I, the Teacher, when king over Israel in Jerusalem, applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven. —Ecclesiastes 1, verses 12-13
"In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the mind there are no limits." —John Lilly
In Chapter One you were asked to stretch your imagination and to consider the possibility of "free market money." The notion that people should be free to choose their own money may have seemed bizarre at first. Most of us, including most economists take it for granted that a country must have one currency, that the government must dictate what that currency shall be, and the government must control the value of that currency. With a stretch of your imagination you can transcend this limitation. This is what F.A. Hayek, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1974, did. In his book Denationalization of Money he wrote:
"In my despair about the hopelessness of finding a politically feasible solution to what is technically the simplest possible problem, namely to stop inflation, I threw out in a lecture... a somewhat startling suggestion, the pursuit of which has opened quite unexpected new horizons. I could not resist pursuing the idea further, since the task of preventing inflation has always seemed to me to be of the greatest importance, not only because of the harm and suffering major inflations cause, but also because I have long been convinced that even mild inflations ultimately produce the recurring depressions and unemployment which have been a justified grievance against the free enterprise system and must be prevented if a free society is to survive.
The further pursuit of the suggestion that government should be deprived of its monopoly of the issue of money opened the most fascinating theoretical vistas and showed the possibility of arrangements which have never been considered. As soon as one succeeds in freeing oneself of the universally but tacitly accepted creed that a country must be supplied by its government with its own distinctive and exclusive currency, all sorts of interesting questions arise which have never been examined. The result was a foray into a wholly unexplored field."
Many authors attempt to communicate a particular set of ideas, beliefs, and conclusions. They also attempt to persuade the reader to follow a particular pattern of behavior. This chapter attempts to present you with ranges of ideas. It invites you to think for yourself, to select and formulate the set of ideas most appropriate for you. The purpose of these ranges of ideas is to stretch your imagination, so that you will have more options available to you, when it comes to deciding what you will do about the economic rape of America.
A central issue we need to address is that of value creation, value consumption, and value destruction. Generally, wealth is accumulated through value creation. When you produce and deliver products and services that benefit the lives of others, you create values. They provide you with value in return, usually in the form of money or currency. When you provide opportunities for others to create values - for example, by an invention that saves time and effort, by a medical breakthrough that extends human life, or by creating a great company - you also create values.
When you eat your food or drive your car you consume values. When you transport products from a place where they have little or no value to a place where they are of great value, you consume values (fuel, time, energy) in order to create value (the increase in value of the products transported). Some of the values you consume - for example, the air you breathe and energy from the sun - you receive free and gratis.
Some regard the human individual as the greatest value. If you murder someone you destroy a value. Though you could argue that murdering a "Hitler" - an extreme value destroyer - would on balance represent a creation of value. War represents one of the greatest value destroyers. AIDS is a value destroyer - or, at least, the virus and other factors that bring about AIDS. Sometimes values are destroyed to create greater values - for example, sometimes an old building, though still having value and being useful, is demolished in order to erect a new, larger, and much more valuable building.
Different people value things differently. This makes it possible for people to exchange products, services, and money so that all parties achieve an increase in value. Example: I can apply the information in a particular book to increase my income by $1000 without any additional effort, besides reading the book. (I estimate the cost of my reading effort as $200). It costs the publisher $15 (including company overheads) to produce, market, and distribute the book. I buy the book for $20, and achieve an increase in value of $780 ($1000 - $20 - $200). The publisher achieves an increase in value of $5 ($20 - $15) for every book sold. All parties achieve an increase in value. (Note that even if I had paid $50 or $100 for the book, it would still have been a bargain!)
Generally, voluntary exchange occurs because all the parties involved achieve an increase in value. Voluntary exchange could be called the economic means for obtaining the values necessary for survival. It involves working in order to live.
One could also obtain the values needed for survival through stealing or robbing. When individuals do it, we simply call it stealing or robbing. In the case of slavery, we force others to provide us with values. When many people organize themselves into a "government" in order to steal and rob, we call it "taxation." This could be called the political means for obtaining the values needed for survival.
TAX AS EXCHANGE
How does tax fit into the picture? Please stretch your imagination. Theoretically, taxes could be organized in different ways:
- Taxpayers could force the government to receive their taxes. Any government agent who refuses to receive taxes would be subject to severe penalties.
- The government could be forced to pay taxes to people outside government. Any government agent who refuses to pay taxes to a non-government individual would be subject to severe penalties.
