Pressure Points: Government Paranoia

I had a student tell me one time, “It ain’t paranoia if they are really after you.” Maybe that applies to government as well.

Anyway, now you know where all the ammo went. — jtl, 419

NOW PLAYING: In conjunction with the upcoming release of his new book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, John W. Whitehead sits down to discuss several “pressure points” that are threatening the Bill of Rights and undermining our essential freedoms. In part three of this special series, Whitehead examines the language of fear and government paranoia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wnMXYhkgn3g

Posted in Freedom of Speech and the Press, Government Corruption, Government Failures, Government Propaganda, Jack Booted Government Thug Watch, Mainstream Media, Police State, State Terrorism, Totalitarianism, Tyrany, Veteran's Affairs | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

 

How Private Policing Trumps Government Law Enforcement

[Editor's Note: The following post is by TDV Editor, Gary Gibson]

To see how the private sector outperforms public policing in the real world, just take a look at Detroit.

Yes, Detroit of all places. So ruined by government planning, Detroit is becoming a hotbed of spontaneous order…of the market stepping in to do what the government has never managed to do properly. Frustrated with the poor service from their tax-funded overseers, Detroit residents have turned to the private sector for security and protection, like the customer-satisfying efficiency of private protection as provided by Dale Brown and his organization, Threat Management Center.

Click here or on thumbnail

Managing Threats for Money with Love

Dale got his start in 1995 trying to help a Detroit community during a wave of home invasions and murders. What he found among the police force were complacent, uninterested officers. And why shouldn’t they be uninterested in murderous home invasions? They get paid no matter what and are more incentivized to write traffic tickets and terrorize people in their own homes for buying plants. Sure there were some officers who were motivated to help and it was such officers that Dale used to get his start. (Click on the above video image to hear Dale tell his story.)

Today, Threat Management Center has a client base of roughly 1000  private residences and 500 businesses. And TMC also provides free service to those who cannot afford their prices. That free help is available because of the healthy profit margin left from providing excellent services to the bigger corporations. (Ah, the evils of the for-profit world…)

The key to effective protection, says Dale, is love. Not guns, not violence, not laws. His employees have to love their customers. They have to care about their customers’ safety more than their own. They also have to be the kind of people who would rather not use violence first. This is the exact opposite of what the government advocates for its police officers. Government teaches police that their own safety is paramount, and in these late stages of the degenerate empire, local governments are also recruiting recent war veterans who have become well used to using violence against the people whose land they occupy to keep them in line.

Dale’s protective services are fundamentally different from those of the government police not just because of his loving philosophy, however, but because of the source of his funding. Dale’s services are market-driven. If he doesn’t provide protection in the way his customers want, he will go out of business. This is not the kind of pressure the government’s tax-funded sentries have to worry about. So while “to serve and protect” may be emblazoned on their squad cars, their real purpose is to enforce brutally. Their actions are funded by money extorted from their victims. They only happen to protect now and then…and practically by accident. And note that it’s their employer the state which creates the poverty and prohibitions that result in crime in the first place. (Government, after all, is like a self-licking ice cream cone; it creates its own demand.)

What Kind of Protection Do Customers Really Want?

Sane people don’t want no-knock raids, surveillance cameras and drones, and the general fear and loathing that comes from armed, violence-ready thugs with a sense of “authori-tah!” marching through the streets. They simply want to feel safe, to have someone watching out for them, not spying on them, invading their homes and pushing them around.

But the state can’t give people what they want. The state can only cartoonishly, violently approximate the market. This is because the state is based on violence, not the feedback of profit and loss. It can never beat or even match the market when it comes to satisfying consumer demand. The market is negotiation that responds to economic incentives while the state is just a blunt force weapon brought to the surgery room. Sure, its violence is dressed up as the “will of the people” with words like “democracy” and “republic”…but in the end the state’s only will is its own. The market is the true will of the people. Providers have to respond to the people’s will or else they will be out of business. The state has no such pressure. At most it has to worry about its image a little, sort of the way a serial killer has to worry about mimicking human emotion so his victims will let their guard down.

So while the market provides protection and peaceful resolution –because those are what consumers really want– the state can only provide a para-military praetorian guard with varying levels of officious aggressiveness. This guard is paid for with money stolen at gunpoint (taxes) and can only ever fundamentally violate property rights, not protect them.

The police aren’t around to help recover your stolen property or protect you from harm. They are here to enforce the law. Even when they capture thieves and murderers and rapists, no resititution is made to the victim. Instead the violator is jailed for his trangressions in order to repay his debt the mythical collective called “society”. He may be sent to a rape camp that itself is paid for with stolen money.

But catching dangerous offenders is a secondary goal at best for the police. The majority of their resources are thrown at generating revenue by enforcing the freedom-limiting prohibitions that the politicians set up in the first place (though the revenue generation is secondary to reminding you that you are state property conditionally allowed certain privileges that can be taken away). The cops ticket you for driving above absurdly low speed limits and for not wearing seatbelts and for driving after downing two beers. They invade your homes and rough you up on the mere suspicion that you might own plants that politicians don’t like. Is this what you would pay for if you had the choice?

Oh, and if you really want to see the police marshall their resources, by all means organize a protest to exercise your right to free public speech. Do it in opposition to a politician or government policy. Then you’ll really get to see the kind of “protection” your stolen money pays for.

In a free market, people get what they want. What people don’t want doesn’t get funded enough to survive very long. In a free market, producers respond to consumer demand. Or else those producers have to find another line of work. So that’s why Dale Brown’s Threat Management Center uses peaceful protection based on love and sacrifice. The consumers have spoken. Dale’s services are what they want, not bullies and war-scarred, testosterone junkies who enforce prohibtion, invade homes, harrass innocents, get off on exercising authority and  occasionally shoot “civilians” but who fail to actually serve or protect them.

Click here or on thumbnail

[Editor's Note: Look at the above video only if you have a strong stomach. It contains just some of the evidence of the kind of brutal police state into which the US is rapidly devolving. If you have the means to get out before the US becomes indistinguishable from the former East Germany --including the use of deadly force against those who try to escape-- then start planning your permanent escape by clicking here.]

