Sandy Hook Stuff

I don't normally listen to this kind of stuff, especially not from Bible thumpers, but there are a lot of questions raised in this video that no one in the mainstream is addressing, or even asking.

Violence in America

The SCOTUS and The Constituition

According to the Volokh Conspiracy you can download everything the US Supreme Court has ever ruled about the US Constitution.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/13/free-online-constitutional-law-treatise-from-the-library-of-congress-2/

Here are the direct links:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-108sdoc17/pdf/CDOC-108sdoc17.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2010/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2010.pdf

Local Coin Shop Update

Went to pick up a few Franklin Halves today.  There were at least ten people waiting outside the shop when the doors opened.  After they opened up, within 15 minutes, the place was packed.  At least thirty or  forty people.  They had three or four more people behind the counter than in the past.  Looks like it was some of the regular guys' wives helping out.  While I was waiting for one of the guys to pick my Franklins out of his "junk" bucket they moved three monster boxes of ASEs and another lady picked up thirty 10 oz bars of silver.  I think I overheard at least twenty gold eagle and gold maples buys as well.  Of everyone in the shop there were only two or three people selling, the rest were buying and buying big.

This is in the Peoples' Republic of Maryland.  What it must be like in the red states, I can't imagine.

Something has got to give soon.

Don't get your hopes up. They are coming after the guns.

There is a story floating around that the Patient Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) contains provisions that prohibit "the government" from collecting information about legally owned guns and ammunition. This is not true.

Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c. only limits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from collecting information about legally owned firearms and ammunition when implementing "wellness and health promotion activities."

It took me about an hour to track down the actually language of the law. It is not easy to follow--they do that on purpose.

Here is Section 2716 of H.R.3590:

`SEC. 2716. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF HIGHLY COMPENSATED INDIVIDUALS.

`(a) In General- A group health plan (other than a self-insured plan) shall satisfy the requirements of section 105(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to prohibition on discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals).

`(b) Rules and Definitions- For purposes of this section--

`(1) CERTAIN RULES TO APPLY- Rules similar to the rules contained in paragraphs (3), (4), and (8) of section 105(h) of such Code shall apply.

`(2) HIGHLY COMPENSATED INDIVIDUAL- The term `highly compensated individual' has the meaning given such term by section 105(h)(5) of such Code.'.

(e) Section 2717 of the Public Health Service Act, as added by section 1001(5) of this Act, is amended--

(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (b), the following:

`(c) Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights-

`(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS- A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to--

`(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

`(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.

`(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION- None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to--

`(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

`(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

`(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

`(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS- None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

`(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE- A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon--

`(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or

`(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.

`(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS- No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to--

`(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or

`(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.'.

Here is Section 2717, which is modified by the above.

`SEC. 2717. ENSURING THE QUALITY OF CARE.

`(a) Quality Reporting-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Secretary, in consultation with experts in health care quality and stakeholders, shall develop reporting requirements for use by a group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage, with respect to plan or coverage benefits and health care provider reimbursement structures that--

`(A) improve health outcomes through the implementation of activities such as quality reporting, effective case management, care coordination, chronic disease management, and medication and care compliance initiatives, including through the use of the medical homes model as defined for purposes of section 3602 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, for treatment or services under the plan or coverage;

`(B) implement activities to prevent hospital readmissions through a comprehensive program for hospital discharge that includes patient-centered education and counseling, comprehensive discharge planning, and post discharge reinforcement by an appropriate health care professional;

`(C) implement activities to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors through the appropriate use of best clinical practices, evidence based medicine, and health information technology under the plan or coverage; and

`(D) implement wellness and health promotion activities.

The net effect is to insert a subsection in Section 2717 saying the Secretary of Health and Human Services, while implementing a "wellness and health promotion activity... may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to... lawfully-possessed firearms or ammunition...."

It says nothing about any other agency such as the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security.

Face it. They are coming after the guns and nothing short of nullification, secession or armed rebellion is going to stop it.

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.

The Constitution, while it would be far superior to what we have now, is nothing to write home about. In fact, for me the fetish for the US Constitution is really getting old. I understand that for a newly awakening individual it can be breath of fresh air. That was my experience campaigning for Ron Paul in 2007/8. But if you stop there you are just going to rot on the vine. Ron Paul himself has said the US Constitution failed and he has been known to tip his hat to Lysander Spooner.

Fortunately, for me, I listened to what he said and started studying the people he studied. If you start with Ron Paul and don't end up with Murray Rothbard, you are not really listening.
As to the Constitution itself, no one has addressed it better than Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

"[The] Constitution provided for the substitution of a popularly elected parliament and president for an unelected king, but it changed nothing regarding their power to tax and legislate. To the contrary, while the English king's power to tax without consent had only been assumed rather than explicitly granted and was thus in dispute, the Constitution explicitly granted this very power to Congress. Furthermore, while kings - in theory, even absolute kings - had not been considered the makers but only the interpreters and executors of preexisting and immutable law, i.e., as judges rather than legislators, the Constitution explicitly vested Congress with the power of legislating, and the president and the Supreme Court with the powers of executing and interpreting such legislated law.

"In effect, what the American Constitution did was only this: Instead of a king who regarded colonial America as his private property and the colonists as his tenants, the Constitution put temporary and interchangeable caretakers in charge of the country's monopoly of justice and protection.

"These caretakers did not own the country, but as long as they were in office, they could make use of it and its residents to their own and their protégés' advantage. However, as elementary economic theory predicts, this institutional setup will not eliminate the self-interest-driven tendency of a monopolist of law and order toward increased exploitation. To the contrary, it only tends to make his exploitation less calculating, more shortsighted, and wasteful."

Think about what he is saying. Sure, kings claimed the power to impose mandatory taxes and to create law, but that was not spelled out in any legal form so it was always disputed and occasionally resisted. So what did the writers of the Constitution do? They took the disputed powers of the king and enshrined them in law. Yes, they did away with the king, but they kept the powers he claimed and made them legitimate. They did not change the underlying structure of power, they simply changed the outward form.

A lot of people don't want to recognize that the US Constitution was imposed as the result of a coup d'état. The Philadelphia Convention was called to address trade issues and to refine the Articles of Confederation. There was no mandate to institute a new form of government. The reality was by the time all the delegates showed up the new constitution was pretty much already written by the Virginia delegation and ready to go. Kind of like the USA PATRIOT Act, it was almost like people where just waiting for the right excuse to impose it (Shay's rebellion was going on at the same time). One of the first things the new government did was to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. People were fighting a tax that rich distillers, like George Washington, could afford, but the farmer's in western Pennsylvania could not. It reminds me of large corporations lobbying for regulations they can deal with because they have deep pockets and lots of lawyers, while smaller competitors are shut down because the regulations are too expensive for them implement. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

We don't need a bunch of magic paper. As far as I am concerned, this is The Law: I am the boss of me and my property is mine. You are the boss of you and your property is yours.

Anyone who acknowledges that is my friend and compatriot. Anyone who disputes that is my enemy and I have the moral authority to resist their encroachment on me or mine with whatever means are required to stop them. It's as simple as that. It only gets complicated when lawyers and politicians get involved.

The cycle

How many times till we learn?

1) In an environment of relative freedom, entrepreneurship and trade produces wealth and prosperity.

2) Increased wealth and prosperity leads to increased tax revenue.

3) Increased tax revenue leads to a stronger state.

4) Increased state intervention and restriction cripples economic activity.

5) The state outgrows the economy and eventually collapses from overreach.

6) In an environment of relative freedom...

Hoppe on the Praxeology of Democracy

The traditional, premodern state form is that of a (absolute) monarchy. Yet monarchy was faulted, in particular also by classical liberals, for being incompatible with the basic principle of "equality before the law." Monarchy instead rested on personal privilege. Thus, the critics of monarchy argued, the monarchical state had to be replaced by a democratic one. In opening participation and entry into state government to everyone on equal terms, not just to a hereditary class of nobles, it was thought that the principle of the equality of all before the law had been satisfied.

However, this democratic equality before the law is something entirely different from and incompatible with the idea of one universal law, equally applicable to everyone, everywhere, and at all times. In fact, the former objectionable schism and inequality of a higher law of kings versus a subordinate law of ordinary subjects is fully preserved under democracy in the separation of "public" versus "private" law and the supremacy of the former over the latter.

Under democracy, everyone is equal insofar as entry into government is open to all on equal terms. Everyone can become king, so to say, not only a privileged circle of people. Thus, in a democracy no personal privileges or privileged persons exist. However, functional privileges and privileged functions exist. Public officials, as long as they act in an official capacity, are governed and protected by public law and occupy thereby a privileged position vis-à-vis persons acting under the mere authority of private law.

In particular, public officials are permitted to finance or subsidize their own activities through taxes. That is, they do not, as every private-law subject must, earn their income through the production and subsequent sale of goods and services to voluntarily buying or not-buying consumers. Rather, as public officials, they are permitted to engage in, and live off, what in private dealings between private-law subjects is considered "theft" and "stolen loot." Thus, privilege and legal discrimination — and the distinction between rulers and subjects — will not disappear under democracy. To the contrary. Rather than being restricted to princes and nobles, under democracy, privileges will be available to all: everyone can engage in theft and live off stolen loot if only he becomes a public official.

Predictably, then, under democratic conditions the tendency of every monopoly of ultimate decision making to increase the price of justice and to lower its quality and substitute injustice for justice and is not diminished but aggravated. As hereditary monopolist, a king or prince regards the territory and people under his jurisdiction as his personal property and engages in the monopolistic exploitation of his "property."

Under democracy, monopoly and monopolistic exploitation do not disappear. Rather, what happens with democracy is this: instead of a prince and a nobility who regard the country as their private property, a temporary and interchangeable caretaker is put in monopolistic charge of the country. The caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his and his protégés' advantage. He owns its current use — usufruct — but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. To the contrary, it makes exploitation less calculating and carried out with little or no regard to the capital stock. Exploitation becomes shortsighted and capital consumption will be systematically promoted.

Source.

Strike the root.

What is law?

Given what appears a nearly willful historical amnesia, it is easy for the popular imagination to suppose that existing political and social conventions have always been so, or that preceding social norms are by necessity inferior to the current "enlightened" perspective promulgated via public education and popular media.

As such it would be inconceivable for many that "the law" has any other source than legislative bodies.  For an American the answer to the question "Where do laws come from?" is, if goes beyond a nebulous "the government," is Congress, where democratically elected representatives compose the rules of society.  Before that, if before that is even considered, kings ruled arbitrarily with absolute power, always fighting wars and throwing people in dungeons.

But the idea that law is either the will of the king or the work of the legislature is a very recent idea, arising  in America at least, in the early 20th century with the Wilsonian concept of democracy as a transcendental ideal and the ultimate "good" form of government..

Today, while reading, On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, I came across a reference to Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages By F. Kern.  Translated by S. B. Chrimes. 2nd imps., 1949.

I did a little digging and found this nugget.

The idea is that law is independent of kings and legislatures, that like the rules of logic derived from axiomatic first principles, the law is the logical structure derived the from the moral principles of human interaction.