Category Archives: Politics

Aaron Russo – Freedom to Fascism

The very last work of Aaron Russo, a very successful manager and film maker (Bette Midler, Trading Places) was a documentary, that, while in the making, had been seen as the possible end to much of government tyranny. And with what it shows it should be – but apparently there are the powers that like conditions as they are and the movie bogged down in the distribution.

In pre-screenings the movie had received standing ovations but due to the lack of wide distribution into the main stream, the movie had limited impact.

I ran into the following interview in which Mr. Russo, not too long before he succumbed to cancer, told much of his story.

 

Random ‘Laws’

If we put ourselves on a quest to find real justice we cannot look for it in the current legal system as used under political power. Real justice has to be the same everywhere. If it is not then it is just random, arbitrary rules that should be seen as such and disregarded as much as possible, at least it should not be given any credence, and certainly not voluntarily complied with.
One such rule was encountered by a close friend many years ago when he used a small inheritance to buy an even smaller air plane. He had flown this plane at his local flight club as a rental and when sudden influx of money mysteriously coincided with this plane to come up for sale he took the plunge into plane ownership.
He got the money from the bank – in cash – and met the owner at his bank where the transaction was to be done. He paid the money, go the bill of sale and the deal was done. He did not know that he should have used an escrow service to make sure nothing went right – but no harm was done as nobody tried to cheat the other and it was smooth sailing.


Until a few month later he received, out of the blue, a letter from his states Franchise Tax Board demanding payment of some three thousand dollars as use tax. Use tax is the state’s way around the problem of a sale taking place when they cannot collect sales tax with the help of the seller.
Why would the FTB get any money for the sale of an airplane, my friend wondered. There was just no justification for that open hand because there was no service from the state whatsoever. My friend at that time did not know that the states – all politicians in fact – don’t need that at all. But mostly they keep up the appearances and pretend that they have to collect those taxes to maintain the roads, train our kids and protect us from the boogie man.
But all that was not the case for an airplane: airports are a federal matter – the FAA – taxes on aviation fuel was used to maintain those, no streets or installations of the state were used at all.
So, obviously, my friend tried to get out of the need to pay all that money for nothing. He found out quickly that the neighboring state did not collect sales or use tax. As he had not purchased the plane in his own name but in the name of a trust – turned out to be a good idea – he changed the address of that trust to Oregon and told the FTB to buzz off.
They did not give in so easily and wanted to see documentation showing that the plane had not been customarily be located in their state – they always come up with some interesting wording and rule so that they get their way, right? Faking that documentation was a lot cheaper than three thousand bucks, so my friend did that.
But, hey the government, being what it is, wiped all that off the table and said that they wanted the money anyways. Now the problem with tangible objects is that they can be stolen under the color of law. My friend did not want to take that risk and just sold the plane to another trust in another state without sales or use tax – Nevada. The FTB still tried to place a lien on the plane to get their share the next time the plane was sold, but they ultimately failed.
This is just a story of how somebody beat a random rule by using the fact that the rules are not uniform everywhere.
But what should be taken home from this story is the fact that it shows clearly that these rules are random, and that we have to treat them as such. Follow them as little as possible, make it as hard as possible for the perpetrator to enforce them – don’t comply voluntarily, but try not to be hurt by a brutal system that initiates force to get its way.
You wonder where the initiation of force is? Just play through the scenario, had my friend not complied. A lien would have been placed. When the tax would not have been paid for a longer time, the FTB would have foreclosed on their claim, confiscated the plane, sold it and taken whatever they claimed was theirs – without any court involvement. Had my friend tried to protect his property, cops would have come to arrest him and put him away. Had he resisted he would have been shot.
There is no niceness to be expected if you cross the government, make this very clear. So, you are playing with fire if you resist that suppression but we can be successful as some great members of this race have show – Gandhi comes to mind.

Independence Day and the Belief in Authority

I grew up in Germany after a time in history when the German people had had a very bad experience with patriotism.

The love for the Fatherland (not Homeland as it’s called in the US today) had been used to rally most of the German people to commit mass-murder and be mass-murdered. I was born when that experience was still very fresh and that means that I did not soak up any patriotism with my mother’s milk – just the opposite, patriotism was something to be despised. Especially when I was little, this was more a feeling than an intellectual understanding.