Instead, consumers want people who will bravely protect them without policing them. They do not want enforcers to treat them as subjects and regulate their behavior according to some state-imposed policy. They want valiant guardians of their bodies and other property who respect their other rights of self-ownership. They want people who are also willing to put their customers’ safety above and beyond their own and who are willing to find the most peaceful and least violent solution possible to disputes and danger. What the market would have is protection, not policy enforcement. Servants, not overseers. Peace makers and keepers, not police.

Gary Gibson, The Dollar Vigilante’s Editor, cut his teeth writing for liberty and profit as the managing editor of the now-defunct Whiskey & Gunpowder financial newsletter. He now writes for and edits The Dollar Vigilante. In his capacity as managing editor of TDV’s monthly subscription letter TDV Homegrown, Gary insists on playing Russian Roulette by basing himself in the USSA heartland so he can round up information on how the TDV readers stuck in the USSA can best survive and profit in the increasingly turbulent times in the morally and financially bankrupt empire.

Posted in Getting the Hell Out of Dodge (Expatriation), Government Corruption, Government Failures, Jack Booted Government Thug Watch, Police State | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

7 Things About The Mainstream Media That They Do Not Want You To Know

via The Economic Collapse

7 Things About The Mainstream Media That They Do Not Want You To Know - Based On A Photo By Doug WaldronHave you ever wondered who controls the mainstream media?  In America today, we are more “connected” than ever.  The average American watches 153 hours of television a month, and we also spend countless hours watching movies, playing video games, listening to music, reading books and surfing the Internet.  If someone could control the production of all of that media, that would make them immensely powerful.  They would literally be in a position to tell people what to think.  Well, what if I told you that there are just six enormous media conglomerates that combine to produce about 90 percent of all the media that Americans consume.  Would that alarm you?  It should alarm you.  The truth is that our attitudes, opinions and beliefs are greatly shaped by what we allow into our minds.  After all, they don’t call it “programming” for no reason.  Even those of us that realize that we are connected to “the matrix” probably greatly underestimate the tremendous influence that the media has over us.  We live at a time when it is absolutely imperative to think for ourselves, but most Americans are being absolutely overwhelmed with information and seem more than content to let others do their thinking for them.  Sadly, this is greatly contributing to the downfall of our society.

And of course the mainstream media desperately does not want you to look at “the man behind the curtain”.  They just want you to stay plugged into the “programming” that they are feeding you without asking any questions.

Fortunately, a growing minority of Americans are waking up and are starting to reject the mainstream media.  An increasing number of people are beginning to recognize that the mainstream media is the mouthpiece of the establishment and that it is promoting the agenda of the establishment.

So why is the mainstream media so bad?  The following are 7 things about the mainstream media that they do not want you to know…

#1 The Mainstream Media Has Very Deep Ties To The Establishment

Did you know that the president of CBS and the president of ABC both have brothers that are top officials in the Obama administration?

The big news networks have developed an almost incestuous relationship with the federal government in recent years.  But of course the same could be said of the relationship that the media has with the big corporations that own stock in their parent companies and that advertise on their networks.

This is one of the reasons why we very rarely ever see any hard hitting stories on the big networks anymore.  The flow of information through the corporate-dominated media is very tightly controlled, and there are a lot of gatekeepers that make sure that the “wrong stories” don’t get put out to the public.  As a result, many of the “big stories” that have come out in recent years were originally broken by the alternative media.

#2 The Mainstream Media Gets Things Wrong Very Frequently

Even prominent members of the mainstream media admit that this is the case.  For example, during a recent speech at Quinnipiac University CBS anchor Scott Pelley confessed that journalists in the mainstream media “are getting big stories wrong, over and over again”

“Let me take the first arrow: During our coverage of Newtown, I sat on my set and I reported that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school. And that her son had attacked her classroom. It’s a hell of a story, but it was dead wrong. Now, I was the managing editor, I made the decision to go ahead with that and I did, and that’s what I said, and I was absolutely wrong. So let me just take the first arrow here.”

#3 The American Public Does Not Consider The Media To Be Very Trustworthy

Trust in the mainstream media has definitely been slipping.  In fact, a Gallup poll taken last year found that distrust of the media had reached an all-time high.  According to that poll, 60 percent of Americans “have little or no trust” that the media is reporting the news accurately.

A separate Rasmussen Reports survey found that only 6 percent of all Americans consider the news media to be “very trustworthy”.

Hopefully this trend will accelerate and a lot more people will stop trusting the media blindly.

#4 The Mainstream Media And The Politicians That They Worship Hate The Fact That They Cannot Control Internet News Sites

In the old days, the mainstream media had a virtual monopoly on the news.  But these days, anyone with an Internet connection can put up a news site, and this is driving the establishment absolutely bonkers.

For example, Barack Obama is known to have a great dislike for the alternative media.  The following is from a recent WND article

NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd says President Obama was making it “clear” at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner over the weekend how he feels about the rise of Internet news sites like Politico, Buzzfeed and … well, WND.

“He hates it.”

Appearing on “Meet the Press” Sunday morning following Saturday night’s media, politics and celebrity soiree, Todd explained the president’s disdain for independent online news sources was showing during his speech.

“It did seem … I thought his pot shots, joke-wise, and then the serious stuff about the Internet, the rise of the Internet media and social media and all that stuff – he hates it, OK? He hates this part of the media,” Todd said. “He really thinks that the, sort of, the buzzification – this isn’t just about Buzzfeed or Politico and all this stuff – he thinks that sort of coverage of political media has hurt political discourse. He hates it. And I think he was just trying to make that clear last night.”

#5 The Mainstream Media Is Extremely Liberal

When it comes to politics, the mainstream media is far more liberal than the general population is.

For example, one survey found that 41 percent of American voters believe that the average reporter is more liberal than they are, while only 18 percent believe that the average reporter is more conservative than they are.

A very disturbing UCLA study on media bias discovered that the vast majority of media outlets are “left of center”…

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

And even MSNBC has confirmed the liberal bias of the media.  According to MSNBC, mainstream journalists are far more likely to donate their own money to Democrats than they are to Republicans…

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

#6 Six Mammoth Media Corporations Produce About 90 Percent Of The Media That Americans Consume

As I mentioned at the top of this article, there are six giant media behemoths that control almost all of the media that we consume.  These corporate giants own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, video game makers, music labels and even many of our favorite websites.

