Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Understanding Why The Working Class Are Cheap

Understanding ones place in material reality is never a light hearted experience. The moment it hit me like a ton of bricks that I  am indeed nothing more than a cog in a profit driven machine, and have been so from the time I was born, left me with a deep feeling of being cheap. Mind you, I did not feel cheap in the traditional emotional gray area of the word, but more in the sense that my value as a human being is judged simply by how much profit I generate for the benefit of so few. Removing all lofty ideas of the cute notions of all human life has high value, I reached a material realization that in capitalist economics I am viewed as cheap no matter how much `profit` my labor produces. When thinking about this profoundly, to hold the belief that the ethics of the whole situation is somehow moral and `good for me` translates into my acceptance that my value as a human being is cheap. All humans must engage in labor in order to survive. This is not something which can be avoided. So, if I am laboring just as hard as everyone else, regardless of the type of work others are doing, then why is my labor considered cheap and others considered not cheap?

The Libertarian stand point would simply say that it is due to demand and the will of the market. That I have no control over the amount of profit my labor affords me. The only thing which controls the value of my labor, and thus my life, is the demand of the market. Well, what is driving this `demand` in the market in the first place?

It appears, in my limited perspective as a worker, that what is really driving this magic thing called `demand` is people`s desire to have stuff. Some of the stuff people really need like food, medicines, soap, houses and even a car perhaps. Other stuff people don`t really need but they want, or at least they say they want, like T.V.`s, video games, action figures, designer clothes and even hardcore porn. Yes! It must be people`s desire to have stuff which is the driving factor behind the magic thing called `demand.`

So let me get this straight: We all go to jobs everyday because there are two things called profit and demand which a lot of people desire. The higher the demand the more value my labor, and effectively, my life has in the grand scope of things. The harder I work the more profit is generated due to the demand. Yet, I don`t seem to be getting more stuff nor profit despite how high the demand becomes. Only some people are getting more stuff and profit. Only some people are considered to be of high value in the grand scope of economics. Everyone is doing their best, or as best as they can when their own material conditions are considered, but only some people seem to be getting a large benefit at the end of the day.

Something clearly seems to be missing in my efforts to understand why I am still cheap after all this hard work and talk of demand and profit. Well, if my fellow workers and I are not getting the most benefit then who is reaping the majority of the benefit? Well, I think it is important to take a look at something called class struggle.

You know about class struggle; right? I read about it and it seems that it is key to understanding why I am cheap while others are not cheap.

Classes of people, based on economics, is basically a structure in which people benefit from production based on their ownership of the means of production. You know, like who owns the place you and I work at or who owns the materials and tools you and I use to make stuff. Who ever owns the most means of production gets the most benefit. There are many different classes of people, but from what I have learned, there are some basic classes which most people can fit into.

Three basics classes:
Bourgeoisie=They own and control big things like huge industrial companies, governments, banks, media and natural resources
Petty Bourgeoisie=They own and control smaller things; and sometimes work for the bourgeoisie
Workers=They do most of the work and turn out most of the production. They own and control none of the means of production.

Like I said, classes of people can be broken down into many more finer and smaller groups depending on the overall material conditions, but the above groups of the basis of what makes up class struggle.

In order for me better understand why I am cheap I need to be aware of which class I fall into. Well, I do not own any means of production and I do not directly work for anyone who does control means of production. I must be in the worker class. A worker is paid a wage based on a set standard of how much their labor is worth according to the market; or so says the Libertarians and Capitalist. Clearly the Petty Bourgeoisie and the Bourgeoisie are the ones getting the majority of the benefit from all the profit and production my labor produces. I think I am getting closer to understanding why I am cheap.