I never lost that gut-understanding and, coming to America, one of the most patriotic countries on this planet, did not change that a bit. This must be the reason that at this time of the year, with the independence day looming, my toenails start to curl up a bit in anticipation of all the flag waving and land-of-the-free singing.

Though it appears that I am not alone with this uneasy feeling confronted with the love for the fatherland.

Leo Tolstoy defines patriotism as the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers.

That actually, I have to admit, is a bit stronger that just the feeling of toenails curling up.

Gustave Herve, another anti-patriot, calls patriotism a superstition – one far more injurious, brutal, and inhumane than religion.

So, what is the problem here? A bigger part of the world’s population is patriotic, and what is wrong with loving one’s country? Don’t we all have fond memories of the house we grew up in, the neighborhood, the city? And should that not extend to the country? But why stop at the country border, should we not expand that out to the whole world, or, in a short time, after somebody finally invents the warp drive, the whole galaxy, the universe?

Maybe we will have to look a bit closer what this ‘country’ that many are so patriotic about, really is.

What happens at the border between two different countries?

One of the most guarded borders I know of is the one that, for so many years, existed between East and West Germany. I have crossed it several times and it was indeed the feeling of entering a different world. But the difference was not the language – German of one kind or the other on both sided. The land itself? No, because now, that this border is gone, you can cross that line without even noticing it any more. And it’s not culture either because these two Germanies had been one culture before they became two countries.

The only thing I can see, that was really different, was the group of rulers. On the Western side it was Konrad Adenauer and on the Eastern side it was Walter Ulbricht, each with his gang.

It now appears to me that the only difference between somebody named Franz in East Germany and somebody named Hans in West Germany was the ruler they considered themselves be a subject of.

Very similar to Jack in Oklahoma who claims to be a subject of Mr. Obama and Jim in Calgary who thinks he has to answer to M. Harper.

The display of patriotism here in the US of A, once the 4th of July roles in, if we really go down to the very basics, just means the pride to which dude that patriot is willing to give his money, life and children.

Let us look briefly at the ‘land of the free.’ That turns out to be a dud very quickly. If it were the land of the free, and I had decided that it is good and fair to give half of my money to somebody to do with it whatever he pleases and on top of that allow this person to take my children and train them into potential soldier for his cause, then I should be able to choose who what person would be, right? Could you just send your 50% taxes over to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (that’s the dude over in Iran, in case you don’t have the  current political scene at your direct disposal)? Or, to be a little bit less radical, send if over to Steven Harper?

See, the idea of the ‘land of the free’ is right out the window – we are subjects! – Just so well trained and indoctrinated that the very idea of being able to select the ruler to receive one’s contribution appears idiotic.

Now the question comes to bear if there is anything we can do to change this situation. First we have to investigate the idea of ‘being proud of’ something.

Can I really be proud of an accomplishment that is not mine? I had considered this question before when sitting in traffic. Unfailingly, once in a while you wait behind a ‘Proud Parent of Something or Another.’ Honor student, cheer-leader, etc. I had wondered on occasion what reason these parents have to be proud. I can understand that they are happy – but proud? Why? It’s something their children  have accomplished. Then again, maybe not, perhaps there was a father sitting in the car in front of me who had always, dutifully, done the homework for his son. But I actually don’t think that was the case, I don’t believe they would have advertised that on the back of their car. Same for being a proud American – proud of what accomplishment? Making lots of money so that it can be collected by the tax man to build bombs with, which are then thrown on people the proud American has never met and who he has no quarrel with?

Would that really be something to be proud of – if it was actually true?

Can you be proud of making somebody so jealous, I mean so badly jealous, that he starts to fly airplanes into some bankers buildings? Wouldn’t it be something to be much prouder of, that, after you really created so much wealth, you would reach out and help those in need to get to where you are, as well? Wouldn’t that be something to be proud of, to do deeds that other will actually love you for?

Acting like that would require clear and logical thinking, something that cannot be expected in the presence of emotionally charged propaganda. One of the most emotionally charged areas in our lives are our children – we do anything to protect them and give them a better life.

Thus the easiest way to get somebody blindly lined up behind a cause is the statement “it’s for the children!” And how do we protect our children best? Sending them to war to fight for freedom – that is the true spirit of patriotism.

Yes, I am well aware that this does not make any sense. How about you?

Now we might make the mistake to blame those people who spread this propaganda and who manipulate in order to gain power. That would be the wrong target for our indignation. The correct target is the one looking at you back from the mirror when you brush your teeth.

There are always people around that want to cheat, who want to get something without actually creating a value that can be traded. They are easy to handle. You might fall for their schemes once or twice, but then you understand and you just don’t deal with them. If they don’t find new victims they will just wither ways and the gene pool got a little bit better. The problem is our conviction that there is any legitimacy to their action, even if their random rules are called ‘law’.

That these ‘laws’ are utterly random, without any basis in logic, becomes clear when you ask yourself why it is OK to smoke one kind of leaves, while you go to jail if you smoke another kind. I know, it is all there to ‘protect our children.’ But we already know where that comes from.

Breaking any of these so-called laws will expose you to a possible punishment, and following those laws to avoid the penalty makes sense.

But there is a different, much more sinister, element to our obedience to the ‘law’ beside the avoidance of punishment.

Imagine you are driving out in the countryside at three in the morning. Full moon, you can see far and wide and there really is not a soul around. Suddenly, totally out of place, there is a traffic light, and, as most, if not all, traffic lights do, it shows you a red light for you to stop.

Now, imagine further that you stop at that light and it is one of those lights that never seem to turn green. Finally, as there really is nobody within miles, neither a civilian, nor a cop, you decide to go and break the ‘law.’

How do you feel about that?

If you don’t have the slightest murmur of guilt, then there is hope for you. But, chances are, you feel that you have done something bad because you broke the ‘law.’ What you feel there is the conditioning of submitting to authorities. The mysterious quality that transforms mere mortals to god-like creatures.

I know, I exaggerate a bit here, but I want to make the point, that many of us carry the grain of belief in authority itself. The conviction that something like authority does exist, that there is something that makes it OK for one person to tell another what to do.

But this belief is total and utter superstition.

Let us, for the moment, take that good old document, this country was based upon, even though we are not using it any more. One of the premises of that parchment is that ‘all men are created equal.’

Unlike many other cultures that evolved from monarchies, this country was built on the foundation that there are no different classes that would privilege some of the members. That was the theory, but unfortunately reality sometimes does not ‘get’ it. There were just too many immigrants that had such a deeply ingrained belief that there are people better than them, that this parchment did nothing in preventing those people to create their superiors  again.

They were totally free not to do this, but they did it anyways. Fighting an authority is not the same as a complete conviction that it does not exist. The opposite actually – you can only fight something that you believe exist.

Once we succeed in a basic change of mind about this, there will be no need any more to fight city hall – city hall will just wither away. In the process there will be some collateral damage, but this will be so minor in comparison to the continued permission to city hall to do with us what it wants.

So, your homework for this glorious Forth-of-July weekend is to understand – and I mean a gut-understanding – that authority itself as a phenomenon, does not exist. Except in our mind!

If you give somebody the permission to tell you what you have to do and think, he will certainly take that offer. Many might not, but there are plenty of the politician/lawyer type of people around that will take your offer with a grateful nod of their head and then get out the whip and whip you into shape.

Just be aware that you can withdraw that permission at any time. It will be a bit harder than had you never given it in the first place, but it is definitely possible.

Anarchy is Old

Discovering and developing the anarchist mindset over the last few years, all these ideas seem to be new and novel to me.

Yet, while researching the history of the concept of voluntary interaction instead of force, I am finding that the ideas I encountered first through modern anarchists like Larken Rose or Stefan Molyneux are not really new, but that these people stand on the shoulders of others that have carried the torch of personal liberty before them.

Just as for me personally the ideas become clearer and more obvious with the time I am exposed to them, so the ideas themselves have become clearer and self-evident through the attention they get from thinkers and philosophers through history, and will, most likely, continue to develop.

Today I watched a video made in the 80s that I want to share here…

It helped me find another resource that I will now research further – Emma Goldman. Thanks to the internet and mp3 I can now fill my time in the car with the study of a very early anarchist.

Another proponent of the idea of personal liberty who I am still wrapping my mind around, is Richard J. Maybury. (Thank you, Nicole, for introducing me!) He does not call himself an anarchist, even though, judging by his ideas, he probably is one, or at least close to one. It would be hard for me to understand why, if one understands the inherent dangers of governmental powers, one then would continue to support it, even on a very limited level. If rape is bad, then you want to get rid of it and don’t keep a little bit of it, just in case there is a psycho who needs to let off some steam.

So, Richard, I call you as an anarchist, even though it would be nice to have a word for the proponent of a stateless society that is not also a synonym for the initiator of chaos and mayhem. This brings up a point that is also made in the movie above: using the concept (and word) of patriotism as support for one’s country as well as its government, while in fact the two are very different things.

I can certainly love my country and everything it is – thus being patriotic – without also supporting those people who are claiming it – unjustified, I might add – as theirs, including all the workforce in it. Thinking of it, I believe that, in order to be patriotic, I would have to do everything possible to rid a country claiming to be free, of the elements that try to enslave the people living in it.

But back to Richard Maybury. I just finished his book Whatever Happened to Justice, in which he explains the difference between natural (common) law and political law.

One little tidbit jogged my mind.  It is an example for the fact that under natural law all people are treated equally, including government officials. I want to quote this here:

The Criminal Justice Museum in Rothenburg, Germany, has a copy of the Sachsenspiegel, the common law of the Saxons, which was used as a top law-book from 1220 until 1900. It explained how to bring suit, inheritances, property rights, guardianships, and so on. So that illiterate persons could read and understand, each law was illustrated with a picture.

Exhibits in the museum show that German law was especially hard on government officials who were caught committing fraud. In Augsburg, Germany, if the head of the government mint were caught debasing and inflating the coinage, the penalty was loss of a hand. If his inflation amounted to more than 60 pfennigs ( 4.8 ounces of silver, about $25 in today’s money) he was burned at the stake.

Consider this in light of our current situation where politicians print money as if there is no tomorrow, thus debasing and inflating our money. I wonder how many of our “elected officials” would run around without hands and char-coaled.

Tim Hawkins tells it how it is

There is plenty of good information out there on the vast reaches of the internet promoting a society based on voluntary interaction – such a society would not have any room for a government, which is based on the initiation of force.

One of the biggest and most successful sites of this genre is Stefan Molyneux’s site Freedomain Radio. To my dismay, great talks from Stefan on Youtube get – maybe – a few thousand views, when I wished that millions of people would get this information.

Now, how happy was I when Nicole (thank you so much) told me about Tim Hawkins. He is a comedian, a co-home-schooler and, apparently, somebody with an anarchistic streak. What made me so happy was that his parody of The Candy Man CanThe Government Can – got nearly five million (in words 5,000,000) views.

That’s the exposure people who still think voting is a good thing need. Don’t misunderstand, I am not against voting. I am just against having to choose from the (slightly) lesser evil. I am all for the voting with you wallet, in that you only pay for what you really want. Could not imagine that you would really voluntarily pay for the war on drugs, the war on Irak, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. – or the health benefits of somebody you don’t even know.

You know I am talking about taxes, right? Extortion, that the nice politician that you just voted into office, extracts from you at gun-point, yes?

So, when you start voting with your wallet and don’t pay those politicians any more, then Mr. Hawkins will have to make some new song soon – but I am sure he would like that very much.

Without further ado, here is The Government Can

And to help you sing along, here are the lyrics:

(Hey everybody! Gather ’round! I’m here to give you
anything you like! You want free college, money,
mortgages?! Whatever you like! You have come to the
right place! Why? I’ll tell you why!)

Who can take your money?
With a twinkle in their eye?
Take it all away and
Give it to some other guy

[Chorus]
The Government
The Government can!

Who can tax the Sun rise?
Who can tax the trees?
Let you run a business and
Collect up all the fees

[Chorus]

The Government can ’cause
They mix it up with lies and
Make it all taste good!

The Government takes
Everything we make
To pay for all of their “solutions”
Healthcare, Climate Change, Pollution
(Throw away the Constitution)

Who can give a bailout?
Tell us to behave?
Make the Founding Fathers
Roll over in their graves

[Chorus]

The Government takes
Everything we make
They’re power hungry
And malicious

The economics are fictitious
Soon we’ll have to eat our dishes
Mmm! Delicious!

Who can be a failure?
In so many ways?
Instead of getting fired, HEY!
We’ll give ourselves a raise!

[Chorus]

The Government can ’cause
They mix it up with lies and
Make it all taste good!
And your government can ’cause
they mix it with lies and
Makes it all taste good!

And I feel so good
Because the Government
Says I should! Oh!…

Being an American depends on the little word WE

Interesting video that explains how using the little word ‘we’ instead of ‘us’ and ‘they’ has made it possible that one whole country can see itself as enemy of another, when most persons in either country would get along  just beautifully with any other person in the other country.

So, next time you notice a crook trying to make you an accomplice to his crimes by speaking of you and him as ‘we’ – be weary! I mean, if you get half of the loot, that might be OK, but if you are also the victim, it might be prudent to look if the little word ‘we’ is indeed correctly applied.

Story from a Minnesota State Trooper

The following story came across my desk today:

I made a traffic stop on an elderly lady the other day for speeding on MN State Hightway 210 just East of McGregor, MN.

I asked for driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance.

The lady took out the required information and handed it to me. In with the cards I was somewhat surprised (due to her advanced age) to see she had a Conceal Carry Permit. I looked at her and asked if she had a weapon in her possession at this time.

She responded that she indeed had a .45 automatic in her glove box. Something – body language, or the way she said it – made me want to ask if she had any other firearms.

She did admit to also having a 9mm Glock in her center console. Now I had to ask one more time if that was all.

She responded once again that she did have just one more, a .38 special in her purse. I then asked her what she was so afraid of.

She looked mew right in the eye and said, “Not a f—ing thing!”

On first sight, this looks like a funny story. But in my eyes there is some much wrong with it that we can really learn a lot from it.

The first, and most obvious is the elderly lady’s willingness to submit unquestioning to those she claims not to be afraid of. Why doesn’t she just use all that hardware on the person who stopped her with the intention to extort some money from her.

I don’t know if she was actually driving recklessly, endangering others so that the trooper had to intervene to save life and property of others, or if he was enforcing some random rules made by some men in black robes. Looking at the alleged location of this story…

… the second reason seems more likely.

Examining our own reaction this story allows us to learn to understand the real problem. We find this story funny but only because we all agree with the idea that what the trooper did was correct. Beside stopping her with the intend of robbing her for some made-up reason (speed limit), we are also not appalled by his inquiry into her exercising her rights that are already confirmed by the troopers superiors. She has a carry permit, so she can carry whatever she wants and does not have to answer to any lowly enforcer’s questions.

The only reasonable answer to the enforcer’s very first question should have been “None of your f—ing business!” But she probably knew that the only reaction to that answer would have been to be dragged out of the car and her acting upon her later statement of not being afraid of nobody. And that would have been the end of that trooper and we would have never heard of that story.

We might have heard it in a different way, as, for example, that a vicious female in Minnesota had murdered a trooper just doing his duty and the swat team that had been called in to hunt down this murderous beast had shot her 86 times – and only because the avengers ran out of bullets.

One question to leave you with – did you stumble over the trooper’s wording of “She did admit to also having…” or did you just read over this? If you did read over this without a serious growl in your throat then I have to sadly give it to you that you also consider yourself chattel of the ruling class.

Proof of Presidency

The following true story is told about Mr. Obama, but I believe it applies to each and every (career-) politician out there:

President Obama walks into the Bank of America to cash a check. As he approaches the cashier he says, “Good morning Ma’am, could you please cash this check for me?”

Cashier: “It would be my pleasure sir. Could you please show me your ID?”

Obama: “Truthfully, I did not bring my ID with me as I didn’t think there was any need to. I am President Barack Obama, the president of the United States of AMERICA!!!!”

Cashier: “Yes sir, I know who you are, but with all the regulations and monitoring of the banks because of impostors and forgers and requirements of the Dodd/Frank legislation, etc., I must insist on seeing ID.”

Obama: “Just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am.”

Cashier: “I am sorry Mr. President but these are the bank rules and I must follow them.”

Obama: “I am urging you, please, to cash this check.”

Cashier: “Look Mr. President this is what we can do: One day, Tiger Woods came into the bank without ID. To prove he was Tiger Woods he pulled out his putter and made a beautiful shot across the bank into a cup. With that shot we knew him to be Tiger Woods and cashed his check.”

“Another time, Andre Agassi came in without ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and made a fabulous shot whereas the tennis ball landed in my cup. With that shot we cashed his check.”

“So, Mr. President, what can you do to prove that it is you, and only you, as the President of the United States?”

Obama stood there thinking, and thinking and finally says: “Honestly, my mind is a total blank… there is nothing that comes to my mind. I can’t think of a single thing. I have absolutely no idea what to do.”

Cashier: “Will that be large or small bills, Mr. President?”