The media ownership chart posted below originally comes from a previous article that I authored entitled “Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch, Hear And Read“, but it has been updated to reflect some of the latest information.  The power that these companies have is so vast that it is hard to put into words…

Time Warner

CNN Home Box Office (HBO) Time Inc. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. CW Network (partial ownership) TMZ New Line Cinema Time Warner Cable Cinemax Cartoon Network TBS TNT America Online MapQuest Moviefone Castle Rock Sports Illustrated Fortune Marie Claire DC Comics People Magazine

Walt Disney

ABC Television Network Disney Publishing ESPN Inc. Disney Channel The History Channel SOAPnet A&E Lifetime Buena Vista Home Entertainment Buena Vista Theatrical Productions Buena Vista Records Disney Records Hollywood Records Miramax Films Touchstone Pictures Walt Disney Pictures Pixar Animation Studios 277 Radio Stations Buena Vista Games Hyperion Books

Viacom

Paramount Pictures Paramount Home Entertainment Black Entertainment Television (BET) Comedy Central Country Music Television (CMT) Logo MTV MTV Canada MTV2 Nick Magazine Nick at Nite Nick Jr. Nickelodeon Noggin Spike TV The Movie Channel TV Land VH1

News Corporation

Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Fox Television Stations The New York Post TV Guide Fox Searchlight Pictures Beliefnet Fox Business Network Fox Kids Europe Fox News Channel Fox Sports Net Fox Television Network FX My Network TV MySpace News Limited News Phoenix InfoNews Channel Phoenix Movies Channel Sky PerfecTV Speed Channel STAR TV India STAR TV Taiwan STAR World Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine Times Literary Supplement Magazine Times of London 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment 20th Century Fox International 20th Century Fox Studios 20th Century Fox Television BSkyB DIRECTV The Wall Street Journal Fox Broadcasting Company Fox Interactive Media FOXTEL HarperCollins Publishers The National Geographic Channel National Rugby League News Interactive News Outdoor Radio Veronica ReganBooks Sky Italia Sky Radio Denmark Sky Radio Germany Sky Radio Netherlands STAR Zondervan

CBS Corporation

CBS News CBS Sports CBS Television Network CNET Showtime TV.com CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations) CBS Consumer Products CBS Outdoor CW Network (50% ownership) Infinity Broadcasting Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner) Westwood One Radio Network

Comcast

NBC Bravo CNBC NBC News MSNBC NBC Sports NBC Television Network Oxygen SciFi Magazine Syfy (Sci Fi Channel) Telemundo USA Network Weather Channel Focus Features NBC Universal Television Distribution NBC Universal Television Studio Paxson Communications (partial ownership) Hulu Universal Parks & Resorts Universal Pictures Universal Studio Home Video

#7 The American People Are Absolutely Addicted To The Mainstream Media

In a previous article about the media, I noted that the average American watches 153 hours of television a month.

When you allow that much information to be downloaded into your brain, it is going to have a dramatic impact on how you think.

Americans are more “connected” than they ever have been before.  This is especially true of our kids.  They are constantly on one sort of electronic device or another.  The following is a brief excerpt from a recent article by Daniel Taylor

According to a 2010 LA Times report, young people spend on average 53 hours a week watching TV, playing video games, and sitting at the computer.

Facebook users spend about 15 hours a month on the social networking site.

People are walking – and driving – blindly while texting, sometimes walking into fountains and even falling off cliffs.

If that Los Angeles Times report is true, that means that our young people are spending more than 200 hours a month connected to the media.

But we are only awake for about 480 hours a month.

When it comes to influencing the American people, nobody has more power than the big media companies do.

And until we can break this sick addiction to the mainstream media and get people to start thinking for themselves, we will never see widespread changes in our society.  As long as people are being “programmed” by the mainstream media, they will continue to express the opinions, attitudes and beliefs that have been downloaded into their minds.

Please share this article with as many people as you can.  It is crucial that we wake as many people up as possible while we still can.

Posted in Government Propaganda, Mainstream Media | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Forbidden History of Smuggling

Trade is fundamental to the basic nature of man. That is why laws of prohibition (i.e. the War on Drugs) can and never will work. — jtl, 419

From:

smugglingSmuggling has been one of the most common economic activities of all time, yet it is all but absent from the historical record. Smuggling has fed the poor and provided a half-decent living to the workers of the world when they faced no other choice but grinding poverty. It was the one way to get affordable goods.

Smuggling was the one and only ‘discount store’ at nearly every place and in every period of history. It made life bearable. One of the very few historians to acknowledge smuggling writes this:

“Smugglers and their customers probably outnumber legal traders in many societies around the world; this is nothing new, they always have.”

Most of the products that have been smuggled were not the usual fear-inducing things like drugs, weapons and slaves. In most cases, the forbidden commerce involved salt, wool, fabric, tea and brandy.

Cooperation: Humanity’s Norm

Humans cooperate. This has been true as far back as we can see and it remains true. Left to their own devices, most people tend to get along. One of the great proofs of this – and one that I’ve never seen presented – is the fact of ancient trade.

Like smuggling, long-distance trade is also mostly absent from the history books. Some references do exist, of course, but grossly out of proportion to trade’s importance.

Humans always trade – at all periods of history and with every reachable group. People trade without ceasing, reaching out to distant peoples who look different, speak differently, live differently and worship different deities. And they have done this since long before the dawn of history.

Cooperative trading began thousands of years before there were states, treaties, or any other such institutions to “protect property rights.” For as long as humans were humans, they gathered up valuable goods, figured out how to transport them, and took off to find far-off strangers to trade with. On the other end, strangers were welcomed. They were not routinely robbed (though that did sometimes occur). The people on the far end took their goods, asked about other goods that could be obtained, and made deals to exchange their surplus goods in return. Soon enough, young men were making the trek in reverse. Trade flourished and life on both ends improved.

This is ubiquitous in the archaeological record. These traders are the real heroes of history. Their lives and work contributed to human happiness far more than that of any king or prince. No one told the traders that they should go and seek others and no one authorized them; they simply went and traded because it was beneficial and natural to do so.

The Obsidian Traders

Let me establish this point with the case of obsidian, a naturally-occurring volcanic glass. Here is a photo of obsidian:

Smuggling: The Obsidian Traders

When broken, obsidian leaves a very sharp edge; so sharp, in fact, that obsidian is still used for surgical scalpels. This characteristic made it highly useful for knives, scrapers and arrowheads.

