PDA

View Full Version : The Empire Has No Clothes



Ares
27th January 2016, 07:47 PM
Hans Christian Andersen told the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” as part of his Fairy Tales Told for Children collection. The tale is almost two hundred years old. Most know how a little boy was the first to announce that the emperor had no clothes. Andersen’s tale is being re-written today and should be entitled “The Empire Has No Clothes.” This story is one occurring around the world.

Governments are in disrepair and disrepute everywhere. They are increasingly viewed as exploitive, ineffective and catering to privilege. Public interest, the idealistic goal of government, never was real in the sense that it overrode the private needs and wants of officeholders. “Public servants” were never better stewards of public interest than private citizens pursuing their own self-interest. Indeed, once the returns to power increased, self-selection made most politicians inferior in morality and public interest than the typical citizen.

The discomfort and turn against government occurs not because any of its behavior is new. Government has always been dishonest and a scam. What changed over time is the magnitude of government and its burden on citizens. The pain of tolerating it has apparently reached that threshold where people are no longer willing to ignore it.

Governments around the world have become leviathans, meddling in the most minute and personal decisions of its citizens. Supporting government in its infancy required no taxation. Today the average citizen pays more than 40% of his production as tribute and support to the empire. Few believe they get much of value in return.

Even with such confiscatory theft, governments are spending themselves and their citizens into bankruptcy. Capital that entrepreneurs need to start and grow businesses is now consumed by government vote-buying schemes and stupidity. As a result, economic growth cannot occur, jobs are lost and the standard of living declines.

The current political contest in the United States reflects the attitude of citizens against government. Outsiders are either winning or gaining popularity in the primaries. The public is fed up with government as shown by polls such as this one. The political establishment still has not grasped the real reasons for their unpopularity.

The Empire
http://www.economicnoise.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/empire1-209x300.jpg?9d3a8d

The phrase “limited government” is used to differentiate a so-called government “of, by and for the people” from government that is not limited or “of, by and for the people.” Arguably Abraham Lincoln’s description was the best piece of Statist propaganda ever delivered to the public. It was not true when he said it and it is implausible to even utter such a sentiment today without being ridiculed.

“Limited government” is a clever phrase that is both untrue and impossible. It is akin to describing cancer as “limited cancer.” Left alone, cancer grows and kills. So too does government. A more accurate but less flattering description of government is “limited tyranny.” Limited government is merely a euphemism for limited tyranny. Unfortunately neither government nor tyranny can be limited.


Power is like cancer. It grows and eventually destroys whatever it preys upon. The only way to constrain power is with greater power. But therein lays the insoluble problem. Government was an attempt to provide order to society. It was granted power over others to keep order. But granting such power and controlling it was not possible. Who was to constrain the power? No entity with power willingly limits its power. Setting up another layer of government or power to do so only worsens the situation. Ultimately all power succumbs to Lord Acton’s undeniable truth:

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Power granted is always limited yet it always grows and is abused. Power, even in small doses, qualifies as tyranny. Idealists may not recognize it as such until it becomes so great that the tyranny can no longer be denied or ignored. The notion of limited government is fantastical. It is the belief in unicorns, tooth fairies and Santa Claus! Only the young or naive believe in such things.

History provides no examples of government staying within the bounds granted. All governments grow and become increasingly oppressive. The passage of time and human nature ensure such outcomes.

Is Civilization At An Inflection Point?

The current disgust with government is palpable. It is the reason why a braggart like Donald Trump can challenge for and likely win the Republican nomination for president. It is also the reason why a septuagenarian Socialist can challenge an anointed Democrat candidate. Both political contests reflect hatred toward the political class. The voters are saying STOP! They turn to outsiders out of desperation.

Is this merely a political phase that can be remedied? Is it merely a normal ebb and flow of the political process? It is easy to answer in the affirmative to both of these questions. History shows few exceptions and the few are usually bloody and violent. It is easy to be influenced by a form of confirmation bias when assessing such conditions. However, my personal judgment is that this dissatisfaction is not something temporary that will self-repair.

Regardless of who is nominated and elected in the next presidential race, it is my opinion that this outcome is meaningless. This country and likely other so-called advanced democracies seem to be at an inflection or turning point. History is typically not useful in identifying such times.

