October 17, 2017

Regionalism Used to Redistribute Wealth

Think of regionalism, the priority of the region being synonymous with the priority of the nation (nationalism), of the commune (communism), of the environment (environmentalism), of the globe (globalism) all of which deny traditional American individualism, that is, the priority of our individual rights as set out in the US Constitution.

For more perspective about the importance of individualism against other “-isms” consider what Chief Justice Roberts said about our individual right to Free Speech in 559 US 460 (2010):

“As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that sentence is startling and dangerous. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178 (1803).”

USSCT cite discussion of an illegitimate ad hoc balancing test.
U.S. V. Stevens
559 U.S. 460 (2010)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

The foregoing describes the interaction between illegitimate ad hoc balancing tests and the various -isms that are used to deny our rights.

Livy writes from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

Eschatology v. Scatology – The Study of Ends, But Different From The Other

Thoughts:

God promises a perfect world in the afterlife.
Satan promises utopia (chiliastic Marxism) through government (central planning of private property) in this life.

I smell sulfur burning.

Livy

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from the southern high plains of Texas.

Von Mises Eschatology 001

Eschatology

Share

Climate Change: Redistribution of Wealth

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

And more quotes

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

All Attempts at Central Control are Phony and Threaten America’s Exceptionalism from Communism

Central control of private property, whether it is for the common good, earth liberation, animal liberation, the lesser prairie chicken (pinnated grouse), a feigned groundwater shortage, a tortoise or for redistribution of wealth, is pure Marxism because it abolishes private property as set out in the last two pages of Chapter Two of the Communist Manifesto. This is not rocket science. The simplicity of figuring this out might explain why so few schools teach about the dangerous cancer of the Communist Manifesto. Central control and private property irreconcilably conflict. One cannot exist in the presence of the other. The carjacker either has your car or he does not. There is no middle ground. The government has an affirmative duty to thwart carjackers and other property grabbers equally.

The reason for central control is irrelevant because Jesus taught the attitude of abundance, love and generosity with the fishes and loaves even in times of true scarcity. But the current attitude of scarcity breeds the brutality of the denial of sacred individual rights, as brutality advocated by Hegel, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Hardin and Alinsky who spoke admiringly of Lucifer in his book “Rules For Radicals”.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from the southern high plains of Texas.

Hegel 001

Alinsky Lucifer 001

Chap 2 Comm Manifesto 001

Share

What The “Science” of Global Warming/Climate Change is Really About

The fleecing of America.

It looks an awful lot like world-wide central planning (oversight) for the purpose of the redistribution of wealth ala the last two pages of Chap 2 of the Communist Manifesto.

From the National Association of Scholars:

“At the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009, leaders from more than a hundred nations gathered to consider an agenda that included a massive transfer of money from developed countries to the Third World. The developed states were tagged to provide $130 billion by 2020 to help developing nations deal with the consequences of global warming. The proposed transfer was widely discussed as “reparations” for the damage caused by use of fossil fuels in the developed world.

The Copenhagen proposal went down in ignominious defeat. A motley collection of Third World countries brought the idea up again in 2013 in the run-up to the UN’s climate conference in Warsaw, but by then whatever impetus the idea had had was gone. President Obama instructed the U.S. delegate to oppose it. The State Department explained:

“It’s our sense that the longer countries look at issues like compensation and liability, the more they will realize this isn’t a productive avenue for the [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] to go down.”

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

Individual Human Rights

The 1986 Lexicon Encyclopedia coverage of Hegel contains magic. In law school, we are not taught that our system is based on the expression of individualism, the same individualism that Hegel, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Garrett Hardin (author of Tragedy of the Commons) and Alinsky reject. The encyclopedic reference says that Hegelian philosophy split into two wings, the left is Marx’ Communism and the right is essentially fascist nationalism. Too many people in the US think in terms of right/left. But the Communists and Fascists are Hegelian twins who reject individualism, the individual rights that are key to America’s exceptionalism from Communism.

Before reading that, I never thought of our system of having been borne of an expression of individualism. But it makes sense. All the rights are individual rights. And of the individual right of free speech, J. Roberts specifically said in US v. Stevens 559 US 460 (2010) that the benefits of individual free speech outweigh the burden on government. I submit that the benefit of all our sacred individual rights outweigh the burden on government.

In law school, they teach that only certain rights are fundamental and others, not so much. However, a reading of The Federalist And Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902, shows that our founders considered the whole Constitution to be fundamental, and that laws contrary to the Constitution are null and void. That they considered our individual rights to be sacred and referenced a Maker. We are all entitled to sacred and fundamental individual rights, not just the worst criminals in the US.