The great thing about obsidian, from an archaeological standpoint, is that its source can be determined by its chemical makeup. By sampling the hardened lava from ancient volcanoes, the point of origin for obsidian can be clearly determined. So, we know where it comes from, and, of course, we know where we find it.

Obsidian tools can also be very accurately dated by a hydration process. That is, by measuring the absorption of water into its cut surfaces. This can be done with a simple light microscope, and the process has been refined with multiple experiments.

So, we can tell where obsidian came from, where it ended up, and how long ago it was cut or broken for use as a tool. In combination, these things allow us to map and date ancient trade routes.

The resulting maps of ancient trade are so surprising that they still have not made their way into the common mind. For example, the map below shows the near-East obsidian trade routes of approximately 8000 BC, and there are others going back to 14,000 BC.

smuggling early trading map

As you look at this map, consider this: This trade was conducted five or six thousand years before the Great Pyramid was built. There was no Egypt, no Sumer, no Babylon or any of the other famous “first civilizations.” Egypt and the rest are closer in time to us than to these obsidian traders.

And, of course, these maps show only the ancient obsidian tools that have been found so far. There remains much more to be discovered.

This obsidian trade – which covered modern-day Cyprus, Turkey, Armenia, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran, an arc of approximately two thousand miles – was conducted by individuals who simply loaded up, went out and found ways to cooperate with strange and distant peoples.

If you refer back to FMP #6, you’ll find a detailed report on Ötzi the Iceman, an experienced trader who lived in the Alps in about 3,300 BC. He also came before Sumer, Egypt, and the rest.

Another example: Even though trade was looked down upon by the agricultural Romans, the trade in and out of Rome was immense. As Professor Lionel Casson reports:

The Roman man in the street ate bread baked with wheat grown in North Africa or Egypt, and fish that had been caught and dried near Gibraltar. He cooked with North African oil in pots and pans of copper mined in Spain, ate off dishes fired in French kilns, drank wine from Spain or France… The Roman of wealth dressed in garments of wool from Miletus or linen from Egypt; his wife wore silks from China, adorned herself with diamonds and pearls from India, and made up with cosmetics from South Arabia… He lived in a house whose walls were covered with colored marble veneer quarried in Asia Minor; his furniture was of Indian ebony or teak inlaid with African ivory…

Everywhere we look in history – if we are capable of gaining an unobstructed view – we find traders improving human lives: motivated by their own desires and cooperating with strange people, far from home, and with no powerful organization threatening to punish those who might mistreat them. Again, these are the true heroes of history.

Paul Rosenberg FreemansPerspective.com

Editor’s Note: This article is an excerpt from our flagship newsletter – Freeman’s Perspective – Issue #20: The Forbidden History of Smuggling. If you liked what you read, consider taking a risk-free test drive. Not only will you gain immediate access to the rest of this issue, but you’ll also be able to enjoy the entire archive – more than 500 pages of research on topics of importance and inspiration to those looking for freedom in an unfree world. Plus valuable bonus reports and all new issues as well. Click here to learn more.

Posted in History, smuggling, trade | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Is America’s Economy Being Sovietized?

by

Is America’s Economy Being Sovietized?

The foundation of the Soviet model of trade and investment was centralization. The entire goal of communism in general was not to give more social and political power to the people, but to extinguish alternative options and focus power into the hands of a select few. The process used to reach this end result can vary, but the goal always remains the same. In most cases, such centralization begins with economic hegemony, and it is in our fiscal structure that we have the means to see the future. Sovietization in our financial life will inevitably lead to sovietization in our political life.

Does the U.S. economy’s path resemble the Soviet template exactly? No. And I’m sure the very suggestion will make the average unaware free market evangelical froth at the mouth. However, as I plan to show, the parallels in our fundamentals are disturbing; the reality is that true free markets in America died a long time ago.

The Tyranny Of Planned Economy

The characteristics of a free market society defy the use of centralized planning. Adam Smith’s original concept of free market trade stood as an antithesis to what was then referred to as “mercantilism,” a select few “joint stock companies” (corporations) monopolizing production while using government ties to destroy any new competition. Unfortunately, there are to this day economists and politicians who believe that corporate centralization is a “natural” function of a free market. In reality, corporate monopolies are an unnatural creation of collusion between governments and big-money interests designed to suffocate any entrepreneurship outside of their sphere of influence. Over time, as we now see in the United States today, government power and corporate power begin to hybridize, until one can barely be distinguished from the other.

The bottom line is that you cannot have planned structures, monopolized production or controlled capital flow within an economy and still claim it to be a “free market. There are no exceptions to this rule.

The Soviet system was the ultimate in centralization. Every aspect of financial life was dictated by the communist government, from industrial input and output to investment to food production and rationing to wages and retail prices. Some people might argue that this structure is a far cry from what we now have in the United States, but let’s look at the fundamentals.

Controlled Money Creation

One of the primary tenets of The Communist Manifesto was the creation of a central bank meant to keep tight controls over currency issuance. The existence of a central bank immediately disrupts any chance of a true free market. Central banking without competition allows an oligarchy, whether corporate or political or a meshing of the two, to manipulate interest rates as well as adjust prices through inflation. Lending standards (which the central bank determines arbitrarily) built on fractional reserve banking opens the door to murky debt instruments and toxic financial products that are further used to either fabricate a “high” standard of living (as we saw in the U.S. in the 90s and early 2000s) or execute a bubble implosion causing a lower standard of living (as the U.S. is experiencing today).

Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve through subversive collusion between banking interests and corrupt politicians in 1913, America has not had a free market system. From that point forward, every boom and bust, every interest rate disaster, every inflationary increase in prices has been scientifically engineered.

Dominance Of Industry

Soviet controls on industrial output are legendary. Every part of the resource allocation process became subject to bureaucracy, and this led to stunted manufacturing growth as well as a culture of misrepresented economic data. In the United States, the establishment has taken a slightly different approach but with the same end result.

