First of all, they define “radical” libertarianism as “the ideology that holds that individual liberty trumps all other values.” Communism, on the other hand, is defined as the “ideology of extreme state domination of private and economic life.”

While these statements do reflect the real world consequences of these ideologies, the actual definitions of libertarianism and communism concern how each deals with private property.

Libertarianism is based on the idea that individuals own their bodies and their lives. Building upon the ideas of John Locke and others, libertarian property theory states that individuals have a natural right to life, liberty, and property. In a state of society, i.e. one involving other people, this means that no individual has the right to infringe upon another individual’s life, liberty, or rightly gained property without just cause. Libertarians call this “the axiom of non-aggression.”

Communism, on the other hand, is based on the abolition of all private property. It is the antithesis of libertarianism. According to its utopian theorists, communism was supposed to lead to a classless society and the ultimate form of egalitarianism. Unfortunately, the opposite always happens and society is quickly segregated into the rulers and the ruled.

From a purely economic standpoint, the reason that communism collapses is the absence of market prices as explained by Ludwig von Mises in his “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.”

Strangely, Hanauer and Liu do not mention the issue of property when comparing libertarianism and communism.

Nor do they mention that libertarians believe that the State must be held to the same moral standards to which the individual is subject. Not only is it wrong for the individual to steal, commit fraud, and murder, it is wrong for the government to do these things as well.

In other words, a group of individuals–even one calling itself the government–cannot acquire more rights and authorities than each person within the group has as an individual. After all, it would be absurd to say that I have the right to take your car without your permission if only I could persuade enough people to join me. Sure, if this happens, you might still lose your car, but no one is going to argue that I have a right to take it.

When it comes to the State, such common sense evaporates.

The State, by definition, is an organization which claims the legal authority to initiate violence against peaceful individuals. This legal monopoly on coercion is what makes the State unique and not just another corporation. Even a communist like Mao Tse-tung recognized the nature of the State when he said that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Hanauer and Liu never acknowledge this fact in their essay. To them, the State is warm and wonderful: the ultimate expression of societal cooperation. This attitude is pure fantasy. While the State may sometimes aim at noble ends, we must never lose sight of the evils means which it utilizes to achieve these ends.

Thus, while the authors claim that communism and libertarianism are “cousins,” they ignore the moral underpinnings of libertarianism. The entire libertarian philosophy is built upon peace and cooperation by means of the free market. Libertarianism is only “radical” in the etymological sense: the rejection of coercion–whether by the individual or by the government–is the root of the philosophy.

Of course, what really concerns Hanauer and Liu is the government’s control over the economy. They fail to see even the distinction between crony capitalists and true free marketers. Instead Hanauer and Liu lump them all together and slap on the label “nihilist anti-state libertarians.”

Meanwhile, “social libertarians” (folks who call themselves libertarian because they “support same-sex marriage or decry government surveillance”) aren’t a source of worry. Here, Hanauer and Liu misstate the libertarian position on social issues. While all libertarians oppose government surveillance, the issue of same-sex marriage is not so clear-cut precisely because the State is involved. Depending on his religious affiliation or personal beliefs, a libertarian may support or oppose same-sex marriage. What we all agree on is that the State has no business regulating marriage.

Libertarianism, however, cannot be divided into social and economic categories such as “fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.” To libertarians, there is no difference between economic and personal freedom. Without the one, you can’t have the other.

Hanauer and Liu’s smear piece is just the musings of would-be tyrants who think that they should be running things. Despite their warm and fuzzy rhetoric, progressives like Hanauer and Liu want to control your life through top-down programs backed by the implied threat of force.

Libertarians want you to be free to live your life as you wish so long as you extend that right to everyone else.

Which alternative sounds more like communism to you?

The portion of the letter which has received the most attention reads: “During your tenure in the Senate we have no doubt that you voted in a way which you felt was appropriate. Unfortunately, our great nation can no longer afford compromise and bipartisanship, two traits for which you have become famous. America faces serious challenges and needs policymakers who will defend conservative values, not work with those who are actively undermining those values.”

I was the one who suggested this particular passage in the letter.

I never dreamed, however, that the Left would latch onto it with such frenzy. In hindsight, however, this reaction makes perfect sense as compromise is the primary implement in the Left’s toolbox.