- Non-government individuals could be forced to receive taxes from the government. Any non-government individual who refuses to receive taxes would be subject to severe penalties.
- Taxpayers could voluntarily pay part of their income to the government for the services they receive that they value more highly than the tax they pay.
- Rich people could voluntarily pay taxes for honor and public recognition (refer to the "liturgy" system of ancient Greece - Chapter Eight).
- Taxpayers could voluntarily exchange money on an item by item basis for products and services from the government that they value more highly than the price they pay.
- Taxpayers could be forced to pay part of their income to the government, irrespective of whether they want government services or not, and irrespective of how they value government services. Anyone who refuses to pay taxes would be subject to severe penalties.
Of course, the word "tax" is inappropriate in some of the above sentences. I leave it to you, the reader, to decide how taxes should be organized, and why - and the implications of taxes being organized in some particular way. Some questions may help:
- Does a value producer have to force clients to pay for his or her products whether they want them or not - or does the value producer advertise to persuade clients to buy?
- Does a value producer charge whatever he or she likes for a product or does the price depend on how consumers value the product and what they are willing to pay?
- Does a value producer charge clients for products, irrespective of whether the products are delivered or not?
- Does a value producer have to "outlaw" competition "mafia-style" in the areas he or she regards as his or her "exclusive domain" (for example, the post office)?
- Would you rather be confronted by an advertisement that invites you to buy, or a person with a gun who effectively says, "Your money or your life?"
- In general, who gains and who loses in the case of enforced transactions?
- What do you call someone who pokes a gun in your face and says, "Your money or else... ?"
- Who are the value creators?
- Who are the value consumers?
- Who are the value destroyers?
- Who lives like a parasite (or cannibal) off the values created by others? ("He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.")
- What are the consequences of paying taxes?
- What are the consequences of not paying taxes?
- What do you finance when you pay taxes?
- Can any or all of these items or functions be financed through voluntary exchange?
- How much tax do you have to pay to bring about the greatest value?
- Is paying tax good or evil?
In the Appendix to Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner wrote in 1852:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man's own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.
If the trial by jury were reestablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reestablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man's money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.
If the government can take a man's money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practice upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because: 1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and, 2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed. The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.
All government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or a shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.
The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man's consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man's consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man's property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man's consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man's property without his consent. The government's pretense of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.
Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
GOVERNMENT, CONSTITUTION, AND LAW
In order for you to choose the best course of action to deal with the economic rape of America, there are more issues you need to resolve. Specifically, you need to clarify your view of, and your relationship to, "government," "constitution," and "law." You need to determine where you stand in relation to these ideas or institutions. It is important that whatever course of action you embark upon is morally and psychologically based on social beliefs you regard as valid.
The views that follow are not presented as "right" or "wrong," "true" or "false." It is up to you to formulate your own views, which may be variations of those here presented - or completely different.
VIEWS ON GOVERNMENT
- Government is a good thing. Government solves problems other people can't solve. (People in government have magical powers). Wherever problems seem to remain unsolved for any significant length of time, government should be expanded to solve those problems. Government should use coercion wherever and whenever necessary to impose the will of the people. It is my patriotic duty to support the government by paying all the taxes requested or demanded by the IRS and other government agencies.
- We need extensive government but not too much. There should be a limited scope for individual initiative and free enterprise. There are many areas - such as legislation, justice, roads, education, defense, police, prisons, currency issue, health, welfare, the "war against drugs," etc - that must be handled by government. (They are the only ones able to handle these matters - they have magical powers.) The American system of checks and balances ensures that the government doesn't overstep its limits. The American government system is based on "rule by law." It is my patriotic duty to support the government by paying taxes according to the letter of the law. Whatever legal means I use to reduce my taxes to the absolute minimum are perfectly in order and do not reduce my patriotism in the least.
- Limited government is a good thing. The function of government should be limited to the protection of individual rights and freedoms. The only areas handled by government should be legislation, justice, defense, police, and prisons - nothing else. The government may not use coercion (the initiation of force or threat of force). The government should collect its income through the voluntary exchange of its services on the free market for payments in return. The government may also collect other voluntary contributions.
- Oscar Wilde said:
"All authority is quite degrading. It degrades those who exercise it, and it degrades those over whom it is exercised... The form of government that is most suitable to the artist is no government at all. High hopes were once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."
- Government's real purpose is to cull surplus humans so there is more living room for the survivors. F. Tupper Saussy writes in The Miracle On Main Street:
"Man has existed for a million years, and he's only had government about 5,600 years. So government has occupied only a very small part of man's natural history. But in those 5,600 years government has done considerable damage. It has done lots toward pruning our species.
A Norwegian statistician computes that in these 56 centuries man has fought 14,531 wars. This is 2.6 wars per year. More than 600,000,000 men, women, and children have been killed by government. (I dread to compute how many people our own government has exterminated.)"
- In Do Unto The IRS As They Would Do Unto You, M.J. "Red" Beckman repeatedly indicates that throughout history government has been man's worst enemy:
"... [M]an's worst enemy has always been his own government... Man's worst enemy has not been famine, disease or weather! People are destroyed by their own governments over and over again as history repeats itself again and again.
... Abraham Lincoln... said, "the only way this great Nation could be destroyed was from within." ... The people were free and the government was the servant when you went to sleep, but while you slept, the government took your freedom and you are now the servant.
... [T]his once-great Nation seems to be deteriorating at a very rapid pace. Government is plundering and looting over half of the wealth being produced by its creative and productive citizens... We are not involved in any declared wars so we must ask ourselves, "are we being destroyed from within by traitors?""
- Government is evil. It is an unnecessary evil. It should be abolished altogether. Government causes crime, chaos, and disorder. In fact, the government is the worst criminal of all. Government is organized violence - organized crime. Governments have slaughtered hundreds of millions of people. Governments cause the very problems they claim they want to solve. Generally, governments produce results that are the opposite of their stated intentions. Laws must be repealed. The state must be smashed.
- The very notion of "government" (so-called) is absurd. There are hucksters who masquerade as "government" and suckers who believe them. It is a giant hoax. People have been duped and brainwashed to believe that there is some kind of entity called "government" that has magical powers to "run the country," "make laws," "solve social problems," etc. We need to shake people to wake them up so they will no longer believe politicians, judges, bureaucrats, and their ilk - and will certainly not obey them. They will simply laugh at their absurd utterances.
- A major part of the power of the individuals who masquerade as "government" stems from the words they use. One way to neutralize some of that power is to use different words. Example: "Territorial gangsters" are individuals who who use fraud, violence, and threat of violence to claim "jurisdiction" (so-called) over an area and the people who happen to be there. Territorial gangsters use fraud, violence, and threat of violence to impose their will upon others and to live like parasites or cannibals off the values produced by others. The term "territorial gangsters" could be used to describe both mafiosi, and the people who masquerade as "government."
- Question: But are there certain things that must be done by government, things that only the government can do? Answer: Government consists of individual human beings, who can only do what humans can do. The fact that they call themselves "government" (or organize themselves into an organization called "government") does not imbue them with magical powers to do what others can't do. Human beings can only do what humans beings can do.
- Question: But if we don't have government there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc. Answer 1: How do you know? Answer 2: Such a list almost always consists of problems we already suffer from - in other words, if we have government there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.
- We need separation between church and state.
- We need separation between money and state.
- We need separation between economy and state.
- We need separation between school and state.
- We need separation between health and state.
- We need separation between welfare and state.
- We need separation between police and state.
- We need separation between justice and state.
- We need separation between defense and state.
- We need separation between humanity and state.
- We need separation between civilization and state.
- We need separation between everything and state.
- People who want to play "state" or "government" should be confined to national parks or zoos where they can govern themselves and the other animals. Humans could pay an admission fee to visit the national parks and observe the animals at play. The admission fee could be considered a "tax" to finance the "government" and their "Animal Farm."
Allow me to repeat that these views are not presented as "right" or "wrong," "true" or "false." It is up to you to formulate your own views, which may be variations of those here presented - or completely different. It is your views that will determine what you will do about the economic rape of America and it is important that whatever course of action you embark upon is morally and psychologically based on political beliefs you regard as valid. You want to be certain that whatever you do, there will be no guilt, shame, or regret.
VIEWS ON CONSTITUTION
- The Constitution must be constantly updated and improved to cater for the changed conditions we now have - very different from the situation over 200 years ago, when the original Constitution was formulated. The Constitution, as extended by the Bill of Rights and other Amendments, and further amended by Supreme Court decisions, is an ideal instrument of government for the greatest nation on earth.