Heavy taxation on business ventures within the U.S. against entrepreneurs not lucky enough to run in elitists circles has erased incentives for manufacturing experiments within our borders. In the meantime, members of the corporate glee club receive government subsidization while they simultaneously outsource industrial projects to Third World nations. Controlled industry within communist Russia was meant to force the population to depend upon the government for every means of survival. In the United States, dependency on government has been replaced by interdependency on the globalized model in general. Necessities are now compartmentalized, and only select international businesses with cooperation from government have the ability to bring all the pieces together to keep our domestic economy running smoothly. Our society has been so distanced from self-sufficiency that many people now consider the globalist dynamic indispensable.

Bureaucracy And Food Production

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations, based on dubious junk science and often instituted on high without congressional oversight, further erode business possibilities, especially for young companies as well as private agriculture, while giving free reign to elitist entities like Monsanto, an organization the government actually protects through specialized legislation making it nearly immune to civil litigation.

While farms in the United States are not exactly “controlled” by the Federal government in the Soviet sense, many of them are subsidized through welfare on the condition that they grow only particular kinds of crops, raise particular animals or grow nothing at all. This subsidization is an indirect form of price control, creating engineered scarcity or abundance. At the same time, agricultural empires like Monsanto make private farm ownership increasingly difficult by using their government protection to harass and squeeze out independent food producers.

This destabilization of private resource management by common citizens has culminated in the passage of President Barack Obama’s executive order National Defense Resource Preparedness, which allows under a “national emergency” (which the President can declare for any reason) the confiscation of any and all private resources, including farms and businesses, to be redistributed by the government to ensure security conditions. This is the Stalinist model, pure and simple.

Centralized Control Of Investment

We now know that since at least 2008, the U.S. stock market, often presented by the mainstream as a paragon of free market prowess, has actually been propped up and inflated by Federal Reserve fiat. Both former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and current branch head Richard Fisher have openly admitted in separate news interviews that the central bank spends considerable energy in “artificially sustaining” equity markets. This has been done, I suspect, with full knowledge of the U.S. Treasury and the Obama Administration.

The Soviet model for investment was to remove all uncertainties from their domestic markets, often in the name of preventing manipulation by “speculators.” The speculator rationale was generally a distraction away from the attempt to dictate the natural forces of supply and demand. The idea was that if the government could dismiss legitimate demand or lack of demand or hide excess supply or lack of supply, the perception of a balanced economy could be conjured for the population. This led to strict redirection of capital to areas where manipulation was needed to artificially pump up (or deflate) a particular part of the economy. The government became the sole investor of the Soviet system and, thus, the sole determinant of the success or failure of any particular market.

This is exactly what is going on in America today. Federal Reserve fiat is being printed and dumped into every financial mechanism that supposedly maintains our country’s fiscal health, including stocks, Treasuries and municipals, while trade volume remains low and private investment disappears. The Federal government now owes its very existence to the continued support of central bank dollars, and the Dow Jones does as well. If this is not the Soviet ideal, then I don’t know what is.

Labor Oppression, Dismal Living Standards And Government Dependency

Poverty levels within the United States are at record highs. Nearly 50 million Americans are now dependent on government-subsidized food stamps for their survival. Nearly 100 million Americans receive welfare (or Social Security) in one form or another from the establishment. That is almost one-third of our entire population that relies on the system for at least a part of their sustainment. If Obamacare is fully realized, millions more Americans will also be conditioned to become dependent on government-designated healthcare providers. The point is not to pass judgment on those people who get money or services from the government, only to make clear our progression away from freedom and into centralized servitude.

For a Soviet structure to thrive, poverty among common citizens has to be institutionalized. Dependency requires a constant state of desperation. In America, this has been accomplished through a combination of inflated prices and reduced wages in conjunction with the destruction of labor options.

At the height of the communist machine in Russia, employment was ample; but the kind of employment one could apply for was dependent on bureaucratic red tape and availability based on a worker’s record. Only the academic “elite” within the government-run cesspools of Soviet universities and military schools had their choice of employment; even then, they were often pressured into particular specialized fields, depending on the kind of labor the state needed done at that particular time.

In the United States anyone can certainly aspire to do whatever job he hopes to do. But again, options have been removed economically; and the same academic elitism pervasive in Soviet Union labor markets exists in America today. In a recent installment of his weekly radio show, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it was better for “so-so” high school students to pursue a career in plumbing rather than go to college.

Though I rarely agree with Bloomberg on anything, my initial reaction was surprise at his willingness to steer American youth away from university indoctrination centers. However, upon further examination, it became clear that Bloomberg was not trying to save the next generation time and money. Instead, he is promoting a shift in the labor dynamic of the U.S. economy toward a Soviet-style foundation. Bloomberg knows well that the U.S. labor market will never return to its former glory, partly because he is a supporter of the globalist policies that ruined our economy in the first place. Instead of suggesting ways to reverse the trend of progressive poverty and the lack of high-end jobs that engender ingenuity and invention, elitists like Bloomberg are saying “forget your dreams and get used to being a drone.”

In a 70 percent service and retail economy, where job availability is increasingly degraded and independent business is discouraged, Americans will have two choices:  Excel in the world of federally funded and propagandized education and sell your soul just for a chance at obtaining a professional career in a field of influence or settle for the leftovers. For some people, being a plumber is a fine thing; but it should not be the only thing. In a true free market, a smart man can make his own way, even if he does not conform to the ideologies of the educational racket. In a Sovietized market, a smart man is prohibited from accomplishing anything unless he conforms to the ideologies of the educational racket.

In the end, the Soviet economy was so utterly fraudulent that the final collapse of the system came as a complete surprise to many in political and economic fields. Centralization is an absolute affront to the natural laws of supply and demand and an oppressive hindrance to the innovation that humanity thrives on. Such systems require constant theft from the populace in the form of reduced jobs, reduced wages, reduced resources, increased taxes, increased price controls and a highly ignorant citizenry in order to function even for a short time. Sadly, the United States is well on its way in all of these areas, lending itself to a global economic tyranny in which all of us work much harder, for much less and all for a government that uses our very labor against us.

Posted in Austrian Economic Theory, Economic & Market Analysis, Social & Economic Collapse, Social and Cultural Desruction, Totalitarianism | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Operation Vigilant Eagle: Is This Really How We Honor Our Nation’s Veterans?

