November 28, 2014

(America’s Unique) Definition of individualism

Individualism means the priority of sacred individual rights over the rights/power of the commune or of fascist Nationalism.

The word sacred refers to the descriptor God-given to describe rights that America recognizes as preceding the writing of the US Constitution.

The words commune and fascist Nationalism include the concepts of any region such as in regionalism, globalism, environmentalism and necessarily includes the concept of habitat.

Recalling the Nazis, Nationalism was the priority of the nation over the individual wherein the rights of the individuals were bound (root meaning of the word fascist) and individual rights were denied for the greater common good of Germany. [See attached photo.][“These dead gave their spirits for the glory of Greater Germany.”]

I’ve seen a corruption of the word individualism by Communists, Putin in particular, and a foreign misunderstanding of American individualism by at least one liberal or left-wing Australian Catholic. America’s Protestant roots might also explain why the expression of individualism of the French and American revolutions might not be well understood in the melting pot of America’s many cultures.

Personalism, an old (but not irrelevant) concept in the Catholic religious community is similar but seems to be more of a term of art in the religious/philosophical field, while American individualism, according to my understanding as of this writing, is a term of art in the legal rights/political field.

Individualism as I refer to it herein, relates not to the person rather to the rights (power) of the person as an individual in competition against the rights (power) of the Commune. The individual wins against the Government because of the priority of the God-given sacred fundamental right of the individual to Free Speech.

For example, let’s take a look at what the United States Supreme Court (Chief Justice Roberts) said about the God-given right to Free Speech in U.S. V. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010):
“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).” [Emphasis added.]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

To understand the uniquely American concept of individualism use Livy’s dialectic by considering the statements of those who oppose American individualism. Hegel (hence Marx) states that, “Freedom is the recognition of the necessity of mutual coercion.” [Quote is attributed by adherent Hardin to Hegel.] Russian Communist Putin described individualism as dangerous. And Obama in his typically inexact and rambling way stated essentially that, Personal freedom is preserved by collective action. Similar remarks are attributed to Hillary Clinton.

Redefining individualism as similar to hedonism, egoism or anarchy defeats the connection between individual rights and God as against the all powerful centralized government. In order to counter the mischaracterization of individualism by foreigners who easily confuse individualism with hedonism, egoism or anarchy consider this: American individualism is not a concept that pits man against God.

Rather the concept of American individualism is God and man together against the otherwise overwhelming power of government. This is not some sort of anti-government conspiracy stuff. The automatically-arising competition between the power of government and the protection of God-given human rights (power of the individual) consumes the writers of both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers of the late 1700’s.

If the Founders were not cognizant of the overwhelming power of centralized government, then why would they devise the separation of powers so thoroughly? The Legislature is divided into two and its laws must survive a veto by a third party, the Executive. The Judiciary is divided into three courts with original trial, appellate review and then the Supreme Court. The Executive is one but may be removed by the Legislature. The Legislature (Congress) creates the law but may not interpret it. Expounding upon the law is the duty and function of the Judiciary. The Executive enforces the law.

Now think about the lack of separation of powers in agencies that make their own rules, interpret them, establish their own facts, enforce the result, and then, despite being a biased party in litigation, demand that the Judiciary to give them total deference.

The writers of the Constitution knew their history. The Magna Charta, now about 800 years old, is the basis of human rights, human freedom and thereby human dignity found in our federal and state Constitutions. It provided that humans would not be deprived of life, liberty or property without resort to a jury of their peers, yet that is exactly what bureaucratic agencies are currently allowed to get away with.

As the exCommunist noted in the ’50’s era book “The God That Failed”, the largest most controlling monopolistic corporation is but a mere pygmy when compared to the power of government. Consistent with that thought, consider that even the largest US corporations don’t operate SWAT teams but the smallest subdivision of US government can usually figure out how to get one called up if needed.

I heard someone say that the reason the expression of individualism in the French revolution failed, but the American experiment worked, was because Americans connected God to their individual rights. And the French did not. So, when God is taken out of government and schools, Constitutional rights simply become, as in any Communist country, an illegitimate Kaganesque ad hoc balancing test between the interest of atheist man in rights (powers) against the interest of atheist government in rights (powers). In such contests, the government always wins.