Nor did I think that it would be used by Establishment political commentators as an example of the naiveté of those of us who stand on principle. According to them, when it comes to government, you must leave your principles at the door. Governing is for grown-ups; political philosophy is for children.

My, oh, my, aren’t the grown-ups doing such a marvelous job?!

By the way, while the rest of us see politics as Left versus Right, the Establishment sees it as Them (the rightful rulers) versus Us (the unwashed, ignorant masses). See this editorial in the New York Times for evidence of that attitude.

America is lurching from one crisis to the next. Once great cities are going bankrupt. The current economic “recovery” is a tragic parody. Debt keeps piling up. Young people graduate from college with no job prospects, but the albatross of student loan debt around their necks. A record number of people are on food stamps. The underclass is often sentenced to a lifetime of poverty, yet the financial elites keep getting richer. The US–the Land of the Free–has the highest incarceration rate in the world. And it seems that nearly every week a new scandal unfolds in Washington, DC.

Is all of this normal, as the Establishment would have us believe? If not, how did it happen?

I believe that it has happened because too many folks lack guiding principles when it comes to government. As the saying goes, “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” Instead of contemplating political philosophy, we celebrate personality. Instead of admiring integrity, i.e., being true to one’s philosophy, we worship power.

This pragmatic approach to politics means that our only concern is if the trains run on time. We don’t usually think about where the trains are headed.

Our fear that the trains will stop and everything will fall apart has played right into the political class’s hands.

The Left’s strategy of incrementalism and its use of the Hegelian Dialectic has been very effective. The process is simply. The Left stakes out an extreme position. Anyone who disagrees with them is demonized as an “extremist” or an “obstructionist.” Fearing that the train schedule will be disrupted, moderates compromise on their previous position and move to the Left. This new position is the starting point for when the whole process starts again.

Thus, with a few notable exceptions, our vaunted two-party political system is not an oppositional one. It consist of one party which seeks to grow the government at an extreme rate. The other party is simply comfortable growing the government at a slower rate.

Those of us who want to shrink the government are labelled as “out of the mainstream” and relegated to the “fringes” of the political debate.

Isn’t it ironic that in every other facet of our lives except politics, the term “no compromise” means of “the highest quality?”

Despite what the political class would have us believe, compromise is not a virtue. When it comes to our interpersonal relationships, we would never accept a little theft or a small beating. Why is it that we don’t hold the state to this same moral standard? I guess a little bit of deadly poison is okay in some cases.

When it comes to your freedom, compromise does not benefit you. It only benefits the politicians. As Harry Browne once said, ‘whenever politicians talk about “compromise” it always means compromising away our liberties and property.’

Despite the dreadful consequences that taxing the Internet will cause, something that I covered in a previous piece on this website, Congress seems dead set on bringing sales taxes to the Internet. Unfortunately, this effort gained a powerful and respected ally this past week.

In his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Tax Internet Sales, Stimulate Growth, Art Laffer argues in favor of allowing states to force Internet retailers outside their borders to collect sales taxes on their behalf. I must respectfully disagree with Professor Laffer on this issue.

Professor Laffer, one of the fathers of Supply-Side economics, made one of the great contributions to the study of political economics with his introduction of the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve recognizes a basic fact about human behavior: individuals are not automatons absent of free will; we respond to incentives and change our behavior accordingly. Thus, while it is obvious that a zero percent tax rate will result in no tax revenue for the government, a one hundred percent tax rate will also produce no tax revenue. After all, who is going to work when he is prohibited from keeping any of the fruits of his labor?

The application of the Laffer Curve in public policy reveals a fundamental difference between Supply-Side economists and Austrian economists. While Supply-Siders argue for lower taxes, they do so in order to maximize tax revenue. In other words, they believe that the optimal tax rate is the one which produces the most revenue for the government. On the other hand, the Austrian argument for lower taxes has nothing to do with the amount of revenue a tax produces. Austrians recognize that every tax, whether an income tax, a property tax, a sales tax, or what have you, causes its own unique distortions in the market. Leaving aside the moral and private property arguments against taxation, Austrians believe that all taxes must be opposed because taxation is an impediment to optimal market performance.