Simple logic says that the market can only generate so much demand because people can desire only so much stuff. Demand cannot be infinite because there is not a infinite amount of people who desire stuff.  Also, demand must go up and down depending on how much stuff people desire at any one time. With such realities in mind, there must only be a certain amount of profit to go around. Considering that I am cheap, and a worker, then all workers must be cheap while other classes must not be cheap. That seems to be a very strange situation to me. The people who are doing most of the work and turning out most of the production are getting the least amount of the profit simply because they do not own the means of production. So, I am cheap because I do not own the means of production. So, my value as a human being, in the scope of economics, is based on my ownership of the means of production.

This brings up a larger sense of wonderment for me. How is ownership of production determined in the first place? It would seem natural that those who use something daily would be the owner of said thing. If most of the production is coming from the workers, and these same people are the ones using the means of production daily, they should naturally be the owners and the ones getting the majority of the benefit. Yet, this is not true at all. So, it is the overall class struggle which more fully explains why I am cheap while those of the higher classes are not cheap.

Okay....so by understanding exactly why I am cheap while others are not it seems there is only one choice for, not only me, but for everyone in the worker class to benefit more from the profit of our labor; law of opposites and negation must happen. What is `Law of Opposites` and `Negation?`

Law of Opposites=When who different groups, who are interdependent, have a disagreement which they are unable to resolve. They will oppose each other, and all production can sometimes stop, until an agreement can be made which resolves the disagreement.

Negation=When there are two groups and one group controls the other. The lower group seeks to attain the benefit of the higher group. The lower group will take steps to destroy the higher group and become their replacement. This process can often repeat itself many times until there is no longer a lower group.

The worker class wants more of the benefit of the `extra value of labor` or profit so the worker class will oppose the bourgeoisie until an agreement can be reached in which the `extra value of labor` is more evenly distributed among the different classes. This could take many forms and express itself in any number of ways.

Overtime, the working class will learn all the ways in which the bourgeoisie maintain their control of the means of production and will seek to view the bourgeoisie as a useless class. Replacing the bourgeoisie as the owners of production with the working class will result in negation. Only when that happens no one in the working class will be cheap any longer.

How is all of this achieved? Well, that is something to be thought about another day.

*This is a restart of this blog of sorts. There are many ideas and concepts which I want to express a rethinking about. I hope you will go on this journey with me. 

Monday, September 3, 2012

Sick of The Profit Margin

Your man of liberty is sick. I am very sick. In fact, I am so sick that I find it hard to keep from puking my cuts up on a daily basis. Day after day of seeing so many people willfully sell out all for the purpose of chasing a fraction of the profit margin guaranteed to a ruling class of sociopaths before hand. It is true you know....we are ruled by a unique brand of sociopaths who could care less about the common person. It is all about the money for these people. The money is their end goal. It is not power or control really; although those are methods commonly used to increase the profit margin. The profit margin is the beginning and the end. There is nothing more and nothing less. Even the social contract, which is meant to be an agreement between the people and the government, is seen as a tool to be twisted and used for the end goal of increasing the profit margin.

I am sure you can see it all around you and how this never ending desire to chase the profit margin effects everyone`s life.

I used to be one of those people who thought that the profit margin was the be all and end all of pretty much everything. I used to chase the very small fractional piece of the profit margin which is dangled on a stick in front of my face. I also used to think that if I just work hard enough, I could increase my share of that fractional piece of profit. Yet, now it is very clear to me that it does not matter how hard I work, nor how much I sell out, I will never be able to gain access to the top of the towers of capitalism. Even if I do get a piece of that fractional profit margin, I will never be able to really benefit from all of my hard work honestly. I will have to totally sell out my mind body and human spirit to the gods of capitalism to even have a minor chance of living `the good life.` The capitalist profit margin does not allow anyone to maintain high morals of having care and concern for their fellow human. What I do is try my best at work and try to survive on what tiny fraction of the profit margin which is afforded to me. Some may say that it is easy to say that because I am not `rich` or that I am simply complaining because I am too `lazy` to work hard enough have a high amount of money. Well, people who would say that must be living in a dream world or have never seen the conditions on the ground.