So to reiterate what Justice Roberts said:
“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).”

Without connecting God to our individual rights, we cannot as easily recognize the loss of our human dignity when human rights to property are taken away from us. In labor law, employment is a recognized property right the violation of which gives rise to a cause of action by the individual whose rights are violated. The Endangered
Species Act now centrally controls, outside of the three branches of government, our private property rights. Central control abolishes private property ala the Communist Manifesto. (Last two pages Chapter Two.) By signing the ESA, Nixon capitulated more than just Vietnam to the Communists. “Just following orders” was no defense to the Nazis and should be no defense to those “just following orders” in the various anti-American, anti-human liberation movements.

Individual rights should not be confused with group rights. Group rights violate our Founders’ doctrine of equality under the law and show up as corporate cronyism (that resemble Communist oligarchy) and as special rights for small politically well-connected groups of humans and of endangered animals.

The following describes individual rights, that is, individualism, the priority of the rights of the individual over the government and its bureaucracies. Some states’ rights are included. The following is not a verbatim recitation, rather the list of paraphrased rights is to demonstrate much of what we do not hear on today’s professional agitator propaganda media outlets. Capitalization is all over the map in the Constitution and was followed in some instances and ignored in others.

The people shall have the Writ of Habeas Corpus available except under certain circumstances.

The individual shall be free from Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws.

Individuals shall have limits on taxation.

There shall be no preferences toward one state over another.

Appropriations by law are necessary to authorize withdrawal of federal money from the Treasury.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the US.

The trial of all crimes shall be by jury.

Each citizen shall have all privileges and immunities of one state in all the other states.

The United States shall protect each state from invasion.

Congress shall not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or to peaceably assemble.

The individual shall have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The people shall be free from the mandatory quartering of troops in their homes.

Individuals shall not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.

No accusations of crime against individuals shall lie unless made in writing to give proper notice of the allegations and in order to provide for a proper defense.

No one shall be subjected to double jeopardy. [Regarding WOTUS, the central controllers at the EPA want fines up to $37,500 per day of violation.]

No one can be compelled to testify against oneself. [Compare that to certain administrative state proceedings that resemble the Star Chambers of old.]

No one can be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law. [“Of law” has a special meaning that excludes the extralegal administrative state proceedings.] [“Due process” is a phrase of art for which whole books have been written. The concept includes substantive (authentic, my word) due process meaning the Constitutional creation of the law to include proper notice to the public, written notice of any alleged violations, and more.]

No property shall be taken for the governments’ purposes [of saving animals] without just compensation.

An accused shall have the right of speedy and public trial [No agency Star Chamber trials.] by jury where the crime was alleged to have been committed, to be informed of the allegation, to confront the accusers, to have compulsory process for providing defense witnesses and for a defense lawyer.

Where the amount of controversy shall exceed $20, a litigant shall have the right to demand a jury. [Again, environmental fine of $37,500 with no trial.]

The individual shall be free from excessive bail, excessive fines and free from cruel and unusual punishments. [$37,500 fine, daily.]

The individual’s rights set out shall not be disparaged by the numbering order set out in the Bill of Rights.

There shall be no slavery or involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime. [That is after conviction, not just because you decide to engage in a certain kind of regulated business.]

No state shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges and immunities of the individual. [Seems to me that economic rights are privileges and immunities of property ownership that should not be abridged simply by administrative rule that are not enacted first by law, that is, representative government.]

Equal protection under the law appears in three important places not including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.

The individual’s right to vote appears in several places also.

No where in there do I see any right of a small politically well-connected group of pinnated grouse, of tiny fish or of spotted owls to force an individual to give up human rights to private property or to private property self-employment rights. In fact, what I see is the establishment of a humans-first public policy that Congress had no right to alter by passing the Endangered Species Act.

Individualism

Jail Without Trial

Where is the criminal defense bar and the ACLU when the administrative state claims it can send “actual human beings to jail” without trial in violation of the Magna Charta and the US Constitution……….

CFTC Turns Toward Administrative Judges

It’s time for lawyers and others everywhere to read the legal work titled “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” 2014, Prof Hamburger.

Quite frankly, the excuses they told us in law school to allow the administrative state to evade the law and the Constitution do not hold up under Prof. Hamburger’s scrutiny. And now we have this: Jail (federal prison) without trial. An administrative state that is limited by neither the law nor the Constitution has unlimited power.

This applies to the lesser prairie chicken land grab and the EPA waters of the US land and water grab and more.

In fact, the EPA tried to get garnishment of wages for the payment of fines, but was turned back, this time.

EPA backs off on wage garnishment rule

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

Do Law Schools Lie to Students?

There are sins of omission and sins of commission.

My law school did not tell us that our system is based on individualism, the priority of the individual over the commune, fascist nationalism. Individualism is why our Constitution speaks to the individual right to a jury, the individual right to confront our accuser, the individual right to an impartial magistrate and many more individual rights.

But when it comes to sins of commission, they told us that Constitutional rights are not important in the administrative process because the legislature did not have time to deal with minor agency matters. What?

When the administrative state is not limited by the law, and not limited by the Constitution, its power is unlimited.

Having unlimited power means that an unelected bureaucracy can establish a state religion that disguises itself as environmentalism, but worships Gaia, contrary to the separation of Church and State.

Despite the difficulty in always clearly communicating objections to the bureaucracies taking the side of non-humans over our human rights, maybe we should take notice that it is the God-fearing who seem to be the first ones noticing things going wrong with central control that prioritizes habitat for subhumans.

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

ClarenceThomas

A Government Action to Get Out The Apathetic Environmentalist Vote

Renaming these areas, mentioned below, the “Harry Reid Areas of Critical Environmental Concern” in November or December would be a nice touch and assure big bonuses for the BLM sycophants that concocted this travesty for their political bosses pandering for votes.

1. REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT
2. EMPOWER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (SHERIFFS, COMMISSIONERS, ETC.) and orient State government to be their protectors
3. REPEAL OR SERIOUSLY AMEND ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL/ANIMAL RIGHTS/UN-CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL LAWS OF THE LAST 50 YEARS. They spawned all of this illegitimate power for federal bureaucrats to us to destroy Rural America.

4. Do #’s 1, 2 & 3 and the ability and willingness of most State governments to again assume their role of protecting us from tyranny, and to putting and keeping oppressive federal power abuse in the bottle like some evil genie will return faster than you can say:

“From Nixon to Obama, All the Presidents have tolerated and profited from this growing ‘RURAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE’. It is perpetrated by urban radicals, extremist NGO’s, and the self-serving profiteering of federal and state bureaucrats and politicians. The time to stop it is NOW! If not now, the question is not WHEN? The answer is it will be TOO LATE!”

Jim Beers
31 October 2014

The Anti-Economics of Drunken Lowlife Karl Marx

Marx’ slanders of the shared prosperity of the middle class, the bourgeoisie he called them, at the end of Chapter Two of the Communist Manifesto with the now forever discredited as delusional notion that centralized control of private property increases total production.

Hence we see groundwater boards conducting water grabs and sending an annual supply for 500,000 Californians out to sea for the benefit of the commune’s tiny endangered fish – during a severe drought; activist bureaucratic agencies cooking their economic numbers and the disastrous devastation of the lumber-rich Northwestern US, Curry County Oregon, now beyond two decades of subhuman impoverishment.

The Endangered Species Act, when used to enslave us through the central control of our sacred individual human rights is pure Marxism.

Central planning and control destroys America’s exceptionalism to Communism.
It destroys the private property rights that made Americans have the highest per capita income in the world ever since the 1830’s.

The use of central control is like planning for the future by burning your own house down, the exact same description I saw someone use to describe Keynesian “economics”. Sounds like anti-economics to me.

Livy

Media Needs $1,500 Permit to Take a Photo

Outrageous, isn’t it! Just think, our Federal Government – did you get that? Let me start again. Our Federal Government…..no, wait. That’s not right is it. It’s not my Federal Government and it’s not your Federal Government. It’s THEIR Federal Government. Regardless, THE Federal Government has further destroyed the Bill of Rights, among other American “things” and are requiring anybody in the “media” to buy a permit before they can take a picture on federal land. I suppose that now makes any member of the media a domestic terrorist and will be placed on a watch list. Oh, wait! They are already. You are already. I am already. We are all on a “watch list.”

Isn’t this nothing more than a reflection of the direction this country has been headed for a very long time? Oh, yes, it’s easy to pin it on that knucklehead in the Oval Office at present, but the reality is that this corporate monstrosity can and does do anything they want. If I have to point out examples of that, you are lost.

Because we the people (small p), never question and are just eager little beavers to accept central control over our lives and every tiny aspect of it, consider what we are on the verge of becoming? No, you can’t can you.

Requiring a permit to take a picture is only one small symptom of a very large problem. But the real problem is, nobody knows what the problem is.

Well, enough of this. My favorite TV show is on. I’ll be back later…..only after I’m done catching up on Facebook, and there’s a new album I can download for free onto my I phone….and there’s a sale at the mall. Later!

The Myth of Compromise

CompromiseHave you ever noticed that both sides of an issue make the claim that the other side refuses to compromise? While remaining uncompromising, one claims the other is at fault because they will not offer a compromise on some emotional issue, like hunting.

However, the bottom of the barrel is revealed in such cases when the one screaming for compromise, while refusing to compromise, finds the other at fault, calling them names or at times, a faux intellectual will attempt to cast aspersions on individuals or groups because of their uncompromising nature.

Here’s a classic example. In an opinion piece, ie. propaganda nonsense, in the Maine Portland Press Herald, a writer, posing as being in support of Question One in the upcoming referendum to ban bear baiting, hounding and trapping, casts his censure onto the hunting community because they refuse to compromise and give this guy at least some of what he wants.

Through it all, I have often said the Achilles heel of the hunting lobby in Maine was the intransigent, no-compromise position they maintained while dismissing any criticism as the work of animal rights extremists.

The thought processes of a person of this nature is quite amazing to someone not so afflicted. This person believes that because he sees something differently than someone else does, it is their duty to at least give in some and let them have their way.

Do we ever see totalitarians, such as this person, compromising his beliefs? Of course not. He doesn’t have to. In his mind, he’s more intelligent than some dumb bear hunter.

Let’s understand this myth of compromise. Don’t get me wrong. There’s a time and a place for compromise and compromising the rock foundations of one’s beliefs, morals and heritage is not a time to implement compromise.

Let’s take one example that some people can understand. Those that can’t are of the thought process of the letter writer in question. Let’s take the Second Amendment as an example.

The Second Amendment, when written, was simple and direct: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. From the very moment that Bill of Right was published, totalitarian socialists have demanded compromise in order to get rid of it. And guess what? They have gotten a lot through compromise because the people have been mind controlled to think that compromise is a good thing; it “gets something done.” Look at where the Second Amendment is today. It doesn’t even resemble “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” And when is the last time you saw anti gun lobbyists compromising to give American citizens back their full right to keep and bear arms?

So, here we have a man who thinks, no, he believes, that the “hunting lobby” should cede to him what he wants because he is right and the hunters are wrong?

This is one of the problems with democracy and a progressive lifestyle. Democracy is when the majority forces the minority to do something they don’t want to do. Obviously this letter writer doesn’t like democracy when it isn’t working well for him and therefore he demands compromise. And when democracy fails him, he resorts to all other means in order to get his way.

Hunters should never compromise on such issues because it tears at the heart of hunting’s entire existence. Unfortunately we live in a democracy, which actually more closely resembles totalitarian socialism and no more than hunters should seek to change their “intransigent” ways, neither should the letter writer. And herein, lies the real difference. Where I respect the rights and beliefs of this person but think he is a moron to believe that way, I certainly have no right to attempt to force him to not be able to be an animal rights activist.

Obviously, he and way too many others just like him, don’t feel the same way as I do. Therefore, compromise should never happen.

Stevens County Commission Condemns Washington Wolf Management

Or lack of management! Somebody must pay for this atrocity and negligence!

According to Rich Landers of the Spokesman Review, the Stevens (Washington) County board of commissioners unanimously passed a resolution that condemns the actions, or lack thereof, of wildlife agents for “failing to protect people, wildlife and livestock from wolves that are naturally recolonizing the region.”

“Naturally recolonizing?” I doubt that very seriously. These are GI wolves, stocked from wolves captured and released into Central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. If these animal were fish, there would be hell to pay for calling a stocked fish or its offspring “naturally” occurring.

Liability and responsibility first lies with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and all the non governmental agencies that participated in the illegal introduction of wolves. Disguised as a government-run and sponsored operation, the people were not told the truth about these animals, their behavior, and what the long term plans were. NOTHING promised has happened!

Now that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has done their dirty, nasty, deed, they have dumped the cost and responsibility of “managing” wolves into the laps of brainwashed wildlife agents who think that people suck and wolves rule.

No rational, sensible, freedom-loving people would even consider that some nasty, stinking, rotten, disease-infested animal would take any….THAT’S ANY, precedence of human rights and property. What in God’s name have we become?

Take responsibility man! Kill all the wolves in this Huckleberry Pack, as random killing only exacerbates the problem. No human should be forced to cede their rights, property and safety to any damned animal! What in hell is wrong with us?

Government May Soon Direct What Private-Sector Employees May Say in the Workplace

Employee’s Demotion for Comparing Media and Political Reaction to Trayvon Martin’s Death to Lack of Response Over Shooting of a White Baby Upheld

Decision Highlights Troubling Aspects of Potential Government Overreach in “Hostile Work Environment” Law

Washington DC – In response to a recently-announced North Carolina administrative decision upholding an employee’s demotion for comments about race, and in light of the calls for increased racial dialogue following Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, the National Center’s in-house legal scholar is warning American workers that local and federal government leaders may soon restrict racial and political speech even in private work places.

“In the wake of Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, political leaders and pundits are calling for Americans to engage in frank discussions about racial issues. It is a common theme following such events, but one that is fraught with peril for American workers,” warns National Center General Counsel Justin Danhof, Esq. “Just as President Barack Obama called for a national discussion about race following Trayvon Martin’s death, pundits of all stripes are clamoring for kitchen table and water cooler talks following the death of Michael Brown and subsequent riots in Ferguson, Missouri. This is potentially dangerous advice.”

Any earnest discussion about race – specifically in the workplace – could very quickly lead to claims of a racially hostile work environment. Those claims can lead to demotion or termination for those participating in such conversations. A case that was recently decided by the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings highlights the problem.

The facts of the case are straightforward. In brief, an employee – who was a government worker in a supervisory role – used a break in a meeting to read aloud from a Facebook post. Written from the imagined perspective of an actual 13-month-old white baby boy who was murdered in Georgia, the post lamented the decided lack of political and media attention to his death at that time as opposed to the constant attention surrounding Trayvon Martin’s death at the same general time. The post attributed much of this discrepancy to race – the baby being white and Trayvon being black.

The employee was demoted for her actions, and the recent North Carolina case upheld that decision.

“I do not have qualms with the specific outcome of the case since the employee appears to have broken clear office rules regarding cell phone and Facebook use. The problem is that the arbiter went too far in ruling that the employee’s action contributed to a hostile work environment,” said Danhof. “This has implications beyond this one government employee and could negatively impact many private sector employees as well. Many hostile work environment laws are inherently vague and therefore give the arbiter extreme latitude in deciding these cases. This is an issue that transcends race, and the way it can stifle free speech and put employees at risk for something even the President encourages shows why something must be done to reform this problem in the workplace.”

Cases such as this could very well lead to instances of government restricting speech based on content and viewpoint – where speech deemed hostile to blacks is punished and speech that is hostile to whites it not – even when such speech is on private property.

“By declaring that the employee’s speech was ‘racially and politically provocative,’ the precedent set by the hearing officer could make these types of statements actionable in a private work setting – even if the employer would not restrict such speech,” said Danhof. “That is big brother on steroids.”

“Do you think affirmative action discriminates against white and Asian students, and that some black and Hispanic beneficiaries of the program are undeserving? You better not say so out loud. Do you support ballot integrity measures such as voter identification laws? You better not talk about it, lest you be judged as hostile to blacks,” warns Danhof. “Law and justice are increasingly color-centric, not color blind. Americans who want to have earnest discussions about these and other important issues at work, do so at their own peril. ”

To read more of Danhof’s legal analysis and commentary on this issue, go here.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

1973 Endangered Species Act: A return of the Dark Centuries?

Prof. Hamburger’s 2014 book “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” is described by National Review as a “serious work of legal scholarship on the return of the prerogative to our government.”

The professor shows how the unlimited power of the administrative state comes from the King’s prerogative, a special power that the Constitution was designed to prevent.

Published in 1890, Bancroft’s Works* Vol. 38 Essays and Miscellany at page 284 describes the English-American jury trial right as the end to the King’s prerogative.

And that begs the question: Did the Nevada rancher get a jury trial with regard to the taking of his preference grazing rights? Will we get jury trials when the same bureaucrats impose encumbrances through the 1973 Endangered Species Act on private Texas land?

Bancroft: “The right of trial by jury comes to the Englishmen more directly in the form of a victory. During the dark centuries, prerogative or despotism denied such a right.” Bancroft refers to the “… subtleties of the royal prerogative, or the learned malevolence.” Malevolence is defined as a vicious ill will.

“But later, with increase in intellectual strength and material stability, the people intrenched[sic] themselves in their rights, and since the magna charta this privilege has been held the dearest of a progressive people. It was a right guarded with vigilant care, and for which intelligent freemen everywhere would fight and die. To America came this sentiment, and was embodied in the constitutions of several states.”

“The victory originally achieved by the people over the government by the establishment of the jury system was the right of participation in the administration of the law. No man might thenceforth be jeopardized in person or property without appeal to his fellows for redress.”

“It was a sign of the increasing purity of political character and growing love of honesty and fair play.”

Bancroft goes on to state that, “When the government and the people were one the victory was complete.”

But with the lesser prairie chicken land grab, there is no jury trial right. We are called to evening meetings to participate in our own centrally planned and controlled impoverishment, the systematic destruction of American exceptionalism, and are allowed only to make ignorable comments about confiscatory administrative regulations that routinely and stubbornly violate ancient state land law, the US Constitution and our human dignity.

Control equals wealth. State/centralized control equals wealth for a tiny few politically well-connected people who can sometimes be referred to as oligarchs. Decentralized control means decentralized wealth, the same system that allowed my family and many millions of others to prosper in America according to our personal industry, luck, decision-making, risk-taking and more. The wealth from decentralized control created the highest per capita income in the world for Americans since the early 1830’s. On the other hand, centralized control of the modes of production, as Karl Marx puts it, is a proven 180 year loser, not to mention some 100 million deaths, subhuman misery and enslavement.

The politically deadly characteristic of the reborn prerogative is that it can contain and disguise and impose any -ism, if you will, on the American people. The prerogative can harbor the cancer of Communism, fascist Nationalism, environmentalism, worship in Gaia, animal liberation, earth liberation and Satan’s attitude of scarcity, just whatever the King wants. And all the -isms except individualism rob us of our God-given rights as set out in the Constitution.

By keeping us under-educated, a nationalized American educational system can serve to keep us too ignorant to learn how to simply say No and to get things turned around. The idea of personal liability imposed on the errant bureaucrat as discussed by Prof. Hamburger is appealing and might be the exact place to start. Especially on those who turned loose the wolves. In my opinion, it is worth a try.

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

*Notice that this volume of Bancroft’s Works was once owned about the 1950’s by a Texas public high school.

HubertBancroft