The homecoming is the hardest part of the ordeal. Believe me, I know from first hand experience. After being mobilized for Operation Desert Storm, was almost denied tenure which would have meant loosing my job at Sul Ross State University because, according to the committee of my ”peers,” I was “too militaristic.” I was also selected in another professor’s class discussion to be the one “most likely to commit workplace violence.” I was nicknamed as her “little war monger” by a departmental secretary. I was told by a work-study student who assisted that secretary that the reason for the Oklahoma City bombing was that “there are too many people like you in the world.” And there is more, but you get the idea. Anger is an identifying marker for PTSD but how can we be blamed for being angry?– jtl, 419

By John W. Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute

“I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”—James A. Baldwin

Just in time for Memorial Day, we’re being treated to a generous serving of praise and grandstanding by politicians, corporations and others with similarly self-serving motives eager to go on record as being pro-military. Patriotic platitudes aside, however, America has done a deplorable job of caring for her veterans. We erect monuments for those who die while serving in the military, yet for those who return home, there’s little honor to be found.

Despite the fact that the U.S. boasts more than 23 million veterans who have served in World War II through Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan, the plight of veterans today, while often overlooked, is common knowledge: impoverished, unemployed, lacking any decent health benefits, homeless, traumatized mentally and physically, struggling with depression, thoughts of suicide, marital stress.

Making matters worse, thanks to Operation Vigilant Eagle, a program launched by the Department of Homeland Security in 2009, military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are also being characterized as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.” As a result, these servicemen and women—many of whom are decorated—are finding themselves under surveillance, threatened with incarceration or involuntary commitment, or arrested, all for daring to voice their concerns about the alarming state of our union and the erosion of our freedoms.

An important point to consider, however, is that the government is not merely targeting individuals who are voicing their discontent so much as it is locking up individuals trained in military warfare who are voicing feelings of discontent. Under the guise of mental health treatment and with the complicity of government psychiatrists and law enforcement officials, these veterans are increasingly being portrayed as ticking time bombs in need of intervention. In 2012, for instance, the Justice Department launched a pilot program aimed at training SWAT teams to deal with confrontations involving highly trained and often heavily armed combat veterans.

In the four years since the start of Operation Vigilant Eagle, the government has steadily ramped up its campaign to “silence” dissidents, especially those with military backgrounds. Coupled with the DHS’ dual reports on Rightwing and Leftwing “Extremism,” which broadly define extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” these tactics have boded ill for anyone seen as opposing the government.

One particularly troubling mental health label being applied to veterans and others who challenge the status quo is “oppositional defiance disorder” (ODD). As journalist Anthony Martin explains, an ODD diagnosis

“denotes that the person exhibits ‘symptoms’ such as the questioning of authority, the refusal to follow directions, stubbornness, the unwillingness to go along with the crowd, and the practice of disobeying or ignoring orders. Persons may also receive such a label if they are considered free thinkers, nonconformists, or individuals who are suspicious of large, centralized government… At one time the accepted protocol among mental health professionals was to reserve the diagnosis of oppositional defiance disorder for children or adolescents who exhibited uncontrollable defiance toward their parents and teachers.”

The case of 26-year-old decorated Marine Brandon Raub—who was targeted because of his Facebook posts, interrogated by government agents about his views on government corruption, arrested with no warning, labeled mentally ill for subscribing to so-called “conspiratorial” views about the government, detained against his will in a psych ward for standing by his views, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys—is a prime example of the government’s war on veterans.

Raub’s case exposes the seedy underbelly of a governmental system that is targeting Americans—especially military veterans—for expressing their discontent over America’s rapid transition to a police state.

On Thursday, August 16, 2012, a swarm of local police, Secret Service and FBI agents arrived at Raub’s home, asking to speak with him about posts he had made on his Facebook page made up of song lyrics, political opinions and dialogue used in a political thriller virtual card game. Among the posts cited as troublesome were lyrics to a song by the rap group Swollen Members and Raub’s views, shared increasingly by a number of Americans, that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job.

After a brief conversation and without providing any explanation, levying any charges against Raub or reading him his rights, law enforcement officials then handcuffed Raub and transported him first to the police headquarters, then to a medical center, where he was held against his will due to alleged concerns that his Facebook posts were “terrorist in nature.” Outraged onlookers filmed the arrest and posted the footage to YouTube, where it quickly went viral. Meanwhile, The Rutherford Institute came to Raub’s assistance, which combined with heightened media attention, may have helped prevent Raub from being successfully “disappeared” by the government.

In a hearing on August 20, government officials pointed to Raub’s Facebook posts as the sole reason for their concern and for his continued incarceration. Ignoring Raub’s explanations about the fact that the Facebook posts were being read out of context, Raub was sentenced to up to 30 days’ further confinement in a psychiatric ward. While in the psych ward, Raub reported being interrogated by medical staff about his views about the government and threatened by a doctor with brainwashing. Raub’s legal team, provided by The Rutherford Institute, immediately began petitioning the courts for his release.

On August 23, Circuit Court Judge Allan Sharrett declared the government’s case to be lacking in factual allegations and ordered Raub immediately released. However, for the tens of thousands of individuals detained—wrongfully or otherwise—under civil commitment laws every year, regaining their freedom is nearly impossible, predicated as it is on a bureaucratic legal and judicial system.

Within days of Raub being seized at his Virginia home on August 16, 2012, and forcibly held in a VA psych ward, news reports started surfacing of other veterans having similar experiences.

That the government is using the charge of mental illness as the means by which to immobilize (and disarm) these veterans is diabolically brilliant. With one stroke of a magistrate’s pen, these service men are being declared mentally ill, locked away against their will, and stripped of their constitutional rights. Make no mistake, these returning veterans are being positioned as enemy number one.

Given the government’s increasing view of veterans as potential domestic terrorists, it makes one think twice about a new Michigan law that adds a veterans designation on Michigan driver’s licenses and state IDs. Hailed by politicians as a way to “make it easier for military veterans to access discounts from retailers, restaurants, hotels and vendors across the state,” it will also make it that much easier for the government to identify and target veterans who dare to challenge the status quo.

Particularly telling is a training exercise for the Explorers program, which trains young people for careers in law enforcement, in which teenaged boys and girls dressed like quasi-SWAT teams and armed with pellet guns attempt to take down “a disgruntled Iraq war veteran [who] has already taken out two people, one slumped in his desk, the other covered in blood on the floor.” As a side note: this Explorers program, an extension of the Boy Scouts, is unnervingly similar to the Hitler Youth program used by the Nazis to indoctrinate young people into a police state mindset, chillingly documented by H.W. Koch in The Hitler Youth: Origins and Development 1922-1945.