If my guess is correct, none of us alive today will see its occurrence. The process will likely be lengthy and contested. It will take decades before a final determination can be made.

Donald Trump is not a politician although he is likely to be elected. Voting for Donald Trump (or Bernie Sanders) is a protest vote against government. It is the nation’s Howard Beale moment:

I don’t have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It’s a depression. Everybody’s out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel’s worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter.

http://www.economicnoise.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/beale3-300x160.jpg?9d3a8d


Punks are running wild in the street and there’s nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there’s no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV’s while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that’s the way it’s supposed to be. We know things are bad – worse than bad. They’re crazy. It’s like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don’t go out anymore.



We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, ‘Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won’t say anything. Just leave us alone.’ Well, I’m not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don’t want you to protest. I don’t want you to riot – I don’t want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn’t know what to tell you to write. I don’t know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you’ve got to get mad. You’ve got to say, ‘I’m a HUMAN BEING, God damn it! My life has VALUE!’ So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, ‘I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!’ I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell – ‘I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!’ Things have got to change. But first, you’ve gotta get mad!… You’ve got to say, ‘I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!’ Then we’ll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: “I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

It will be the first shot fired against the Empire. It will be ineffective but will be the first signal that the process of citizens taking back their country has begun.

Donald Trump (or Bernie) is a sign of how frustrated the electorate has become. Voters don’t know how to stop what is happening to them and their country but they are mad as hell and are not going to take this anymore. The upcoming election will change nothing. The best that the public can hope for is to elect a wrecking ball that will dent or damage some of the government apparatus. That is probably a foolish hope, almost certainly one that will not be fulfilled.

The ballot box will be ineffective in satisfying the public. Other means will be tried. The Empire will not stand idly by while its power is threatened. It will strike back at any attempt to slow its growth or rate of plunder. It will become truly vicious, not unlike a wounded and cornered animal. Power is never relinquished willingly.

Government, more properly called The State, has always been dependent on a myth. That myth is that society cannot be orderly without government and that all perceived ills can be solved by it. The reality is that society preceded government and that the State is little more than an Al Capone with better PR and no Eliot Ness.

http://www.economicnoise.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/jefferson-revol-300x113.jpg?9d3a8d

Our founders did their best with The Constitution. Few believed it could be preserved easily. Thomas Jefferson knew as much when he stated:

Every generation needs a new revolution.

I suspect he thinks less of us for not honoring his solution — yet!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-27/empire-has-no-clothes

Shami-Amourae
27th January 2016, 07:57 PM
The Empire
http://www.economicnoise.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/empire1-209x300.jpg?9d3a8d

The Empire were the good guys in Star Wars and the Republic were the bad guys.

Shami-Amourae
27th January 2016, 08:05 PM
Government is going no where as long as automation/technology continue destroying jobs and forcing people to depend on government transfer payments.

palani
28th January 2016, 03:33 AM
Government, more properly called The State....

Not even close.


from 114 U.S. 270 - Poindexter v. Greenhow:
"In the discussion of such questions, the distinction between the government of a state and the state itself is important, and should be observed. In common speech and common apprehension they are usually regarded as identical; and as ordinarily the acts of the government are the acts of the state, because within the limits of its delegation of power, the government of the state is generally confounded with the state itself, and often the former is meant when the latter is mentioned. The state itself is an ideal person, intangible, invisible, immutable. The government is an agent, and, within the sphere of the agency, a perfect representative; but outside of that, it is a lawless usurpation. The constitution of the state is the limit of the authority of its government, and both government and state are subject to the supremacy of the constitution of the United States, and of the laws made in pursuance thereof. So that, while it is true in respect to the government of a state, as was said in Langford v. U. S. 101 U. S. 341, that the maxim, that the king can do no wrong, has no place in our system of government; yet it is also true, in respect to the state itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government, and not to the state, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful. That which, therefore, is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the state, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. It was upon the ground of this important distinction that this court proceeded in the case of Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, when it adjudged that the acts of secession, which constituted the civil war of 1861, were the unlawful acts of usurping state governments, and not the acts of the states themselves, inasmuch as 'the constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states;' and that, consequently, the war itself was not a war between the states, nor a war of the United States against states, but a war of the United States against unlawful and usurping governments, representing not the states, but a rebellion against the United States. This is, in substance, what was said by Chief Justice CHASE, delivering the opinion of the court in Thoringtonv. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 9, when he declared, speaking of the confederate government, that 'it was regarded as simply the military representative of the insurrection against the authority of the United States.' The same distinction was declared and enforced in Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 176, 192, and in Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, both of which were referred to and approved in Keithv. Clark, 97 U. S. 454, 465.
35
This distinction is essential to the idea of constitutional government. To deny it or blot it out obliterates the line of demarcation that separates constitutional government from absolutism, free self-government based on the sovereignty of the people from that despotism, whether of the one or the many, which enables the agent of the state to declare and decree that he is the state; to say 'L'Etat, c'est moi.' Of what avail are written constitutions, whose bills of right, for the security of individual liberty, have been written too often with the blood of martyrs shed upon the battle-field and the scaffold, if their limitations and restraints upon power may be overpassed with impunity by the very agencies created and appointed to guard, defend, and enforce them; and that, too, with the sacred authority of law, not only compelling obedience, but entitled to respect? And how else can these principles of individual liberty and right be maintained, if, when violated, the judicial tribunals are forbidden to visit penalties upon individual offenders, who are the instruments of wrong, whenever they interpose the shield of the state? The doctrine is not to be tolerated. The whole frame and scheme of the political institutions of this country, state and federal, protest against it. Their continued existence is not compatible with it. It is the doctrine of absolutism, pure, simple, and naked, and of communism which is its twin, the double progeny of the same evil birth."

Poindexter was rendered after the (U.S. occupational) governments of codes were installed in the states. I think the governments deal with citizens of the governments as these citizens reside in the governments. And I believe that the word "State" in the Fourteenth Amendment means a U.S. government entity that is master over the citizens of the government.

Preamble of the Iowa constitution


CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IOWA



Preamble. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the State of Iowa, the boundaries whereof shall be as follows:...

I contend that YOU are the state. Government is nothing more than a servant. The Secretary of State is YOUR secretary. He is in office to do YOUR bidding. Or you might take the opposite view, that he is NOT your secretary because he REFUSES to do your bidding.

The test then for the Secretary of State is to tell him to do something and see if it gets done. If it doesn't then cut the blighter free 'cause he is working on his own authority.

mick silver
28th January 2016, 05:37 AM
http://mh6.adriver.ru/images/0004280/0004280227/0/300X250_sputnik_color.jpg (http://ad.adriver.ru/cgi-bin/click.cgi?sid=202671&ad=494804&bid=4280227&bt=52&bn=3&pz=0&xpid=CGbzPKpQg15QStoEM46by0bFUDkmL4rHD&ref=http:%2f%2fsputniknews.com%2feurope%2f20160127 %2f1033807091%2faustria%2dbar%2dsex%2dattacks.html&custom=&rleurl=)Unlimited War Powers: US Constitution May Soon Become a 'Dead Letter'© Photo: Wikipedia



Politics (http://sputniknews.com/politics/)21:16 27.01.2016(updated 21:40 27.01.2016) Get short URL
34 (http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160127/1033808616/unlimited-war-powers-us-constitution-dead-letter.html#comments)193839

US senators are about to grant the president the authority to wage "unlimited war for as long as he or his successors may wish," former Republican congressman Ron Paul notes, adding that if they succeed in passing the legislation the American Constitution will be all but a "dead letter."
http://cdn3.img.sputniknews.com/images/102012/24/1020122444.jpg
© Flickr/ DVIDSHUB (http://bit.ly/1bDfzba)
Vicious Cycle: NATO's New Libyan Military Campaign About to Begin (http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160127/1033790018/nato-new-libyan-campaign-about-to-begin.html)

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Lindsey Graham are seeking to provide President Obama and his successors with the authority to wage unlimited wars without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops, former congressman and two-time Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul emphasizes.The move may become "the most massive transfer of power from the Legislative to the Executive branch in our history," the American politician warns.
"President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. In 2011 the president invaded Libya, overthrew its government, and oversaw the assassination of its leader, without even bothering to ask for Congressional approval," Dr. Paul writes in his article (http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2016/january/24/congress-is-writing-the-president-a-blank-check-for-war/) for The Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
However, it seems that the US senators are about to extend Obama's capability to launch all-out military campaigns.

The change has been introduced under the pretext of the Obama administration's inability to effectively curtail the Daesh (Islamic State/ISIL) threat.

​"The AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force] I introduced…will not limit us in terms of time, geography, or means in the fight against ISIL [Daesh]. It will show our enemies and friends alike that we will destroy ISIL wherever they reside, fight them as long as they pose a threat, and that we are 'all-in' when it comes to their destruction," said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday as quoted (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/26/senate-lobs-islamic-state-war-authority-back-obama-seeking-fewer-limits/79353428/) by USA Today.

Meanwhile, the White House has demonstrated its willingness to expand the US military's operations in the Middle East and North Africa.
The New York Times' editorial board reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/opening-a-new-front-against-isis-in-libya.html) Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering opening the third front in its war against Daesh in Libya, adding that the campaign could begin in a matter of weeks.
"This significant escalation is being planned without a meaningful debate in Congress about the merits and risks of a military campaign that is expected to include airstrikes and raids by elite American troops," the media outlet notes.
At the same time, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter clearly stated that there will be more boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria in an interview (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/22/secretary-of-defense-carter-i-want-to-accelerate-fight-against-isis.html) with CNBC.

http://cdn1.img.sputniknews.com/images/102527/77/1025277737.jpg
© AFP 2016/ AMC / FADI AL-HALABI
An Uncomfortable Truth: Washington Caught Supporting Jihadists in Syria (http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160127/1033802730/washington-caught-supporting-jihadists-syria.html)

"The prospects of such an escalation are not all that far-fetched. At the insistence of Saudi Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace talks will include members of the Army of Islam, which has fought with al-Qaeda in Syria," Dr. Paul emphasizes, asking why the US leadership agreed to hold talks with al-Qaeda's "offspring."In this context, the decision of the US Senate members to grant the US president with expanded war powers seems especially troubling.
"The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch's power," Ron Paul stresses, adding that if Senate Majority Leader McConnell succeeds in passing the legislation, "the US Constitution will be all but a dead letter







Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160127/1033808616/unlimited-war-powers-us-constitution-dead-letter.html#ixzz3yXqd4qV6

Ares
28th January 2016, 06:40 AM
Not even close.



Preamble of the Iowa constitution



I contend that YOU are the state. Government is nothing more than a servant. The Secretary of State is YOUR secretary. He is in office to do YOUR bidding. Or you might take the opposite view, that he is NOT your secretary because he REFUSES to do your bidding.

The test then for the Secretary of State is to tell him to do something and see if it gets done. If it doesn't then cut the blighter free 'cause he is working on his own authority.

If law had meaning then LaVoy Finicum would be alive today.

palani
28th January 2016, 11:58 AM
If law had meaning then LaVoy Finicum would be alive today.

Silent leges inter arma. laws are silent amidst arms. 4 Co.Inst. 70.

gunDriller
28th January 2016, 12:09 PM
The world manufacturing economy has slowed way the fvck down.

But most MSM can't even bring themselves to say the words, "Manufacturing Recession".

palani
28th January 2016, 12:15 PM
The world manufacturing economy has slowed way the fvck down.
The only ones left with assets to purchase anything are the millionaires and billionaires. Blame them. They have tied up assets and don't need much.

gunDriller
28th January 2016, 01:39 PM
The only ones left with assets to purchase anything are the millionaires and billionaires. Blame them. They have tied up assets and don't need much.

You mean so if they went on a big spending spree ...

actually I vaguely recall Bush telling people to "go shopping".

palani
28th January 2016, 03:09 PM
You mean so if they went on a big spending spree ...

actually I vaguely recall Bush telling people to "go shopping".

I recall Carter shutting down credit card credit .. for about 2 weeks. People did stop shopping and government quickly reversed their position and begged people to start buying again.