Despite arguments to the contrary, an Internet sales tax is, de facto, a new tax. Yes, residents who buy goods from out of state Internet retailers currently are required, by law, to report these transactions and pay sales taxes on them. But almost no one does so, and these laws are rarely, if ever, enforced. Hence, while this tax may exist in the law codes of various states, it has yet to significantly appear in the real world. Not only will consumers, especially the middle class, feel the weight of a new tax, we cannot say for certain what its economic impact will be. For instance, the tax boon which studies claim an Internet sales tax will produce has proved grossly inflated in reality. As the Laffer Curve illustrates, individuals respond to incentives. Raise taxes on Internet sales and you are going to reduce the amount of Internet sales.

Professor Laffer claims that if states are allowed to collect sales tax on Internet transactions, they will be able to lower their income tax rates and experience increased economic growth:

“Therefore – as with any pro-growth tax reform – the sales tax base in the states should be broadened by treating Internet retailers similarly to in-state retailers, and the marginal income-tax rate should be reduced such that the total static revenue collected by the state government is held constant.”

While the income tax is the most egregious of all taxes and its reduction would be welcome, the problem with this argument is that the more likely outcome is that state governments will gladly stuff this additional revenue into their coffers without lowering any other taxes. As Professor Laffer himself points out, ”the absence of these [Internet sales tax] revenues has not served to put a lid on state-government spending.” Experience has taught us that nothing puts a lid on government spending. Providing the states with an additional revenue source will not put them on more sound fiscal footing. It will only serve to make their governments that much bigger and more intrusive.

It is true that the current system unfairly punishes brick-and-mortar retailers. However, the solution is not to also punish Internet retailers (and consumers) with an additional tax. Instead, we should work toward reducing or eliminating the taxes to which brick-and-mortar retailers are subject. Isn’t it also unfair that some states impose a higher sales tax rate than other states? Should we then advocate that low-tax states raise their sales tax rates in the name of fairness? Of course not. We all recognize that tax competition between the states is a good thing because it limits the ability of the states to impose exorbitant taxes. Doesn’t the Internet, which is virtually tax-free, represent the ultimate in competition?

There is also a political component to this issue. Despite the arguments of Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), allowing a state to force a retailer in another state to collect taxes on its behalf does not strengthen states’ rights. In fact, the opposite is true. This is an assault on the sovereignty of the states. After all, retailers in California would be forced into the role of tax collectors for Massachusetts and visa-versa. Alexander peppers his argument with references to the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment, but this is the sort of stuff that the Constitution was supposed to prevent, not encourage!

By the way, remember the days when conservatives actually opposed taxation instead of, in the words of Alexander, being added to an “honor roll” when they propose more taxes?

Finally, an Internet sales tax policy is not pro-growth. Yes, imposing sales taxes on Internet retailers may benefit some brick-and-mortar retailers (especially the big box stores), but it will hurt the Internet retailers and all the businesses connected with them. Will the net result be economic growth? Who knows, but what is certain is that some businesses will benefit while others are harmed. We ignore Bastiat’s Broken Window at our own peril.

The best way to encourage economic growth is to eliminate as many taxes as possible and to lower the rates of those that remain. Allowing the states to impose sales taxes on the Internet is a step in the wrong direction.

The Internet is currently our best example of the free market at work. Since the government has not been able to capture the Internet under its thumb, the Net illustrates how well the market really functions when the government stays out of the way.

But have no fear. Control freak politicians never rest, and a few of the more dedicated ones are working relentlessly to slap chains on the world’s most unfettered market. Of course, no exercise in the destruction of free markets would be complete without a rhetorical flourish of socialism’s ostensible raison d’etre: fairness. Yes, something must be done to stop the free flow of information and commerce that is the Internet because it’s not FAIR.

The Marketplace Fairness Act is being pushed by three US senators, Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, and Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican. What is the injustice that the Marketplace Fairness Act addresses? Under current US law, states are prohibited from forcing Internet retailers who have no physical presence within their borders to collect sales tax on Internet transactions. This policy gives Internet retailers an advantage over traditional brick-and-mortar retailers who must tack, in some cases, up to 10% onto transactions due to sales tax.

