King For A Day

A comment to my recent post about the growing popularity of secession got me thinking -- I should consider the possibility that we are headed for a full-blown king/Caesar who will smother any secession attempt, at least for the near future. Though I remain confident that technology and the multi-ethnic fault lines in modern America are game changers, what would having a king be like?

Well, it might not be too bad. Hans-Hermann Hoppe explained why monarchy, for all its drawbacks, is preferable to democracy in his interesting book Democracy: The God That Failed. For one thing, there would no longer be the mass delusion that we govern ourselves; having an out-and-out king would clearly demarcate the people from the government. Moreover, at least there is a chance that a good man will be born into kingship, whereas NO chance exists that a good man will become president. The pressures of having to gratify the lowest common denominator and constantly alter one's stance make it impossible for men of character to ascend to high office in a democracy. Finally, kings have an incentive to be good rulers because the nation is their property, which they wish to preserve in good condition for their heirs. Politicians are lowly renters, who have little regard or long-term interest in the property under their fleeting care.

The historical record is pretty clear that kings, for all their faults, govern more wisely and frugally than democracies. America's own last king, George III, imposed taxes that were a micro-faction of the obscene imposts we have to deal with. No king ever plundered or slaughtered as many people as our glorious democracies have; it truly is a tragedy that World War I swept away the last serious monarchies and made the world "safe" for the rapacious form of government dominating the West now.

Only a king, for example, could impose any or all of a number of life-saving measures that the current American public would never vote for, such as the following:

• Shut down hundreds of foreign and domestic military bases, and pare back the military to its proper function, i.e., defending American territory.

• On that same score, seal the border with Mexico by any means necessary and repatriate ALL those who have entered America without advance permission.  

• Remove "birthright" citizenship, which is not authorized by the Constitution anyway. Only those whose parents are American citizens may be considered American citizens at birth.

• Abolish dual citizenship. Those who wish to become naturalized citizens already take an oath abjuring all allegiance to foreign powers, yet for some reason they are allowed to cling to their foreign citizenship and identities. End it and require people to be 100% or 0% American.

• Sever the relationship with Puerto Rico, stop sending tax money to it, and thrust it into independence.

• Terminate all governmental wealth transfers to private citizens, whether it's "bailouts," Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment compensation, or subsidies for any parasitic industry or academic endeavor. All tax money will be spent solely on government functions and compensation of services duly rendered to the government. Personal responsibility, freedom, innovation, wealth, and charity will explode.

• Eliminate employment laws, which interfere in freedom of contract and make running a business ridiculously expensive. People may hire and fire based on any criteria they wish. As for workplace safety, injuries, and the like, the tort system is more than adequate.

• Eliminate the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and all other "civil rights" laws, which attack true civil rights such as freedom of contract, private property, and freedom of association.

• Eliminate the income tax, which is far easier when the government isn't spending nearly as much money. Raise revenues as our ancestors did, through tariffs, and accomplish the other noble goal of fostering domestic industry.

• Curtail endless criminal appeals by eliminating so-called habeas corpus review. True habeas corpus takes place when a court demands to review the legality of someone's incarceration. Most habeas corpus today, however, involves serial reviews of a full and fair trial and is not mandated by the Constitution. This allows the likes of Richard Ramirez to hang out on death row for 25 years and receive conjugal visits until dying of natural causes. One trial, one set of appeals, and that's it.

• Eliminate no-fault divorce or, at a minimum, make anyone filing for no-fault divorce presumptively ineligible for alimony, distribution of property, and child custody.

• Eliminate the Federal Reserve and return to a gold-based monetary system, thereby ending the bankers' stranglehold on the economy and the constant devaluation of the money supply.

• Eliminate public schools or, at a minimum, all governmental prescription of educational content.

Does all of this sound farfetched? It shouldn't. This is the way we were under George III and during the first century of our national existence. Incidentally, it's also when we were a growing, moral, and robust country, not a shrinking, debauched, and impoverished one.

More Annoyances

No grand introduction needed. Let's get to it.

• Anyone who exclaims, "it's 2014!" (or whatever year it currently is) to criticize something as unacceptable in our supposedly enlightened times. The object of criticism is usually a lingering vestige of freedom or sanity, such as a golf club that enforces its exclusive membership policy, or a football team whose decades-old name suddenly becomes offensive.

• On webpages allowing for comments, the near-universal default setting of "newest" comments first. The disregard for all things old extends even to here, despite the fact that it makes more sense to read a thread of comments chronologically.

• Invitations stating "please RSVP." Redundant.

• People who fail to grasp that when receiving an RSVP, it is necessary to respond even if they do not plan to attend.