This brings me back to present-day America, with its penchant for endless wars that empty our national coffers while fattening those of the military industrial complex. Does anyone else find it heartbreaking and ironic that we raise our young people on a steady diet of violence and military action, sell them on the idea that defending freedom abroad by serving in the military is their patriotic duty, then when they return home, bruised and battle-scarred and suddenly serious about defending their freedoms at home, we treat them like criminal suspects?

Brandon Raub understands this all too well. While still serving with the Marines in Afghanistan in November 2011, Raub put pen to paper in order to flesh out some of his concerns about the dismantling of freedom in America. His concerns echo those of countless Americans like myself dismayed at the nation’s descent into authoritarianism:

America has lost itself. We have lost who we truly are… They are controlling your media. They have dumbed you down through your school systems. They have systematically dismantled the constitution. It is in rags. The bill of rights is being systematically dismantled. Men have spilled their blood for those rights. Your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters, and America’s best young men and women are losing their limbs. They are losing their lives. They are losing the hearts. They do not know why they are fighting. They are killing. And they do not know why. They have done some extraordinary acts. Their deeds go before them. But these wars are lies. They are lies. They deceived our entire nation with terrorism. They have gotten us to hand them our rights… We gave them the keys to our country. We were not vigilant with our republic. There is hope. BUT WE MUST TAKE OUR REPUBLIC BACK.

 

Posted in Totalitarianism, Tyrany, Veteran's Affairs, War and Foreign Policy | 3 Comments

Colorado Gun Control Law Is Unenforceable, Say Colorado’s Sheriffs.

Written by Gary North via The Tea Party Economist 

A gun control law set to go into effect in July specifies that anytime that a gun owner allows anyone to have control of his gun for over 72 hours, that person to receive the gun must go through a background check.

Of Colorado’s 62 sheriffs, 54 are publicly protesting the law. It is unenforceable, they say.

The law has other unenforceable features, such as banning rifle magazines that could possibly be expanded to hold more than 15 rounds. Anyone who owns such a magazine cannot sell it or lend it.

The sheriffs are part of a lawsuit in federal court. The lawsuit says the law is unconstitutional.

The state committee that heard testimony allowed only one sheriff to testify.

Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith said the sentiments held by the sheriffs are shared by other law enforcement officers like police and state troopers, who, by virtue of the fact that they are employees rather than elected officials, can’t speak up about their opposition to the laws.

States can pass lots of laws. If most of the residents decide not to obey them, there is not much that law-enforcement officials can do about it.

Continue Reading on dailycaller.com

Posted in Government Failures, Gun Control | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Forbes Opinion Editor: IRS Scandal Ain’t Nothing But a Thang

via 

irsAs seemingly every sentient being now knows, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has apparently been selective when it comes to the entities its agents scrutinize for tax-payment irregularities. Tea Party groups in particular (organizations known to be less sympathetic toward the IRS) seem to have generated abnormal amounts of attention from it.

FOLLOW FLYOVERPRESS.COM ON FACEBOOK! Let it be said up front that the IRS’s presumed misdeeds are indeed offensive, but let’s not be so facile as to call what happened a scandal. If so, then it’s certainly the case that human nature is scandalous.

That is so because bias is a human condition. Conservatives sometimes complain about ‘liberal media bias,’ and while the latter is a reality, the complaining has never made sense. Those who swing left tend to gravitate toward the media, so it’s only natural that media coverage of just about anything will reveal itself in slanted ways.

Unless we’re truly bland, and probably on all sorts of anti-depressants such that we’re totally devoid of emotion, our views and emotions are going to color how we do things, how we present stories to others, and applied to the IRS, whom we investigate. Thinking about the IRS non-scandal, it would only be a real story if the IRS weren’t investigating its presumed enemies.

As James Bovard put it in a Wall Street Journal op-ed earlier this week, a politicized IRS has been the norm since at least the 1930s. To presume otherwise is naïve, so while it’s perhaps good politics for President Obama’s opponents to be political about the IRS’s revolting doings, any righteous indignation seems overdone. Any government entity is going to be political, and because the latter is true, it’s hard to assign scandal…

READ MORE AT FORBES.COM

Posted in Government Corruption, Government Failures, Jack Booted Government Thug Watch, Police State, Taxation, Totalitarianism, Tyrany | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Let them eat… insects

by Simon Black, Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com

Camel SpiderIn what may go down as one of the most obtusely out-of-touch policy memos ever written, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization recently released a paper entitled “Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security.”

http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e.pdf

For 171 pages, the paper argues for insect-based diets, explaining why governments should “[d]evelop a clear and comprehensive legal framework” to ensure that we all start eating insects.

So what’s the UN’s reasoning behind this? How could the organization possibly justify such an idea?

Simple. Because it’s better for the environment.

As the paper states, “[i]nsects… emit considerably fewer greenhouse gases (GHGs) than most livestock,” and, “eating insects is not only good for [our] health, it is good for the planet.”

Sounds disgusting, no? But it’s all good, according to the report, because the Tukanoan jungle village (population 100) in Colombia eats invertebrate insects. Therefore, so should we.

They recognize that people might be put-off by such an idea. So their solution to resolve the ‘disgust factor’ is for governments to sponsor ‘bug banquets’ in order to reduce prejudice against insects.

It seems the fanaticism of these bureaucratic do-gooders has now reached epically farcical, and even dangerous levels; they view the government as an instrument to jam poorly-conceived solutions down people’s throats… in this case, almost literally.

This agenda ties in nicely with other government initiatives that tell people what they can / cannot put in their bodies: aspartame and high fructose corn syrup– good; raw milk– bad.

The paper also cites the cost factor. Without a full-frontal acknowledgement that food prices have been rising, the authors make a strong case for the economic benefits of insect-based nutrition.

Of course, anyone who has been to a grocery store in the last five years knows that food prices have been rising. A recent poll of Globe and Mail readers found that 53% of those surveyed have cut back on purchases because of rising food prices.

And when you look at the big picture for agriculture, it’s not pretty.

World population growth and the rising wealth demographics across Asia are driving unprecedented increases in demand.