I have seen exactly what chasing the profit margin does to the common people time and time again. I meet people who are very good people. They have a good heart and really care about those around them daily. I see these same people sell out and step on almost everyone who are not in there own little bubble all for the purpose of chasing a tiny fraction of the profit margin. They will go from caring and loving to cold and brutal as soon as profit comes into play. I could give you example after example of this but I am not a man who feels comfortable naming names of the common people who engage in this kind of behavior. Yet, this endless cycle of dog eat dog and `I will get mine at all cost` does happen all the time. It is directly related to chasing the profit margin.

What these otherwise good people fail to realize is that they will never truly get their fair share of the profit margin. They will not get their fair share because they, just like me, have no control over the means of production. Their labor is not their own. The moment they start working for those who do control the means of production they lose all ability to truly reach beyond chasing after a tiny fraction of the profit margin. They will spend many years stepping on their fellow worker and human being chasing something which will never equal the production of their labor.

This is the reason I am sick of the profit margin under capitalism. It makes people cold blooded and willing to do anything to reach for something which will never equal the production of their labor.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

The Other Path to Liberty

Any man of liberty should never stop seeking the heart of liberty itself. It is a journey which is deep in understanding; in the mind, body and spirit. This mostly hidden blog of mine has so far expressed a libertarian journey to liberty. A path which I have come to understand as having major contradictions of which I have spent many years trying to work out in my head. As a member of the so-called `Generation X` pure hardcore libertarianism  had always seemed to be a perfect fit for the times I live in. The fat days of our parents, for my parents those days were never so fat, seemed to be forever out of my reach. I simply had the hardest time seeing how I could enjoy a comfortable life in this post-modern age without having to be a brutal capitalist bastard willing to do just about anything to get ahead. I even tossed away my own father`s socialist/coal miner union roots in order to chase something which would never be my own. I did everything I could in an effort to escape the hardship of my parents.

It is important, at this point, to touch on my parents for a bit. My parents comes from the working class. My mother`s life is complex due to the divorce of her parents when she was very young. Her father(RIP) came from a very strong Scottish working class background. Her mother(RIP) was full blood Cherokee native American. Sadly, the marriage did not last and my mother was brought up by her uncle on her father`s side. My mother has always been very in touch with her emotions. She has always told me that I am a unique boy and that I should never let people knock me down. She made a fighter out of me.
My father(RIP) came from a hard working, hard drinking miner union family. My Father`s father(RIP) was a tall strong American-German with a heart of gold and a liver designed for massive abuse. His mother(RIP) came from a Irish background. She was a strong women who gave birth to many children. In their early days they ran a sandwich shop in Virginia. From what I was told, they mostly served working class men who worked too hard for very little pay. For some reason the shop was unable to make enough money, so they moved to West Virginia and into the mines Grand dad Smith did go. The rest is a history of striking minters, guns and a history of the Smith family which is better told another day.

Those are my roots. Something which took me a long time to come to terms with. After leaving the world of the privileged west and traveling to several unique nations and cultures, I have come to accept my background more fully than I ever have before. I spent all that time trying to escape things which were my foundation; the things which have shaped me if I like it or not.

Yet, even as I struggled from job to job and found myself taking on the debt of college tuition, I still had not realized what was going on around me. Until the past two years I was totally fixed on the idea that if I worked hard enough that comfortable life would be waiting for me. Even when I was a dish washer and living in a one room apartment I still thought that if I just kept on pushing forward good things awaited me. All that time I was unable to really see that certain material conditions were preventing me from ever fully escaping working class status. No matter how brutal I played the capitalist game, I was still just spinning my wheels.

All these years later I have come to realize what the problem is; The majority of the benefit from my labor is handed off to those who control the majority of the capital. That situation is not only true for me but for the majority of the people. As long as a minority controls the benefit of the majority`s labor, how can anyone really hope to achieve that picture perfect `comfortable life` we are all promised if we just work hard enough? It appears to be a pipe dream meant to keep everyone working themselves to death for a tiny fraction of the benefit from their labor. How can those who preach the Chicago School and Economics and glory of free market libertarianism justify this clear contraction of material conditions? I tried for years to justify it in my head and I simply can on longer defend the `morals` of no holds barred take no prisoners Capitalism. There is little humanity in it and it leads to the majority of people not fully benefiting from the output of the economy.

The common person deserves to get more benefit from all those profits from their own labor.

There are people who work really hard and never taste any of that comfortable life the capitalist class talks about all the time. I have seen people work like dogs before and get almost nothing for their efforts. There are countless people who are doing the majority of the work and getting little in the way of a return. There are people who work 10+ hours a day and get a tiny little paycheck which only barely keeps them alive. I find very little morals in such a situation.

For everything I just mentioned, and many other reasons, I cannot no longer call myself a libertarian. It is something many people ID me with and it has not been true about me for a while now. I feel we need a fully mixed system. A system in which the needs of common person will never come before profit. A system in which the people who are actually doing all the production have more control over the means of production. What we need,  now more than ever, a more socialist system.

The exact kind of socialist system I am not sure of yet. Which is why I have decided to use this blog in a two fold manner. One: To serve as a log of the my past thoughts on libertarian ideas(some of those may be revisited). Two: To explore the kind of socialist system which would best serve modern society.

This should be interesting to say the least.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Internet to Traditional Media: We Are Better At This Than You

Those of us who are in our early 30's are part of the last generation who remembers life without the internet. If you did not know, there was in fact a time when there were no email, chat rooms,social networks,youtube, google, wiki, smartphones or downloading. There was even a time, not all that long ago, when traditional media WAS the media. Yet, those days are long gone. Now the internet is at the center for all human thought and creativity. We have also reached a point in which the internet has become better at doing what traditional media used to be the kings of. The internet is now better at, not only creating and spreading media, but also better at making money from all that creating and spreading.

If you are willing to spend enough time and effort on the net, you can make a whole hell of a lot of money. There are countless people making a boat load of cash by creating and spreading their own media. The net has allowed all of us to get a piece of the action. The basics of the net model is actually pretty simple. It has two basic forms. One form is to give all your products and services away for free to the end user. You develop all the products and services yourself and tell everyone to 'come and get it!' If what you are giving away is useful and popular, you generate a lot of traffic pretty quickly. There are also a lot of other people who want to sell their products but lack the amount of traffic you got. So, you sale ad space to those people who want to sell something. In turn, you make a lot of money from ad revenue. Everyone wins! The prime example of this is Google.

The second basic method is to form a partnership with a company or another person. Let's say someone has developed a really cool way to distribute content but they cannot produce all the needed content to drive enough traffic to sale ad revenue. So, they partner with other people to produce the needed content. The partners make a little money every time their content brings traffic. Again, everyone wins. Youtube is the prime example of this.

These two very basic methods of making money on the net sound like something everyone would be on board with; right? WRONG!  There is a big problem with making money on the net which makes traditional media damn angry. The net cuts out the middle man and allows everything to be shared, downloaded and viewed by pretty much anyone at anytime. You no longer have to turn on the TV,  go to the local news stand,go to the CD store, a rental shop or even a movie theater to get the media of your desire. You can get any type of media you want quickly from your fellow net users. There is no way in hell traditional media can match the level of distribution the internet can. Traditional media is dead in the water if the net keeps developing in the way it is now. The outdated traditional media needed to find a way to stop this crazy thing called the internet. What did they come up with? Copyright laws!