- The Constitution of my country is sacred. Our Founding Fathers created the greatest civilization in history. Politicians, judges, lawyers, and bureaucrats have perverted the Constitution for their own ends. Most of our current societal problems stem from such perversions. We need to return to Constitutional government.
- We need a new Constitution which severely limits the power of government to the protection of individual rights and freedoms. The only areas handled by government should be legislation, justice, defense, police, and prisons - nothing else.
- The Constitution was a betrayal of the Declaration of Independence. Article One, Section 8 gives Congress the power to do practically all the things the Declaration of Independence accused the King of. The American Revolution was fought over 14% tax. Patrick Henry didn't like the Constitution because it gave too much power to the federal government. Two of the New York Representatives refused to sign it and went home. The Bill of Rights was a valiant attempt to correct the atrocities authorized by the Constitution, but it has failed in practice.
- Chief Justice John Marshall said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The fact that the Constitution gave politicians the power to tax, also gave them the power to destroy. Its taxing power makes the Constitution a formula for destruction. And that is how it turned out in practice. It was the taxing power - the North taxing the South (see Chapter Eight) - that caused the Civil War and the death of more than 300,000 Americans.
- One of the Ten Commandments states, "Thou shalt not steal." The taxing power of the Constitution effectively states, "Thou shalt steal." Another Commandment states, "Thou shalt not kill." The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war - including war on Americans, as in the Civil War. It effectively states, "Thou shalt kill." Thus the U.S. Constitution is the work of Satan or the Anti-Christ.
- The Constitution is the charter that authorizes not only the economic rape of America, but also other forms of rape: intellectual, medical, and military. It is an abomination, the destruction of America. We should abolish the Constitution, the state, the government, and the country, and repeal all laws.
- Among the constitutions of the world, the U.S. Constitution has proved to be among the least evil. It has played a pivotal part in bringing about a civilization that has flourished for 200 years.
- The supposed "U.S. Constitution" was signed over 200 years ago by about 70 people, purporting to be "We, the people of the United States." That these 70 odd people were legally empowered to sign the Constitution on behalf of the people then living in the area called by them "the United States," is doubtful. Even if we grant that the "US Constitution" was a valid contract at the time it was signed, there is a further problem: Nothing in the "US Constitution" said that it is a contract binding any descendants of the people living at the time of its signing; that is, the "US Constitution" died with the death of the last person living at the time of its signing. Today, the supposed "US Constitution" is nothing but a hoax foisted upon the gullible. Anyone claiming powers "under the Constitution" is a fraudulent imposter. For a contract to be legal and binding it has to be expressly signed by the parties involved (or by their expressly appointed agents). Similar arguments apply to all other so-called "countries."
- The concept of "constitution" is the shield used by territorial gangsters to justify their parasitic, cannibalistic, destructive existences. (The concept of "law" is the sword.) The territorial gangsters dupe their victims into believing that the so-called "constitution" is some kind of "sacred contract" that empowers them to... ... (do whatever they think they can get away with).
- The real (de facto) constitution of the United States is a phantom called "public policy." This mysterious "public policy" is nowhere defined. It is whatever Congress, judges, bureaucrats, and the President decide it is. The Constitution signed by our Founding Fathers no longer means anything. The oaths sworn by so-called "public officials" to uphold the U.S. Constitution are whispers blown away by the winds.
- In No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, Lysander Spooner wrote in 1869:
"... [T]he Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be... by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has... made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. ... [T]his much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
- Justice Learned Hand said:
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women somehow. When it dies there, no Constitution, no law, no court can save it; no Constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no Constitution, no law, no court to save it."
VIEWS ON LAW
- Laws are God-given, not man-made. By obeying God's laws we will solve most or all current problems.
- The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. By legislating additional laws where needed, in accordance with the Constitution, we will solve most or all current problems.
- There are natural laws. These laws are not made; they are discovered. By discovering and acting in accordance with natural law, we will solve most or all current problems.
- Common law has evolved over centuries. Most current problems have been solved ages ago by common law. All we need to do is to apply it. (Common law is law that developed more or less spontaneously over the centuries. It is based on customs that were found to work in practice. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that common law is "the law of the land.")
- "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" (Aleister Crowley).
- The very notion of "law" (so-called) is absurd. The idea that certain words acquire magical properties that elevate the power of these words into "the law" is archaic and obsolete. The notion that some of the noises and scribbles that emanate from the mouths and pens of politicians, judges, lawyers, and bureaucrats, constitute "the law" (so-called), is simply nonsense.