• Anyone who justifies poor grammar or spelling by reaching back several centuries to find an obscure instance of it by someone such as James Boswell or Geoffrey Chaucer. Linguistic evolution is not the same as laziness or ignorance.

• People who cheat at pub trivia.

• In the same vein, pub trivia questions that give senior citizens an unfair advantage by inquiring into events within only their living memory. Ask about things that everyone has firsthand experience of, or of which nobody does. 

• The insistence on calling Indians "Native Americans." They are no more native than anyone else born here, as we all hail from other places and did not magically sprout from the ground. In point of fact, recent archaeology strongly suggests that the Indians were not the first ones to arrive, so they'll have to start calling other peoples "natives" by the metric they currently use. 

• In the same vein, anyone who attempts to dismiss concerns about the hordes of illegal aliens invading America by invoking the Indian experience. At least the Indians had the guts to fight back, which hardly supports rolling out a red carpet.

• The fact that there are no more quiet restaurants. If there isn't loud music or a television blaring, the nearby table full of hyenas will surely destroy any reflective or romantic moments.

• People who curse in public or in mixed company.

Excellent Observations On A Moribund Society

Butler Shaffer has written a stellar article describing the post-civilized savages who increasingly predominate in American life. He also pauses to discuss the Remnant, who retain our human qualities and lay the foundation for a new start after the deadwood has burnt to the ground.

1 In 4 Americans Open To Seceding From The United States

A propos of my last update regarding Scotland -- in which I noted that independence ultimately must be taken rather than requested -- a new poll shows that we are reaching a critical mass of Americans who are willing to secede from the Union. Notice that a critical mass is NOT a majority of the entire country, nor is it even a majority of a seceding state or territory. Rather, a critical mass is an unswerving and devoted minority not interested in compromise, an attitude that always trumps the lukewarm majority.

Independence fever is spreading, and not a moment too soon. A world of multiple, small, competing sovereignties is the only cure for all the ills brought on by imperial hubris.

Scotland Leads The Way To A Better World

Many of my ancestors were Scottish, which is more than a point of historical interest for me. It's a fundamental part of who I am: independent, frugal, stern, Protestant, and slow to anger but implacable when sufficiently provoked (Irish and Latin Americans are often quite the opposite, not merely with regard to their Catholicism, but especially in that they are quick to anger yet can laugh things off the next day -- wrong an Irishman or Latino and you may still wind up friends after swapping a few punches; wrong a Scotsman and you are dead, either in fact or in effect). My people played a major role in the settlement and eventual independence of America, not to mention the South's heroic attempt to remain independent when beset by an industrialized, vulgar, and soulless behemoth that declared jihad against the private slavery of some in order to establish public slavery of all. It's no accident that the St. Andrew's cross adorning the Scottish flag made its mark on behalf of the C.S.A.; the cross is a universal symbol for the uncompromising spirit of independence.

Scotland has been fused with the United Kingdom since 1707 -- longer than the United States has existed -- yet Scotland now is deciding whether to go its own way. Such deliberation is heroic even if it does not produce independence, for the message is that the Scots (and the rest of us) have an undeniable right to make this choice. As the United States and the European Union continue their obscene power-grabbing, more and more people will rightfully consider whether they want to remain a party to it. There is no patriotic duty for Scotland to meekly obey the smug elitists gathered in London or Brussels, who (along with their crony-capitalist friends) are all rather perturbed that a people would dare to consider ruling itself rather than answer to outsiders. Just the same, there is no patriotic duty for Americans to meekly obey the smug elitists gathered in Washington, D.C., whose reign is shorter than the U.K.'s and is now in flagrant violation of the very document (the Constitution) that created it. 

As I've said before, the mega-state is lashing out and growing more brazen precisely because it senses its legitimacy slipping away. Finding itself ever more deprived of oxygen, it scrambles wildly to breathe. For this reason things are poised to become even more repressive and violent in the near future, but this likely signals the grand finale of the nation-state that debuted at Westphalia in 1648. The age of centralization is drawing to a close. The age of decentralization -- with multiple, small, responsive, and humble governments that serve their societies rather than try to rule or transform them -- draws near.

Scotland is on the cutting edge of this revolution, and I hope it follows through. Even if it does not, we should thank Scotland for setting an example and devote ourselves more seriously to asking these questions for ourselves. Waving the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes around just doesn't cut it anymore and will not shame everyone into silence.

UPDATE:

I've been following some of the debates surrounding the Scottish vote, and one argument against independence I keep running into is this: an independent Scotland would be even further to the left (i.e., less free) than if it remained in the UK. This argument is insidious, for independence and national self-determination are fundamental rights regardless of how wisely or unwisely a people chooses to govern itself. Gandhi smacked down the imperial argument in similar terms when struggling to liberate India from the Raj, explaining that whatever problems India had were for India alone to resolve. To assert that independence is warranted only for people who would govern themselves "properly" is a contradiction in terms, a denial of independence all together. Moreover, it repeats the rationalizations for centralized power that have plagued the United States since the Civil War. Following that massive deprivation of life and liberty in the name of freedom, federal courts have systematically interfered in local matters under the same pretense, destroying our sovereignty while claiming to do us a favor. I hasten to add that both "liberals" and "conservatives" have perpetrated these outrages against independence, running to federal court whenever a local rule or regulation displeases them.

If I had to choose between living in a world with a single libertarian government versus a world with hundreds of non-libertarian ones, I would choose the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Why, especially considering that I prefer a libertarian government to a non-libertarian one? Because when the global libertarian government goes sour -- as it inevitably will -- there is nowhere to run. At least with multiple governments we have options, and the severity of harm any one such government could inflict pales in comparison to what a global government might do to us.

Bottom line, there can be no true or lasting freedom without independence.  

SECOND UPDATE:

It appears Scotland has chosen not to be independent for now, which is fine. What matters is that Scotland's and other nations' choices be honored either way, rather than held up as a casus belli to invade and repress. We have some experience with that here in the U.S., as do the Crimeans who wish to leave the Ukraine.

I should note in passing that America never would have gained independence from Great Britain had the matter been put to a popular vote, since the majority (as always) didn't want to upset the applecart. Even if a majority of Americans had voted to leave, it's unlikely that the Crown would complacently have accepted that outcome. When push comes to shove, independence is something that must be taken rather than requested.

What To Do About The Imperial Presidency?

It seems I'm not the only one who notices that Obama's unilateral declaration of war is illegal and dangerous. I've run into a story over at Time and another story at the New York Times. We already know what all this means: the rule of law is dead, and we are now faced with an elective emperor rather than a public servant. The question is what do we do about it? Here are a couple of ideas.

What should happen first and foremost is that the House of Representatives impeaches Obama for high crimes and misdemeanors, after which the Senate tries and convicts him of same, removing him from office and rendering him prone to criminal prosecution. But good luck with that. The denizens of Capitol Hill have long since cast off their own fealty to the Constitution and their oaths of office. There being no rule of law, legal mechanisms will not take care of this.

No, the proper solution is for everyone else to treat Obama as an outlaw and refuse to obey his orders.

This duty falls primarily on soldiers, whose oath is NOT to blindly obey the president, but rather to uphold the Constitution and defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If the president clearly violates the Constitution, as here, the choice is simple -- either you honor your oath, or you help establish a modern Caesar. Besides, whatever harm ISIS might do to us pales in comparison to the harm an imperial presidency can inflict. This is a true test of bravery, more demanding than trying to kill a designated enemy. Do you have the bravery not to kill when given an illegal order to do so? 

Apart from soldiers, anyone who claims to honor the Constitution or the rule of law has a clear path as well, even if it's not an easy one to walk. Will you speak out against what's happening and refuse to support it, or will you bury your conscience and take the path of least resistance? Are you an American, or a latter-day Roman? Are you a human being with a mind and a soul, or a lump of animated flesh whose only goal is sustenance and daily survival?

Are you free, or a slave?

How Comforting

National Journal has a story today titled "A President Who Ran Promising Peace Cautiously Declares War." The fact that the president is being "cautious" about all this is meant to inspire confidence and calm, yet under the Constitution the president does not have the power to declare war in the first place. It is Congress that owns the war power, as spelled out plainly in Articles I and II of the Constitution and in the emphatic words of the Federalist Papers, which were meant to sell the American people on that document. Here are the words from Federalist 69 of Alexander Hamilton -- a man who himself favored a strong executive branch -- describing how the president's war power is inferior to that of kings or even governors:

The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. . . . It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies – all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

Sorry, America, you've been had. The president whose office was created by the Constitution is now unhindered by it and may unilaterally initiate war anywhere on the planet, putting you and countless others in immediate jeopardy. Some of you might be comfortable with this, but the sane among us are not. It's important to remember these things especially on this date, when many innocent Americans lost their lives in an act of retaliation (however despicable) against an imperial presidency that has bred anger and resentment around the world ever since the close of World War II, the last time Congress declared war. One does not have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand this. To fixate on whether 9/11 was a conspiracy is to miss the forest for the trees; right in plain view is the fact that empires breed terrorism, and that we now occupy an unconstitutional and lawless empire.

Many of Hamilton's contemporaries foresaw the monstrosity being created and opposed it, but they were too few. I would wager that if the Revolutionary generation could have foreseen what now exists -- either the imperial presidency or the general totalitarianism we have to put up with -- many or even most of them would have laid down their arms.

"Misogynist" -- Yet Another Word That Has Lost Its Meaning

In these Orwellian and lowbrow times, words assume a protean quality like jelly, constantly changing shape to suit the political agenda of the moment. Words such as "liberal," "fascist," and "democracy" have been tortured so much that their current usage is the opposite of their actual meaning. For example, "liberal" truly means someone who believes in individual freedom, limited government, and the rule of law, yet it is claimed by people who seek totalitarian and unrestrained government action to smother freedom in the fervid quest for Utopia. "Fascist" was coined by Italian leftists during the interwar years to praise the state as the highest good, symbolizing it with a bundle of sticks (fasces) to demonstrate that collective action is stronger and nobler than individual initiative. Today, the epithet "fascist" is hurled at people on the right who suggest that the government should intervene less in our lives. As for "democracy," the founding fathers denounced it in no uncertain terms as the rule of the mob and precursor to tyranny, yet since World War I it has assumed a holy status that supposedly justifies invading foreign countries to prop it up.

Then there are words whose misuse is so widespread as to become meaningless. One prominent example is "racist," which I'm not sure anyone can define anymore, but which remains quite popular as a weapon to delegitimize any person with whom one disagrees. Another example that is gaining popularity every day is "misogynist," and for much the same reason. Though it's probably a waste of time to try to inject sanity into all this, here is a quick breakdown of who is and is not a misogynist.

Who IS a misogynist?

• Someone who hates women.

Who IS NOT a misogynist?

• Someone who criticizes women or calls them them out on their BS.
• Someone who opposes abortion.
• Someone who believes that women are every bit as capable of sin as men.
• Someone who believes that women should be held accountable for their actions.
• Someone who notices that men and women are fundamentally different, beyond their physiology, and that they tend to have different strengths and weaknesses.
• Someone who refuses to bend or break rules to satisfy a woman.
• Someone who believes that women should receive the same punishment as men for the same crime.
• Someone who denounces no-fault divorce.
• Someone who denounces the current laws pertaining to alimony, property distribution, and custody in the wake of divorce.
• Someone who denounces the widespread, insulting portrayal of men in popular culture.
• Someone who believes in freedom of contract, private property, and freedom of association, even when the exercise of such freedom vexes a woman.
• Someone who believes that government has no business subsidizing birth control, vaccine research, breast-cancer research, or doing much of anything other than keep the peace and protect the border.

The vast majority of men (myself included) are not misogynists. We wouldn't want to live in a world without women. If anyone is a misogynist, it's the white knights and other sackless wonders who act as though women are incapable of sin or shouldn't be held accountable, an approach that reduces women to animals without dignity, souls, or the responsibility that goes with them.

When Anarchy Would Be Better, You Know Things Are Bad

I am not an anarchist, mainly because most anarchists yearn to smash both the state and the natural hierarchical distinctions among people. These goals are contradictory and show anarchists to be useful idiots, for it is precisely the state that seeks to smash hierarchical distinctions and erase culture to pave the way for the "New Man," who has no cultural memory or sentiment but rather will serve the state as soulless automaton. In all honesty, pop culture already has done such an efficient job of destroying real culture that Western governments largely have succeeded in their mission. Even those anarchists who focus solely on smashing the state (e.g., anarcho-capitalists) offer no viable method to resolve civil disputes, fight crime, or enforce general laws in any population larger than a primitive tribe.

Some people take the final step to anarchy after stopping at the way station of libertarianism, concluding that limited government is an impossibility, but for me the formula for limited government is rather simple: foster the creation of multiple sovereign countries/governments so that none of them are very powerful and cannot afford to alienate their own tax base. So what if no internal system of laws can restrain government? As long as we make sure that external checks are in place, it makes no difference how powerful and abusive a single government becomes, for the natural balance of power will eventually assert itself.

All that being said, it's rather interesting to notice that sheer anarchy would be better than what we confront right now. Government supposedly exists to guard us from the predations of criminals and foreign enemies, but I ask you what assortment of criminals or enemies could possibly do what government does to us on a daily basis? Consider just some examples:

• Pilfer up to 40% (in European countries, even more) of your income every year.
• Steal vast additional sums of money by smothering interest rates.
• Regulate every aspect of your personal and economic life, regardless of whether you're disturbing anyone else, on pain of fines and/or imprisonment.
• Abduct your children and tell them to resent you and your ancestors.
• Attack, bomb, and kill people around the world, thereby inflaming millions of foreigners to hate or actively attempt to harm you.
• Abduct you and tell you to help attack, bomb, and kill people around the world.
• Force you to subsidize foreign invaders.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd be much better off if the government retired and left me to the supposed depredations of criminals. This goes even if I were defenseless and not able to resist, which is the case with government; at least with ordinary criminals I could point and shoot.