The outdated media is now attempting to use their outdated laws to shut down the internet. Sounds crazy but that is exactly what is happening. At first, the old media did not have much success using their outdated laws. Then in 1992 the Audio Home Recording Act came into law(know as chapter 10 in US copyright law).  It did two things: It allowed people to make home copies of copyrighted material and share it between friends. It also required that all DAT recorders to included The Serial Copy Management System; which prevented the end user from making a copy of a copy.  Well, this worked for a while until, of course, people found a way around this. It seems that people were way more creative then the old media thought they were. In 1998 the Digital Millennium Copyright Act came into law(known as chapter 5 subsection 512 of US copyright law). This was the first law used to limit the internet. It was not exactly what old media wanted but it was close. The DMCA made it illegal to store or transmit material which was copyrighted. It also made it harder to use parts of copyrighted material to create something new. Although, it did not make it illegal to share something copyrighted or to provided a link to something which was copyrighted. So, if you stored something copyrighted and transmitted it over the net, your ass was busted. It did not make service providers liable or require them to police which material is transmitted over their networks. Of source, you cannot enforce such a law on the net because the net behaves in such a way which leads to copyrighted material being used in a way which the old media never intended. So, the net laughed and kept on making money using the new internet model.

As the internet continued to evolve and new and exciting ways of creating, sharing and making money developed, the old media damn near had a heart attack. It became very clear that the outdated copyright laws were unable to control the internet. It was even more clear to the internet that the outdated copyright laws got in the way of being creative and cutting out the middle man. Then along comes SOPA(known as HR.3261.IH in the US Congress). SOPA, as most of you know, would finally give the old media exactly what they wanted. It would make it illegal to share, link, talk about or transmit any material deemed to be copyrighted. Also, service providers and websites would be liable for the actions of users. SOPA, as we all know, would kill the internet. There is no way in hell the internet could operate under SOPA. The net has evolved way past SOPA. The framework of the net is not designed to be manage in such a way as SOPA thinks it does. So, the net finally fought back. Major websites carried out a blackout to show Congress, and net users, what a SOPA net would be like. Common since won out and for now SOPA is dead.

Yet, the attack on the net took a very different turn. By way of the UN, another weapon from the old media has hit the net. ACTA(link provides all sections of the treaty)  is now the latest attempt to stop the net from doing what it does best; create, share and make money from the fluid open flow of information without the use of a middle man.  ACTA is being carried out though the UN. Using the UN in this way is a excellent way to by pass the people of all sovereign nations. ACTA creates an international agency to police anti-piracy in several industries including the internet. It does pretty much the same thing SOPA aims to do but without the consent of the people of sovereign nations. And as you might have guessed Obama signed ACTA while giving strong support at the same time. ACTA is the real internet kill switch everyone has been talking about for several years now. A independent agency which answers to no sovereign government would have the power to shut down any part of the internet at a moments notice if a company says a website has something copyrighted on it in any way shape or form. So, many leaders from many nations are signing up for ACTA without approval from their domestic governments. The battle for a free and open internet is not over by a long shot. Until then the internet will keep doing what it does best; being better at doing what the traditional media used to do.     

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Freedom of Speech Is the Right to Offend Everyone

Howdy! Yes, your man of liberty has returned to this little blog. Time to dust off the tables and sweep up a bit. It has been a while so please excuse the mess.


This blog has always focused on Libertarian ideas and issues. Well, with that in mind I was watching an interview that Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell did on Larry King back in 1996(watch it by clicking here) and it got me thinking about if freedom of speech actually has any limits. Of course my first response is HELL NO! Freedom of speech and freedom of expression should, in theory, have no limits at all. Yet, in reality the only real limits in the case of free speech and expression is slander and liable. Both slander and liable are not easy to prove in the court of law because you must prove that what was said or expressed was meant to damage, by way of lying, a person's ability to maintain a job and live within their community. You can also sue someone in civil court for emotional damages if what was said or expressed caused you deep emotional trauma. In both situations, it is very subjective and comes down to a matter of taste in the majority of cases within the US court system.

I did mention Larry Flynt, so before going forward let's take a look at his battle with Falwell all those years ago. Flynt thought it was damn funny to publish a parody of Falwell. So, in Hustler magazine Flynt published a parody ad of Falwell having sex with his mother in an outhouse(after first kicking the goat out of course). It was meant as a joke to give working class people, the majority of Hustlers readership, a good cheap laugh. Well, Falwell took offense to this and dragged Flynt and his company though a long court battle which took years to finally resolve. It was clear from the start that Falwell was not going to win this case in the end. The supreme court finally had to get involved and of course ruled in Flynt's favor. Yes, Flynt lied about the sexual history of Falwell but he did not intend to cause damage to Falwell's ability to maintain a job or live within the community. He was simply expressing himself and making a joke. It was clearly stated under the ad in question that it was a parody and meant as humor. So, what we can learn from that is freedom of speech cannot be limited on matters of taste. The fact that Flynt made an off color joke in a magazine intended to be risky and adult themed is not a violation of Falwell's right to live peacefully in his own community. Nor did such a joke damage Falwell's ability to maintain his job. Yes, Falwell was really offended but it is highly unlikely he suffered any deep emotional trauma. In the case of Flynt VS. Falwell, it is perfectly legal to offend another person in the United States of America.

Now, let's look at another example from, my current home for almost six years, Tokyo, Japan. The laws on freedom of speech and expression are pretty much the same in Japan except for a few minor differences. I will not get into Japanese free speech laws at this time. What I want to point out is the difference between violating someone's rights under the natural law of liberty vs. simply expressing yourself in a manner which might offend others. I took the picture featured in this post at Shibuya, Tokyo. It was in the early evening when a truck rolled by with an ad featuring a row of almost naked young women. The ad was for some web site which had little to do with beautiful young women. In Japan, such types of ads are so common that it is really rare for anyone to feel deeply offended. This truck was driving around the main section of Shibuya to expose this companies ad to as many people as possible. Let's use the America idea of freedom of speech and expression to judge if this ad damages the local business's  ability to make money and exist in the community. If this trucking company regularly drives ad trucks around Shibuya featuring almost naked young girls promoting a variety of products, and sales of several businesses in the area drop during the same time, is the trucking company liable for damages caused by the ad?

Frist of all, we would have to prove that the ads directly lead to a drop in sales for the local businesses. The only two ways to do that would be to get ahold of public complaints filed concerning the ads or customers saying, on record, they will not shop at the area due to the ads. Even if you have both of those things it would still be very hard to prove the trucking company is liable for damages. Shibuya is an area in which there are plenty of ads featuring half naked young women. So, it becomes clear very quickly that being offended does not fall into the terms of liable or slander.

It would appear that freedom of speech and expression also includes the right to offend everyone. Morality or personal taste has no bearing on freedom of speech or expression. Like wise, if someone does say something which offends you, it is your right to respond to what was said. You cannot respond with violence or attempt to damage someone's ability to maintain their job or live peacefully within their community. A war of words is the only proper way to respond to speech which offends you; under the natural laws of liberty.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

The Power of the Tenth

2011 has now arrived. Many American`s, having no job and losing hope daily, still found a way to smile and ring in the new year. Now that all the cheap wine has been drank and merry making is over we are still left with the question; How to we take our nation back? So many people are left scratching their heads as to what to do. For many liberty lovers it seems everything attempted to restore liberty to Americans ends in failure. The big knock out blow to government tyranny seems to be unattainable. Maybe it is time to bring out the secret weapon. The one thing which always scares the scum bags running the Federal government is of course the tenth amendment of the US Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In short the tenth amendment states that any power not granted to the Federal government,by the US Constitution, is a power of a state or the people directly.

The tenth amendment is often dismissed as simply overstating the already clearly defined relationship between the Federal and State governments. It is also seen as something not to be invoked due to the fact that the tenth was used by the Southern States as a way to justify seceding from the Union during the civil war. The latter point is used by many to dismiss anyone invoking the tenth as grounds to claim the Federal government has overstepped its bounds. Yet, these `talking points` commonly used to marginalize the tenth fail to take from it the power to keep the Federal government in check. Just because it is hard to invoked the tenth successfully, does not mean to cannot be done.

How can the tenth be used to get the Federal government under control? This is a question which gets asked often. Well, there are many things which the Federal government does these days which can be challenged by invoking the tenth amendment. The most effective way to use the tenth is in situations in which the Federal government makes agreements or treaties without making the same agreements or treaties with the states. This becomes very important when you consider all the various treaties the Federal government makes with the UN; just as an example.

Lets take the UN gun ban (which you can read a bit about here) that is slowly coming to realization in the chambers of the UN. This planned treaty would start the process of banning private gun ownership by the central governments of all member nations. Under certain conditions, the Congress could actually ratify this and the Supreme Court could give them a legal pass. Yet, this does not mean that the local state government would be powerless to stop such a clear attack on personal liberty and national sovereignty. The tenth amendment would have to be used by the state governments to block Federal authority.

Some might argue that since the Senate represents, in theory, the states then by the Senate ratifying such a treaty than an agreement will have been reached with the states. This is not true. The Senate is part of the Federal government and makes laws within the power of the Federal government; not the actual states themselves. A national gun ban would be completely out of line with the US constitution; even if the supreme court fails to make a ruling throwing out such a ban. At that point the tenth amendment would come into play. The states would invoked the tenth under the grounds that the only agreement the states have made with the Federal government, concerning the people`s right the hold arms, is the second amendment. The states would reserve the power to regulate fire arms sales and ownership since the Federal government does not have such power from within each state. So the Federal government could sign a UN treaty to ban fire arms but it would only apply on Federal property or outside of a union state(which is all states).

Now this may be a bit of a extreme example, based on something actually happening in UN chambers, but it does outline how the tenth can be used to keep the Federal government in check. Keep in mind the Federal government often abuses the ethos of common law to get around the tenth. This is why it can be hard to invoke the tenth amendment successfully. When attempting to use the tenth amendment a lot of research must be undertaken to ensure the Federal government does not use end-around tactics in common law to dismiss a tenth amendment argument.

For an extra case study in using the tenth amendment on a personal level to protect yourself from Federal intrusion read this.             


Tuesday, December 28, 2010

21st Century Liberty(New Year`s Edition)-Freezing, Starving, and Record Profits

It has been 18 days since my last post here on The Ghost of Liberty. Don`t worry I am not dead nor have I been arrested. December is usually a busy month for many folks and I am no exception. Although, this season is not so happy for many of our fellow Americans. Poverty has become widespread in our nation. So many people are living on the streets or in half-way houses. There are sure to be many people who will freeze to death during the winter snow storm currently engulfing the east coast. Many of our little ones are going hungry as their parents simply cannot provide them with food. Santa will not visit millions of families this year because they did not pay their bills to the bank. Speaking of banks, many of the nation`s biggest banks have been reporting record profits in 2010. All those people who are starving and freezing to death this winter bailed out those banks in order to insure record profits will be had in 2010. This is the face of American liberty in the 21st century.

It appears that becoming penniless and homeless in the land our forefathers built is the `new way` in modern America. Not only have our leaders sold us out, they have also decided to molest and abuse us when we make an attempt to travel. Yet, though all the suffering, hunger, and humiliation the banks are cleaning up and somehow America is recovering from a economic meltdown. The Federal government gave the people`s money away to the banks and in return the banks took everything from the American people. The United States made an investment in the nation`s largest banks and we have lost everything. We trusted our leaders to do the right thing and they sold us out to greedy cold blooded bankers. It has got to be very clear to the average citizen they have been robbed. How can anyone still believe that the bankers have not set them up and stole the nation`s riches. America got played for a fool big time!

As Americans eat pea soup, sleep on the streets, and listen to their children beg them for food remember why there are no jobs, heat, or food this holiday season. Remember who stole our money. Remember who sold us out. Remember it is time to get mad as hell!