- The concept of "law" is the sword used by territorial gangsters to wield their parasitic, cannibalistic, destructive power. (The concept of "constitution" is the shield.) The territorial gangsters dupe their victims into believing that certain words are "the law" (so-called). Anyone who "breaks the law" (so-called) can be fined, clubbed, handcuffed, chained, arrested, jailed, shot, hanged, gassed, electrocuted, poisoned, etc... ... (whatever they think they can get away with).
- Question: But if we don't have law there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc. Answer 1: How do you know? Answer 2: Such a list almost always consists of problems we already suffer from - in other words, if we have law there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.
To the question, "But what do we replace government, constitution, and law with?," I offer several possible views. Again, I invite you to formulate your own:
- God's law.
- Natural law.
- Common law.
- Competing contracts - social, political, and legal issues have to do with how people interact. People can make contracts on how they agree to interact. There will be competition between contract types. The best contract types - those that result in the greatest values being created and the least value destruction - will prevail.
- Competing constitutions - anyone, so inclined, draws up his or her own constitution. People sign the constitution of their choice. People are only subject to a constitution they have expressly signed. There will be competition between constitutions. Nobody will be forced into - or automatically born into - a constitution he or she doesn't agree with. The best constitutions - those that result in the greatest values being created and the least value destruction - will prevail.
- Nothing - the question is absurd; it's like asking, "But what do we replace cancer with?"
- There is nothing to be replaced. Words like "government," "constitution," and "law" really represent nothing. They involve projection and abstraction - even hallucination. People project or hallucinate "government," "constitution," and "law" where there is really nothing. There are hucksters who masquerade as "government" and suckers who believe them.
- What needs to be replaced are people's beliefs about "government," "constitution," and "law." These beliefs are a substitute for independent thinking. They stifle individual thinking.
- People who are reasonably conscious and have developed the ability to think for themselves don't need any "government," "constitution," or "law" to tell them what to do. They know that actions produce consequences. They learn to distinguish between actions that are beneficial and produce values and actions that are harmful and destroy values.
- Territorial gangsters force children into "schools" (concentration campuses for mind destruction?) in order to render them as unconscious and unable to think for themselves as possible. This is called "compulsory education." It is intellectual rape. Do you want to subject your children to such a fate?
- Objection: All the above views, if applied, will result in chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc. Answer 1: How do you know? Answer 2: Such a list almost always consists of problems we already suffer from - in other words, if we don't apply the above views there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.
In his superb classic, How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World, Harry Browne describes what might happen if there were no government to restrain the mafia. There would be:
- Protection rackets - companies would have to pay tribute or be put out of business.
- Extortion - individuals would have to pay tribute for the right to work.
- People would have to pay the mafia for the right to just stay on their own property.
- The mafia would tell people where they may or may not work.
- The mafia would use the profits from their protection rackets to compete with their victims.
Browne then describes how the government does all these things. And in addition it enslaves people in its army and kills them. The notion that slavery and involuntary servitude were abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment is quite absurd. The government can enslave Americans at any time in their army and kill them. They call it "the draft."
Again, let me repeat that these views are not presented as "right" or "wrong," "true" or "false." It is up to you to formulate your own views, which may be variations of those here presented - or completely different. It is your views that will determine what you will do about the economic rape of America, and it is important that whatever course of action you embark upon is morally and psychologically based on your beliefs about lawfulness, legality, and legitimacy. You want to be certain that whatever you do, there will be no guilt, shame, or regret.
But whatever you and I believe about "government," "constitution," and "law," there are billions of people out there who believe the versions disseminated by politicians and bureaucrats (territorial gangsters?), preachers, teachers, television, newspapers, and radio - and there are millions of armed police (more territorial gangsters?) to take care of "unbelievers." To fight or attempt to change the system may be futile - and dangerous. I suggest that, even if you are passionately committed to changing the system, that you consider your personal interests first. It might take 20, 100, or even 1,000 years before any meaningful change occurs...
If you want to make any changes, consider that it is much easier to change your own thinking and behavior than those of others. Changing yourself may empower you; while attempting to change others may rob you of your power. If you focus on what you can do to maximize your own values first, you can reap and enjoy the rewards very quickly - while also empowering yourself to influence others - even if only by example.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness! | Believe The Gospel