Meanwhile, peak yields, soil erosion, weather challenges, water shortages, and declines in arable land worldwide are causing decreases in supply.

Then there are a number of destructive policy initiatives– price controls, export restrictions, etc. which lead to further supply reductions.

Plus the mother of bad policy, monetary policy, is creating trillions of new dollars in the financial system. Much of this finds its way into the agricultural commodity markets, driving food prices even higher.

Bottom line: rising demand, decreasing supply, and bad policy mean the best we can hope for is rising food prices. The worst case is potential shortages.

It’s a real problem. But with due respect to cultures that do eat insects, something tells me that global consumption of Palm weevil larvae ain’t the solution.

I remember a few years ago when Bill Dudley, Goldman Sachs alumnus and current President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, spoke at an event claiming that there was no inflation because the price of the iPad 2 was lower than the iPad 1.

At the time, this sounded like the modern day equivalent of “Let them eat cake,” the quip most commonly attributed to the wife of France’s Louis XVI months before their beheading in the 1790s.

The United Nations has clearly taken this to a whole new level. “Let them eat insects.”

It’s just another reminder of how truly out of touch these people are… and that placing any level of confidence in government to solve the world’s problems is dangerous course of action.

Posted in Agenda 21, Government Failures, New World Order, One World Government, Police State, Radical Environmentalism | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Gun Control Won’t Eliminate Guns

by Mark R. Crovelli via LewRockwell.com

No single issue in the American political arena illustrates the similarity of American liberals and American conservatives than the issue of gun control. This claim will no doubt appear counterintuitive, because conservatives and liberals have been bickering over gun rights for as long as anyone can remember. Liberals love gun control and conservatives loathe it. The difference between the two groups couldn’t be starker, right?

What all the superficial bickering between the two groups conceals, however, is a fundamental agreement that gun control can actually work. Starry-eyed liberals believe that government is indeed capable of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, as if would-be-armed-robbers actually care whether or not it is legal to own guns. Conservatives innocently fear that government is capable of keeping guns out of the hands of all ordinary Americans, as if government prohibition has ever actually worked. Both groups, in other words, believe that if the government chooses to control or outlaw something, its laws will actually make that thing disappear.

It doesn’t take a degree in economics, however, to realize that both groups are hopelessly mistaken to think that gun control can actually work. Conservatives are wrong to fear that government can effectively control or prohibit anything, including guns, and liberals are wrong to believe that government gun control will keep guns out of the hands of would-be criminals.

In order to see why this is true, one need only take a look at how well drug prohibition has been in the United States. Certain “drugs” have been prohibited in the United States for generations, and yet they are still so plentifully available that you even find them in American prisons. Marijuana got to be so plentiful and cheap in the early 1980’s, in fact, that drug smugglers had to start looking around for more profitable drugs to sell, like cocaine. The same thing happened later on to cocaine as more and more smugglers (including Ronald Reagan’s CIA and Bill Clinton’s buddies in Arkansas) stepped in to supply more cocaine, and prices fell through the floor to the point that crack cocaine was available virtually everywhere. The same was true of alcohol during prohibition. The point is; if the government’s laws have completely failed to eliminate the market for drugs, what on Earth could make anyone believe their laws will actually eliminate the market for guns? Sure, prices will be higher than they otherwise would be without asinine gun laws, but let’s at least be honest and admit that the gun market in the United States isn’t going away anytime soon.

In addition to the obvious failure of drug prohibition in the United States, there are dozens of examples of how gun control has failed internationally. In Brazil, for example, more than half of the guns in the country are estimated to be unregistered – which is to say, they are illegal. In Mexico there is exactly one legal firearm dealer in the whole country, while there are approximately 250,000 guns smuggled into the country every year illegally. I was told by several Palestinians in the West Bank during a recent trip (where guns are basically completely illegal) that you could even buy American-made M-16’s if you have enough money, or settle for cheaper AK-47’s if you don’t. If people want guns, there will be people who are willing to sell them. Duh.

These points should be obvious to anyone who has ever been around gun people in the United States. To be sure, there are some Americans who own guns (usually inherited from their fathers) and who don’t care about them or don’t even know how to use them. These people would probably even hand over their guns to the government unhesitatingly if they were told to do so. But there is a different type of American gun owner who is not about to hand over his guns, no matter what the laws say. To this type of gun owner, the spread of gun laws is interpreted as a sign that he needs to buy more 6″ PVC pipe to bury in his yard. To think that this type of gun owner will be disarmed by a bunch of thieves and blowhards in Washington is beyond naïve. His guns may go in the ground or in the wall for safekeeping, but they sure as hell won’t wind up in a government scrap heap.

Liberals who think this type of gun owner can be disarmed by government fiat are completely delusional, and so are conservatives who fear that gun control is going to lead to widespread surrender of arms. Gun control laws will only disarm those that don’t care about guns in the first place. Everyone else will be able to find and buy guns just as easily as they can find and buy crack cocaine or meth, which is to say that it will still be insanely easy. You will probably even see guns popping up alongside drugs in prisons, like in Latin America, if gun control is ever really enforced in the United States. If history is any guide, the ATF and the CIA will probably be the biggest black market suppliers, as they were with heroin and cocaine.

None of this is to downplay either the sheer idiocy or the other evil effects that gun control laws will have on the United States if they continue to proliferate as they recently have been. Inducing Americans to bury the guns that they use to protect their homes and their families will definitely lead to more needless robbery and murder. Inducing Americans to make their firearm purchases from the same people that try to sell meth to their children will definitely and needlessly hurt a lot of people. Inducing the gun market to go black will definitely raise prices for guns above their current level. And arresting people for “illegally” carrying guns to defend themselves is the very definition of tyranny.

The point is simply that gun control cannot and will not eliminate the market for guns in America. Since this is the major selling point for gun control, the debate will continue to be an idiotic and pointless mess until people start to realize guns can’t be eliminated by government fiat. If libertarians and conservatives concede that government prohibition can work, (as many foolish conservatives who believe in drug prohibition have to), they will lose the argument. Drug prohibition has been a complete and utter failure, and gun control will be too.

This is the most effective and honest argument that libertarians and conservatives can make.

May 20, 2013

Mark R. Crovelli [send him mail] writes from Denver, Colorado.

Copyright © 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Best of Mark R. Crovelli

Posted in Gun Control, Prohibition | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment