (Wikipedia: List of countries by GDP, CIA Factbook). (Parenthetically let me say that I realize GDP is a crude and entirely uncritical measure of economic worth, and reflects all kinds of growth, much undesirable, but until we have nations devoted to steady-state economies instead this is the best way to gauge economic performance.) Eighteen of the top 20 by GDP rank (a total of 27 countries because of ties) are small, under 5 million, and all but one of the top ten are under 5 million (that's the U.S., at ten, the others being Liechtenstein, Qatar, Luxembourg, Bermuda, Norway, Kuwait, Jersey, Singapore, and Brunei in order); the average size of those nine is 1.9 million. The average size of all 27 of the top economic nations, excluding the U.S., is 5.1 million.

You are beginning to get the picture.

Let's take another measure-freedom, as reckoned by three different rating sites, Freedom House, the Wall Street Journal, and The Economist, using measures of civil liberties, open elections, free media, and the like. Of the 14 states reckoned freest in the world, nine of them (64 per cent) have populations below Switzerland at 7.7 million, 11 below Sweden at 9.3 million, and the only sizeable states are Canada, United Kingdom, and Germany, the largest, at 81 million.

There's one other measure of freedom that is put out by Freedom House, ranking all the nations of the world according to political rights and civil liberties, and there are only 46 nations with perfect scores. Of those 46, the majority of them are under 5 million in population, and indeed 17 of them are even under l million. That's rather astonishing in itself. And only 14 of the 46 free nations are over 7.5 million.Excluding the United States, whose reputation for freedom is fully belied by its incarceration of 2.3 million people, 25 per cent of the world's prisoners, and


excluding the United Kingdom, Spain, and Poland, the average population of the free states of the world is approximately 5 million.

Let me finally take several other national rankings. Literacy: of the 44 countries that claim a literacy rate of 99 or better (I say claim, since it is hard to verify), only 15 are large, 29 (66 per cent) of the 44 below 7.5 million. Health: measured by the World Health Organization, 12 of the top 20 are under 7 million, none over 65 million. In a ranking of happiness and standard of living last year by sociologist Steven Hales, the top nations are Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Netherlands, Australia, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland, Denmark, Austria, and Finland, all but Canada and Australia small. And a "sustainable society index" created by two scholars earlier last year, adding in environmental and ecological factors, ranks only smaller countries in the top 10-in order, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Austria, Iceland, Vietnam, Georgia, New Zealand, and Latvia.

Enough of that-the point I trust is well and simply made. A nation can be not only viable and sustainable at quite small population sizes, a model of more-or-less democratic and efficient government, but in fact can provide all the necessary qualities for superior living. Indeed, the figures seem to suggest that, though it is certainly possible to thrive at sizes under a million people, there is a more-or-less optimum size for a successful state, somewhere in the range of 3 to 5 million people.

Next, let us take a quick look at geographic sizes of successful nations. A great many nations are surprisingly small-underlining the point, often missed by critics of secession, that a nation does not have to be self-sufficient to operate well in the modern world. In fact there are 85 political entities out of the 223 counted by the U.N. that are under 10,000 square miles-that is to say, the size of Vermont or smaller-and they include Israel, El Salvador, Bahamas, Qatar, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Singapore, and Andorra.

And if we go back to that measure of economic strength, the Gross Domestic Product per capita, small nations prove to be decidedly advantageous: of the top 20 ranked nations (27 in all including ties), all but eight are small in area, under 35,000 square miles, the global median (the size of South Carolina), and two of those eight include Norway and Sweden, technically large but excluding their empty northern areas effectively small; in other words 77 per cent of the prosperous nations are small. And most of them are quite small indeed, under 10,000 square miles (Liechtenstein, Qatar, Luxembourg, Bermuda, Kuwait, Jersey, Singapore, Brunei, Guernsey, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Andorra, San Marino, British Virgin Islands, and Gibraltar).

All this is proof positive that economically successful nations needn't be large in geographic size, and to the contrary, this is the important point: it is strongly suggestive that large size may in fact be a hindrance. The reason for this is that administrative, distribution, transportation, and similar transaction costs obviously have to rise, perhaps exponentially, as geographic size increases. Control and communication also become more difficult to manage over long distances, often to the point where central authority and governance become nearly impossible, and as all the lines and signals become more complex the ability to manage efficiently is severely diminished.

Small, let's face it, is not only beautiful but bountiful.

{Once that important idea is understood, a further logical argument can be derived from it: that in many cases a smallish nation might find it desirable to divide up even farther so as to take advantage of smaller areas for more efficient economic functions. This might be outright secession in some places, where it would simply be good economic sense-and more, places where it would make political and cultural good sense as well. But it might also take the form of economic and political devolution, giving smaller areas autonomy and power without outright secession, much as Switzerland is the model of.}

In fact, I wish to propose to you, out of these figures and even moreso out of the history of the world, that there is a Law of Government Size, and it goes like this: Economic and social misery increasers in direct proportion to the size and power of the central government of a nation.

In testing this law in history-Sale's Law, as I like to think of it-let let me begin with Arnold Toynbee's great and justifiably classic study of human civilization, whose primary conclusion is that the next-to-last stage of any society, leading directly to its final stage of collapse, is "its forcible political unification in a centralized state," and he gives as evidence the Roman Empire, and the Ottoman, Benghal, and Mongol empires, and the Tokugawa Shogunate, and ultimately the Spanish, British, French, and Portuguese empires. The consolidation of nations into powerful empires leads not to shining periods of peace and prosperity and the advance of human betterment, but to increasing restriction, warfare, autocracy, crowding, immiseration, inequality, poverty, and starvation.


The reason for all this is not mysterious. As a government grows, it expands both its bureaucratic might over domestic affairs and its military might over external ones. Money must be found for this expansion, and it comes either from taxation, which leads to higher prices and ultimately inflation-result, as Mr. Micawber might say, social misery-or from printing new money, which also leads to higher prices and inflation-result, again, social misery. Wealth is also thought to come from conquest and colonization, enlarging spoils through warfare, but it comes at the price of imposing increased government control and military conscription at home ("War is the health of states," as Randolph Bourne put it) and increased violence, bloodshed, and misery for one's own army and civilians and opposing forces abroad. Result, economic and social misery.

I have detailed much of this in my book Human Scale (available on request from New Catalyst Books), but let me just give a capsulated version here, concentrating on Europe. There have been four major periods of great state consolidation and enlargement in the last thousand years:

1.From 1150 to 1300 AD, with the establishment of royal dynasties replacing medieval baronies and city states in England, Aquitaine, Sicily, Aragon, and Castile, resulting in rampant inflation of nearly 400 percent and almost incessant wars, with increasing battle casualties from a few hundred to more than 1 million.

2. From 1525 to 1650, with the consolidation of national power through standing armies, royal taxation, central banks, civilian bureaucracies, and state religions, saw an inflation rate of more than 700 per cent in just 125 years and an unprecedented expansion of wars, a war intensity seven times greater than Europe had seen before, warfare casualties increasing to maybe 8 million, maybe 5 million in the Thirty Years War alone.

3. From 1775 to 1815, the period of modern state government over most of Europe, including national police forces, conscripted armies, centralized state power a la the Code Napoleon, there was an inflation rate of more than 250 per cent in just 40 years, in 1815 the highest at any time until 1920s, and war casualties up to 15 million (maybe 5 million in the Napoleonic Wars) in that short period.

Finally, in period 4, from 1910 to 1970, familiar to us, all European nations consolidated and expanded power, known in many places as totalitarianism (though known in the U.S., though


we had all the components of totalitarianism - consolidated central power, national bank, income tax, national police, conscription, imperial presidency - known as freedom and democracy), resulting in the worst depression in history and inflation of 1400 per cent, and of course the two most ruinous wars in all human history contributing to casualties, mostly deaths, of 100 million or more.

Conclusion inevitable: the larger the state, the more economic disaster and military casualties. The Law of Government Size.

Now that we have established the virtue of smallness worldwide, let's apply these figures to the United States and see what it tells us.

Of the 50 states, just over half (29) are below 5 million people. Half the population lives in 40 states that average out to 3.7 million people; the other half is in the 10 largest states. There are 10 states and one colony in the 3-to-5 million population class that I'm suggesting would be ideal secession candidates-Iowa, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, and Mississippi-another 13 between 1 to 3 million-Montana, Rhode Island, Hawai'i, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, and Arkansas-and another eight below a million but larger than Iceland, and that includes beloved Vermont.In other words, 30 of the states (plus Puerto Rico) fall in a range where similar sizes in the rest of the world have produced successful independent nations. Those are the candidates for successful secession.

Add to that the lessons from geographic size. We've already seen that 84 political areas in the world are smaller than Vermont, the second smallest U.S. state. Now let's see how the states measure up to the world figures. The median size of U.S. state area is roughly 58,000 square miles-25 states are smaller than that, 25 bigger. If all of those under 58,000 were independent, they would match 79 other nations in the world, among them Greece, Nicaragua, Iceland, Hungary, Portugal, Austria, Czech Republic, Ireland, Sri Lanka, Denmark, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Taiwan. In other words, size is no hindrance whatsoever to successfully operating as a nation in the world-and, as I've suggested, small size seems indeed to be a virtue.

It needn't be all about population or geographic sizes - one might factor in cultural cohesion, developed infrastructure, historical identity, and suchlike - but that certainly seems to me to be the sensible place to start when considering viable states. And since the experience of the world has shown-indeed, over and over again in the formation of nations since the 19th century-that entities in the 3 to 5 million range may be optimum for governance and efficiency, and some within a 1-to-7 million range, that is how to begin assessing bodies for their secessionist potential and their chances of national success.

I hope all this is Aristotelian examination is not regarded as a mere academic exercise, though a great deal of exercise, I assure you, has gone into it. I believe that it establishes something in the way of propellant impetus for Americans who understand that their national government (no oxymoron intended) is broke and can't be fixed (there were 70 per cent of them in a national poll not long ago), and who realize that the only hope to re-energize American politics and recreate the vibrant collection of democracies that the founding generation of the 18th century envisioned, is to create truly sovereign states through peaceful, popular, powerful secession.

Let me underscore that conclusion: the only hope is secession.

2 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-federal-government-or-its-agent/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-federal-government-or-its-agent/ Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:07:46 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-federal-government-or-its-agent/
The following legislation has been edited in terms of both its original content and formatting.


SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 88


95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
_______________________

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES NIEVES (Sponsor), JONES (89), EMERY, SCHARNHORST, SELF, LOEHNER, RUESTMAN, GATSCHENBERGER, SCHAD, SCHAAF, FLOOK, DUSENBERG, SATER, PRATT, TRACY, POLLOCK, KRAUS, STEVENSON, ERVIN, LEARA, GRISAMORE, ALLEN, BURLISON, NOLTE, DAVIS, WELLS, LAIR, SCHIEFFER, FISHER (125), ZERR, SANDER, SMITH (14), PARKINSON, BIVINS, KOENIG, SCHOELLER, DETHROW, FUNDERBURK, SCHLOTTACH, FLANIGAN, MUNZLINGER, McGHEE, KINGERY, VIEBROCK, WETER, FAITH, NANCE, DUGGER, THOMSON, WILSON (130), DENISON, SMITH (150) AND GUERNSEY (Co-sponsors).

4464L.01I

D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk
_______________________

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment to article I of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section relating to state sovereignty.
_______________________

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:

That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2010, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

Section A. Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding one new section, to be known as section 35, to read as follows:

Section 35. 1. The state of Missouri hereby enforces its constitutional sovereignty and the sovereignty of its citizens under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America over all powers not enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America, nor prohibited by it to the states.

2. The state of Missouri shall:

(1) Uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America by hereby prohibiting the Missouri legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government from recognizing, enforcing, or acting in furtherance of any federal law, executive order, judicial ruling, administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government;

(2) Not recognize, enforce, or act in furtherance of the following:

(a) Federal actions restricting the right of private citizens to bear arms;

(b) Federal actions legalizing or funding abortions, or the destruction of any embryo containing human DNA from the zygote stage onward through all stages of development;

(c) Any federal action requiring the sale or trade of carbon credits or imposing a tax, fee, fine, or penalty on the release of carbon emissions;

(d) Federal actions involving a public option for health care, mandating end of life counseling, rationing health care, dictating or limiting the type of treatment a doctor may provide to his or her patient, authorizing or mandating the collection of a patient's medical record into a database, covering illegal aliens under health insurance or prohibiting enforcement of laws regarding coverage for illegal aliens, mandating the benefits health insurance must cover, requiring insurance providers to cover abortion services, restricting the ability of patients to purchase health insurance in another state, or assessing fees, fines, or penalties on employers who do not provide health insurance to their employees;

(e) Any federal action mandating the recognition of same sex marriage, civil unions, or any relationship other than the marriage of one man and one woman;

(f) Any federal action increasing the punishment for a crime based on the thoughts of the perpetrator or the designation of the crime as a "hate crime";

(g) Any federal action regarding the establishment clause based upon a "wall of separation" between church and state. As Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist wrote in Wallace v. Jafree, 472 U.S. 38, 99: "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.";

(h) Any federal action restricting the right of parents or guardians to home school, enroll their children in a private or parochial school, or placing restrictions on curriculum;

(3) Interpret the Constitution of the United States of America based on its language and the intent of the signers of the Constitution at the time of its passage. The several amendments shall be interpreted by their language and the intent of the congressional sponsor and co-sponsors of the amendment. Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a "living, breathing document", or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government;

(4) Missouri citizens shall have standing to bring a cause of action to enforce the provisions of this section. Enforcement of this section shall apply to federal actions taking effect after approval of this section by Missouri voters, federal actions enumerated herein, and any federal action, regardless of its effective date, the general assembly or Missouri supreme court shall hereafter determine, in accordance with subparagraph (3) of this subsection, to exceed the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America;

(5) As used in this section, the following terms mean:

(a) "Federal action", any federal law, executive order, judicial ruling, administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution;

(b) "Public option", any health insurance plan passed after January 1, 2009, operated by the federal government or its agent that competes directly or indirectly with private health insurance providers;

(c) "Constitution", the Constitution of the United States of America;

(6) The provisions of this section are self-executing. All of the provisions of this section are severable. If any of the provisions of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction, in compliance with subparagraph (3) of this subsection, to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid. Any ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction in violation of subparagraph (3) of this subsection shall be invalid and not recognized, enforced, or otherwise furthered in the state of Missouri.

4 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-governor/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-governor/ Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:07:50 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-governor/
The following legislation has been edited in terms of both its original content and formatting.


96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

State of Illinois

2009 and 2010

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

HC0031


Introduced , by Rep. Jack D. Franks


SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:


ILCON Art. III, Sec. 7 new

Proposes to amend the Suffrage and Elections Article of the Illinois Constitution. Provides for the recall of the Governor by petition of the State's electors and for the election of a successor Governor. Effective upon being declared adopted.

[. . . .]

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that there shall be submitted to the electors of the State for adoption or rejection at the general election next occurring at least 6 months after the adoption of this resolution a proposition to amend Article III of the Illinois Constitution by adding Section 7 as follows:

ARTICLE III

SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS

(ILCON Art. III, Sec. 7 new)

SECTION 7. INITIATIVE TO RECALL GOVERNOR

(a) The recall of the Governor may be proposed by a petition signed by a number of electors equal in number to at least 15% of the total votes cast for Governor in the preceding gubernatorial election, with at least 100 signatures from each of at least 25 separate counties. A petition shall have been signed by the petitioning electors not more than 150 days after an affidavit has been filed with the State Board of Elections providing notice of intent to circulate a petition to recall the Governor. The affidavit may be filed no sooner than 6 months after the beginning of the Governor's term of office. The affidavit shall have been signed by the proponent of the recall petition, at least 20 members of the House of Representatives, and at least 10 members of the Senate, with no more than half of the signatures of members of each chamber from the same established political party.

(b) The form of the petition, circulation, and procedure for determining the validity and sufficiency of a petition shall be as provided by law. If the petition is valid and sufficient, the State Board of Elections shall certify the petition not more than 100 days after the date the petition was filed, and the question "Shall (name) be recalled from the office of Governor?" must be submitted to the electors at a special election called by the State Board of Elections, to occur not more than 100 days after certification of the petition. A recall petition certified by the State Board of Elections may not be withdrawn and another recall petition may not be initiated against the Governor during the remainder of the current term of office. Any recall petition or recall election pending on the date of the next general election at which a candidate for Governor is elected is moot.

(c) If a petition to recall the Governor has been filed with the State Board of Elections, a person eligible to serve as Governor may propose his or her candidacy by a petition signed by a number of electors equal in number to the requirement for petitions for an established party candidate for the office of Governor, signed by petitioning electors not more than 50 days after a recall petition has been filed with the State Board of Elections. The form of a successor election petition, circulation, and procedure for determining the validity and sufficiency of a petition shall be as provided by law. If the successor election petition is valid and sufficient, the State Board of Elections shall certify the petition not more than 100 days after the date the petition to recall the Governor was filed. Names of candidates for nomination to serve as the candidate of an established political party must be submitted to the electors at a special primary election, if necessary, called by the State Board of Elections to be held at the same time as the special election on the question of recall established under subsection (b). Names of candidates for the successor election must be submitted to the electors at a special successor election called by the State Board of Elections, to occur not more than 60 days after the date of the special primary election or on a date established by law.

(d) The Governor is immediately removed upon certification of the recall election results if a majority of the electors voting on the question vote to recall the Governor. If the Governor is removed, then (i) an Acting Governor determined under subsection (a) of Section 6 of Article V shall serve until the Governor elected at the special successor election is qualified and (ii) the candidate who receives the highest number of votes in the special successor election is elected Governor for the balance of the term.

SCHEDULE

This Constitutional Amendment takes effect upon being declared adopted in accordance with Section 7 of the Illinois Constitutional Amendment Act.

3 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-federal-government-and-each-individual-state-government/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-federal-government-and-each-individual-state-government/ Thu, 12 Aug 2010 22:08:19 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-federal-government-and-each-individual-state-government/
What is a Failed State?

by "FSK"

As originally posted on: FSK's Guide to Reality
March 24, 2010


I saw a bizarre idea circulating. Due to California's budget problems, some people are declaring California a "failed State".

If you live in California and refuse to pay taxes, then will people with guns come to kidnap you or take away your stuff? As long as the answer is "yes", California is not a failed State. The thugs don't have to be 100% effective. They just have to scare the vast majority into compliance.

In California, it's practically legal to possess marijuana. There are so many people ignoring the law. This makes it impractical for State thugs to crack down on everyone. However, some people in California do get busted for possession of marijuana. At some point, State thugs might ratchet up their enforcement efforts.

If there were widespread tax resistance, then that would lead to a failed State. The State thugs would walk off their job once their paycheck bounced.

However, California cannot fail unless the Federal government also fails. If necessary, the Federal government would send in thugs to keep collecting taxes. The whole point of the Federal government was that individual state insiders consolidated and expanded their taxation power. In 1787, some states were too weak to force the slaves to pay taxes. The Federal government was formed to consolidate and expand taxation power. State insiders were scared by Shay's rebellion, and formed the Federal government to violently resist future tax revolts.

It is more accurate to describe the USA as a "failing State" rather than a "failed State". As long as State thugs can violently collect taxes, then the State hasn't failed. As long as the vast majority of cattle pay their tribute without resisting, then the State hasn't failed.

In the USA, the Federal government and each individual State government will fail simultaneously. There are technically 50 separate state governments, but they're highly interlinked. For example, individual states can't legally issue their own money. After the US dollar collapses in hyperinflation, individual state governments won't have any money. I estimate there are 20 years left until the final collapse.

2 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/local-districts-enterprises-authorities-and-other-political-entities-and-the-state-of-colorado/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/local-districts-enterprises-authorities-and-other-political-entities-and-the-state-of-colorado/ Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:08:29 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/local-districts-enterprises-authorities-and-other-political-entities-and-the-state-of-colorado/

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

Section 1.

Article XI, section 3 is repealed and re-enacted to read, as stated in the original constitution: "The state shall not contract any debt by loan in any form."

Sections 4, 5, 6(2), and 6(3) are repealed as obsolete and superseded.

Section 6 (1) is repealed and re-enacted as section 6 to read: "Without voter approval, no political subdivision of the state shall contract any debt by loan in any form. The loan shall not be repealed until such indebtedness is fully paid or discharged. The ballot title shall specify the use of the funds, which shall not be changed."

Section 2.

Article X, section 20 is amended to add:

(4)(c) After 2010, the following limits on borrowing shall exist:

(i) The state and all its enterprises, authorities, and other state political entities shall not borrow, directly or indirectly, money or other items of value for any reason or period of time. This ban covers any loan, whether or not it lasts more than one year; may default; is subject to annual appropriation or discretion; is called a certificate of participation, lease-purchase, lease-back, emergency, contingency, property lien, special fund, dedicated revenue bond, or any other name; or offers any other excuse, exception, or form.

(ii) Local districts, enterprises, authorities, and other political entities may borrow money or other items of value only after November voter approval. Loan coverage in (i) applies to loans in (ii). Future borrowing may be prepaid without penalty and shall be bonded debt repaid within ten years. A non-enterprise shall not borrow if the total principal of its direct and indirect current and proposed borrowing would exceed ten percent of assessed taxable value of real property in its jurisdiction.

(iii) No borrowing may continue past its original term. All current borrowing shall be paid. Except enterprise borrowing, after each borrowing is fully repaid, current tax rates shall decline as voter-approved revenue changes equal to its planned average annual repayment, even if not repaid by taxes. Such declines do not replace others required. Future borrowing is void if it violates this paragraph (c), which shall be strictly enforced. Conflicting laws, rulings, and practices are repealed, overturned, and superseded.




Russell Haas
13225 W. 15th Dr.
Golden CO 80401
(303) 233-7260
khensu22@hotmail.com

Michelle Northrup
329 Crest View Dr.
Black Hawk CO 80422
(303) 582-3934

5 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/an-elective-officer/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/an-elective-officer/ Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:08:25 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/an-elective-officer/

Constitutional Amendment to Article IV, Section 17, Relating to Recall of Elected State Officers

2010-099

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI THAT THE CONSITUTION BE AMENDED:

Section 17 of article IV of the Constitution of Missouri is amended by adding Section 17(B). The new section includes the following underlined language:

MISSOURI CONSTITUTION

Section 17(b.) RECALL Elective State Officers

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require. A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted.

Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective officer. Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall. Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable. Proponents have 160 days to file signed petitions.

A petition to recall a statewide officer must be signed by electors equal in number to 12 percent of the last vote for the office, with signatures from each of 5 counties equal in number to 1 percent of the last vote for the office in the county.

The Secretary of State shall maintain a continuous count of the signatures certified to that office. An election to determine whether to recall an office rand, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures.

A recall election may be conducted within 180 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures in order that the election may be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled election occurring wholly or partially within the same jurisdiction in which the recall election is held, if the number of voters eligible to vote at the next regularly scheduled election equal at least 50 percent of all the voters eligible to vote at the recall election.

If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate, nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.

The Legislature shall provide for circulation, filing, and certification of petitions, nomination of candidates, and the recall election. If recall of the Governor or Secretary of State is initiated, the recall duties of that office shall be performed by the Lieutenant Governor or Controller, respectively. A state officer who is not recalled shall be reimbursed by the State for the officer's recall election expenses legally and personally incurred. Another recall may not be initiated against the officer until six months after the election. The Legislature shall provide for recall of local officers. This section does not affect counties and cities whose charters provide for recall.

6 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-uk-and-the-european-project/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-uk-and-the-european-project/ Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:04:26 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-uk-and-the-european-project/
EU tax and the ultimate surrender of Britain's sovereignty

by Christopher Booker

As originally posted on: Mail Online
August 11, 2010


For decades the EU has been dreaming of the ultimate power grab over all our lives - and a story in yesterday's Daily Mail gave a very strong hint that Brussels is now planning to pull it off.

Under the headline ‘EU bids to impose new tax on Britain', the story explained that over the next few months, the EU budget commissioner Janusz Lewandowski will be lobbying hard round the capitals of Europe for the EU to be given the power to levy its own taxes - on such things as energy, airline flights and financial transactions.

It might seem surprising that this Polish Eurocrat believes the present economic downturn is an ideal time for the EU to impose such taxes across Europe, to fund its ever-rising budget and its ever-expanding empire.

But what really lurks behind this proposal is something far more significant and sinister - the fulfilment of the one supreme ambition which Brussels has never so far managed to bring off.

For over 50 years the building of what those in Brussels call ‘the European project' has travelled further than its founders back in the Fifties could have dared to imagine possible.

Decade by decade they have created a mighty edifice of government which now stretches across 27 countries, including our own.

They have given the European Union almost all the attributes of a superstate. It has its own vast law-making powers, its own parliament, its own currency, its own courts.

It is on the way to having its own foreign policy, its own armed forces, its own legal system and integrated police force.

But all this time the builders of the ‘project' have been keenly aware that the one power of government it does not have is in many ways the most important of all - the power for Brussels to raise its own taxes.

They have known that this was the one power which national governments would be most reluctant to hand over - because in terms of giving Europe its own all-powerful central government it would be game, set and match.

It would be the ultimate surrender of sovereignty - not just by the governments themselves, but by all the peoples of Europe, who would no longer have any democratic control over how they were taxed.

They would be like those U.S. colonists of the 18th century who won independence from Britain for insisting on the principle of ‘ no taxation without representation' - except that in Europe's case, no war of independence would be possible.

The EU already takes a small share in proceeds of the one tax it has managed to create, VAT or Value Added Tax, introduced by Brussels as long ago as the Sixties as a condition of belonging to the European club.

The EU also helps to finance itself through the levies it imposes on goods imported into Britain and every other EU country from all over the world.

But so far this is all it has managed to secure in its drive towards that holy grail - giving Brussels the power, like any fully fledged government, to impose taxes in its own right.

What those at the heart of the project have long been looking for is some general crisis which might justify the creation of a Europe-wide tax, with all or most of its revenue going directly to Brussels.

They first thought they had done this years ago, when the EU was the first government in the world to jump wholeheartedly on the bandwagon of the scare over global warming.

As long ago as 1991, Brussels first proposed a Europe-wide ‘carbon tax', to be imposed on every activity which emits CO2, from producing electricity to driving a car.

Although that proposal was formally agreed, it never got off the ground.

But the one thing you can bank on with the Brussels bureaucracy is that, once an idea has entered the system, it will always remain lurking there for the moment when it can be dusted off and revived.

Significantly, when a dim but ambitious Belgian politician Herman van Rompuy was chosen last year by his EU colleagues to be the EU's first ‘permanent president', the very first proposal he came up with, in his desire to promote ‘greater European integration', was that of an EU ‘carbon tax'.

Indeed it seems they have now found not one ‘beneficial crisis' but two at once to justify pushing the idea of EU taxation to the top of their agenda - not only climate change, but the crisis which has racked the world's banking system since 2008.

Hence this proposal for EU-wide taxes not just on the carbon emissions given off by energy use and airliners, but also on ‘financial transactions'.

And make no mistake - if the European Commission gets its way, by far the biggest loser from these EU taxes will be those of us who live in Britain.

We are already having to pay massive ‘green' taxes to our own government every time we fly - up to £80 on each ticket on long-haul flights - and doubtless a hefty chunk of that money would go to Brussels if Van Rompuy's plans came to pass.

Similarly, everyone in Europe might have to pay a new EU energy tax through our already soaring electricity bills.

But where we in Britain would lose out more than any other country would be through a tax on financial transactions. This is because the City of London is by far the biggest financial centre in Europe and our largest international revenue earner.

An EU tax on each financial transaction would result in Britain having to pay up to ten times as much as countries like France and Germany - and could even result in a large part of the global finance industry packing its bags to move out of Britain and the EU altogether.

Britain is already handing over more than £15 billion a year to Brussels. Thanks to Tony Blair agreeing to a drastic cut in the budget rebate negotiated by Mrs Thatcher, that is due to rise even higher in the next few years.

But if the EU is given the power to impose its own taxes, without having to battle with member states each time it wants to increase its own budget, the likelihood is that our contribution could go through the roof.

To buy off anger at his failure to give us the referendum he promised on the Lisbon Treaty (aka the European Constitution), David Cameron has now pledged he will allow us a referendum each time it is proposed that the EU should be given new powers.

There could be no greater surrender of national powers than to hand over to Brussels the right to impose its own taxes. No doubt these taxes might initially be pitched quite low - but, as is the way with the EU, once it has been given some new power in principle, it exploi ts that power ad infinitum.

Ironically, just below the report on the EU's tax plans in yesterday's Daily Mail was a picture of a stern-faced Mr Cameron proclaiming: ‘It's absolutely outrageous and we cannot stand for it.'

What he was referring to was the £5.4 billion lost to Britain each year from fraud and errors in our benefits system. But what we stand to lose if Brussels wins the power to tax us could be many times that sum.

Will Mr Cameron dare to describe this latest EU power grab as also ‘absolutely outrageous', as something we cannot tolerate?

And will he please give us one of those referendums he promises, so that we also have the chance to give it a resounding ‘no'?

3 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/free-market-capitalism/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/free-market-capitalism/ Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:04:13 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/free-market-capitalism/
"Free Market Capitalism" is an Oxymoron

by Kevin Carson

As originally posted: Center for a Stateless Society
July 17, 2010


It's pretty much standard for the chattering classes - both liberal and conservative - to refer to something called "our free market system," also known as "free market capitalism." To the extent that the right-wingers at Fox and CNBC or on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal advocate some purer form of "free markets" in contrast to the existing economy, what they mean is essentially the present model of corporate capitalism without the regulatory or welfare state.

But the form taken by the existing capitalist system that we live under owes precious little to free markets. From its beginnings in the late Middle Ages, it has been shaped by massive and ceaseless intervention and enforcement of privilege - much of it breathtakingly brutal - by the state. To adapt a phrase from Orwell, the past has been a boot stamping on a human face.

The state played a central role in creating the defining characteristic of capitalism as we know it: the wage system. Had free markets been allowed to develop peacefully, with the peasant majorities remaining in control of their land and with free access to the means of subsistence, labor markets would likely have taken a much different form. Employers would have had to compete with the possibility of self-employment, available to the vast majority of the population. But thanks to Enclosures and similar land expropriations over a period of several centuries, the majority of the population was turned into a landless proletariat totally dependant on wage labor for its subsistence.

As if this weren't enough, the British state imposed totalitarian social controls on the working class in the early days of the Industrial Revolution to reduce the bargaining power of labor. The Laws of Settlement, for example, acted as a sort of internal passport system, forbidding workers to leave their parish of birth in search of better terms of employment without permission. The Poor Law authorities then came to the rescue of employers in the underpopulated industrial North, by auctioning off laborers - cheaply - from the parish workhouses of London.

Over a period of several centuries the European powers brought most of the Earth under their subjection and imposed similar land expropriations and social controls on the peoples of the Third World, and looted the mineral resources and raw materials of most of the world.

A wide range of thinkers, from the free market anarchist Lysander Spooner to the Marxist Immanuel Wallerstein, have pointed out historic capitalism's continuities with feudalism. Capitalism, as a historic system of political economy, was really just an outgrowth of feudalism with markets grafted in and allowed to operate in the interstices to a limited extent.

The state also played a central role in the rise of corporate capitalism from the late 19th century on. The railroad land grants created a single national market in the U.S., externalizing the costs of long-distance distribution on the taxpayer, and led to industrial firms and markets far larger than would otherwise have existed. Patent law and assorted regulations passed during the Progressive Era served to cartelize markets under the control of a handful of oligopoly firms.

In the twentieth century, the state played a growing role in absorbing the surplus output of overbuilt industry or guaranteeing an overseas market for it. The leading industrial sectors were state creations: the automobile-highway complex, civil aviation, the miliitary-industrial complex and outgrowths like miniaturized electronics and industrial automation.

The neoliberal economy of the past twenty years is overwhelmingly dependent on the draconian enforcement of "intellectual property" law. The dominant sectors in the corporate global economy - software, entertainment, biotech, pharma, agribusiness, electronics - are all almost entirely dependent for their profits either on "intellectual property" or direct subsidies from the state. The central function of the U.S. national security state since WWII has been to make the world safe for corporate power through the overthrow of unfriendly governments.

Both the statist right and the statist left, for their own reasons, equate the "free market" to corporate capitalism, and promote the myth that corporate capitalism as we know it is what would naturally have emerged from a free market absent state intervention to prevent it. The statist right want to defend the legitimacy of big business, and the statist left want to make you think you need them to defend you against big business.

But the exact opposite is true. Big business has been a creature of the state from the beginning. And genuinely free markets would operate as dynamite at the foundations of corporate power.

And that's exactly what those of us on the free market left want to do.




C4SS Research Associate Kevin Carson is a contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Organization Theory: An Individualist Anarchist Perspective, and The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto, all of which are freely available online. Carson has also written for such print publications as The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty and a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.

3 Vote(s) ]]> http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/all-brussels-officials-and-politicians/ http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/all-brussels-officials-and-politicians/ Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:04:22 -0700 thepubliceye Non Partisan http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NonPartisan/all-brussels-officials-and-politicians/
MEPs' free Viagra

by Clodagh Hartley

As originally posted: The Sun
August 10, 2010


EURO MEPs can claim for VIAGRA on their health insurance - and the taxpayer picks up the bill.

All Brussels officials and politicians can get the sex aid drug for free if needed.

They can even claim for HEROIN replacement methadone under the European Commission scheme.

Other free options include WILLY implants, the UK Independence Party discovered.

Marta Andreasen, an MEP for the party, said: "It is utterly bonkers what British taxpayers are funding for Eurocrats.

"Surely if they want these things, they should be able to pay themselves. It is a total waste of taxpayers' cash."

Official guidelines for claims reads: "Treatments with Viagra will from now on be reimbursable."

The document also says the cost of drugs used during withdrawal treatment for addicts should be reimbursed in full.

It adds: "These products qualify for a special reimbursement at the rate of 100 per cent for a maximum of six months."

Last year it was revealed MEPs receive public funding for massages and feng shui. Other perks which qualify include mud baths, hydromassage and mild electric shock treatment.

The TaxPayers' Alliance last night blasted the wasteful perks in Brussels.

Spokesman Matthew Sinclair said: "Taxpayers expect to see their money spent on providing essential services, not Viagra. The Government should insist on a better deal from Brussels."

4 Vote(s) ]]>