Despite the pervasive underlying theme of the TV media, the true dichotomy is not between communistic-thinking Democrats and fascist-thinking Republicans, rather both Democrats and Republicans should reject Neo-Nazi Progressivism. As J. Edgar Hoover stated in his 1958 book “Masters of Deceit”, the setting of the classes against each other is an established tactic of the Communists. To Communists, every opponent is a fascist. As long ago as 1951, Ludwig von Mises wrote in “Socialism” that the communists do not respond to diverse views with reason, rather they immediately respond with a personal attack.

Notice how character assassination is used quite publicly. For example, the rancher in Nevada whose preference grazing rights prevailed against all humans, but not against the subhuman tortoise under the 1973 Endangered Species Act, was painted as a racist.

All the rights are individual rights, sacred and fundamental for humans only. The public policy of the Constitution is clearly one of humans first, a public policy that Congress had no authority to alter with the Endangered Species Act. In my view, Nixon capitulated more than just Vietnam to the Communists in 1973. 1973 was a dark year for Nixon. Impeachment was on the horizon. Did he think that Americans turned on him so, now, he turned on America? In 1973 Brezhnev secretly stated to his Communist comrades that Détente would not stop the Communists advancement of their various National liberation movements. And, for his comrades to trust him when he said that he expected to achieve most of their goals by 1985 without violence. (Page 359, Dupes, Kengor, 2010) In 1975, Animal Liberation was published. Some participants in the animal liberation movement seek to abolish private property in animals and the movement contains elements of civil disobedience to achieve its goals.Livy
Livy writes from the Southern High Plains of Texas

Share

Reverse Invasion of Property

Reverse invasion of property
Marxist central control abolishes private property rights

This morning I heard on the Chad Hasty Show talk about the “need” for some sort of environmental study regarding the sonic booms in Midland and their effect on the prairie chicken aka pinnated grouse.

Hunting with even light shotgun bird loads for dove in grouse habitat causes sonic booms as the projectile breaks the sound barrier, yet, I’ve never before heard any such ridiculous objection.

The recently proposed Federal Register regulations say that no invasion of the properties will occur as a part of their [Marxist top-down central] “planning” [and control].

Those proposed regulations, 79 Federal Register 27060 and 27052, can be easily found with a google or bing search. The comment period for one of them ends tomorrow, 11 July 2014.

Prohibiting sonic booms on land adjacent to grouse breeding grounds seems like a reverse invasion of property. I’ve never heard of a reverse invasion before but I have heard of reverse condemnation. In addition, their low-level population surveys invade private property, so the Fed Register regs are based on a lie. There I said it.

How are they going to cite people for violations without invading the private land? We know full well the regulations constitute an illegitimate Marxist taking.

If there are no meaningful remedies in the administrative system (Progressive Kangaroo Court), then the long term benefits of correctly tying Marxist Socialism (Communism) to the Endangered Species Act when applied to private property are obvious. Since 1973 this nonsense has been going on. Even for biblical times, 40 years is long enough to wander the communist wilderness. It’s time to find our way out. Learn how to say No.

Ludwig von Mises figured all this out and published his analysis in 1951. There is no point in reinventing the wheel. It’s not rocket science. It’s time to start saying No.

“Takings (E.O. 12630)

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, we have determined the
proposed rule does not have significant takings implications.
A takings implication assessment is not required because this rule
(1) will not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical
invasion of property and (2) will not deny all economically beneficial
or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This rule would
substantially advance a legitimate government interest (conservation
and recovery of listed species) and would not present a barrier to all
reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-05-12/html/2014-10503.htm

Share

Ludwig von Mises on Marxist Socialism (Communism)

Ludwig von Mises said in 1951 what I have been trying to say about “planning”, “oversight” and other illegitimate options to the constitutional requirement of the payment of just compensation for the State’s exercise of Eminent Domain.

Whether the private property is land for the prairie chicken, or groundwater for the “common good”, central control abolishes private property ala the Communist Manifesto and as such violates prohibitions against communism.

On the nature of ownership:
“Regarded as a sociological category ownership appears as the power to use economic goods. An owner is he who disposes of an economic good.” Page 37.
“It is the aim of Socialism to transfer the means of production from the private ownership to the ownership of organized society, to the State.”
“If the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production; if its power to determine what direction production shall take and what kind of production there shall be, is increased, then the owner is left at last with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State.” Page 56, “Socialism, An Economic and Sociological Analysis”, von Mises, 1951, reprint 2009)

“It is fundamental that the Constitution is the paramount law of the state and cannot be altered by legislative enactment.” Jones v. Ross, 173 S.W.2d 1022, 1024 (Tex. 1943)

This is not rocket science.

Ludwig von Mises 1 001

Share