While it is obvious that on-line retailers do have a tax advantage in this particular area, politicians sure have a perverted sense of “fairness.” After all, taxes are a creation of the government. Not all states impose sales taxes and sales tax rates vary among the states and sometimes even on different items within a particular state. So this has nothing to do with the market, but everything to do with government interventions in the market. If politicians were truly interested in fairness, they would eliminate coercive taxation from the marketplace altogether. Granted, US Senators have no power over state sales taxes (yet), but the Marketplace Fairness Act would make these taxes that much more inescapable. For Durbin, Enzi, and Alexander, the definition of fairness means that the iron fist of the government should crush all of us equally.

By giving state governments the power to tax Internet retailers, the Marketplace Fairness Act further undermines our already moribund system of federalism. One of the key components of federalism is competition between the states. The idea is that the better the state, the more attractive it will be to individuals and businesses. Folks have the ability to “vote with their feet” for the system of government and level of freedom that they prefer. Conceivably, if on-line retailers were capturing sales from brick-and-mortar retailers due to sales taxes, the brick-and-mortar retailers would pressure local officials to lower their tax rates to allow them to be more competitive or, if possible, move to states with lower tax rates. We see this happening all the time when consumers go across state lines to buy products that are cheaper in an adjacent state due to lower taxes there. The Internet represents another competitor for state governments in regard to commerce and taxes. Unfortunately, if there is one thing politicians won’t tolerate, it’s competition.

At the state level, the effort to tax Internet commerce is being led by Alexander’s fellow Volunteer, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam. Haslam claims that the state of Tennessee is losing between $300 and $500 million a year on untaxed Internet sales. Haslam says, “it’s not going to begin eroding the state’s tax base; it already is. Something has to happen nationally…It has to be addressed on a national level or we’re going to keep playing these kinds of move-around games.” What’s next, Governor Haslam? Would you support restrictions on individuals and businesses physically moving from higher tax jurisdictions such as California to lower tax jurisdictions such as Tennessee? Isn’t that a “move-around game” as well?

In addition, Haslam’s estimate of $300 to $500 million in lost tax revenue is problematic. If folks are forced to pay more for their purchases on the Internet, they will have less money to spend on other purchases. This means that they might not buy as much. Thus, tax revenues may drop in other areas. While tax-and-spend politicians like Haslam are always looking for ways to tighten the onerous net of taxation, they ignore the reality that the more burdensome the tax load becomes the less money they actually collect. Meanwhile, higher taxes further stifle and suffocate the economy. As the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises said, “capitalism breathes through those [tax] loopholes”.

Likewise, many brick-and-mortar retailers may be surprised to find that taxing their Internet counterparts may not necessarily result in increased sales in their own stores. Again, higher taxes mean that consumers have less money to spend on other items. In some instances, consumers will pay higher prices for certain items, in other cases they will simply do without, wait for bargains, etc. Thus, higher revenues for all brick-and-mortar stores are not a guaranteed outcome of the Marketplace Fairness Act. Brick-and-mortar retailers should also realize that the Internet offers consumers more convenience and more choices than traditional shopping does. Put simply, the game has changed, and this controversy about taxes is just one aspect of this evolution.

Advocating higher taxes, even on your competition, ends up hurting everyone. But the people that are hurt the most are consumers, everyday working families. The Marketplace Fairness Act will end up forcing consumers to pay higher prices for the goods they desire. It will limit consumer choice. As with all tax programs, it will transfer resources from the productive sector of the economy to the parasitic sector, thereby inhibiting capital formation and investment. It will put shackles on one of the economy’s fastest growing sectors, Internet commerce.

As the debt crisis caused by the spendthrift Congress intensifies, Congress will look for more ways to extract tax dollars from Americans. The Marketplace Fairness Act is particularly terrifying because Congress is insinuating itself into an area that has traditionally been left to state governments. Will a national retail sales tax be next? What about a value added tax? Or a “wealth” (property) tax? The Marketplace Fairness Act may be the camel pushing its nose under our tent.

Don’t be fooled by its title, the Marketplace Fairness Act is anything but fair.

But have no fear. Control freak politicians never rest, and a few of the more dedicated ones are working relentlessly to slap chains on the world's most unfettered market. Of course, no exercise in the destruction of free markets would be complete without a rhetorical flourish of socialism's ostensible raison d'etre: fairness. Yes, something must be done to stop the free flow of information and commerce that is the Internet because it's not FAIR.

The Marketplace Fairness Act is being pushed by three US senators, Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, and Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican. What is the injustice that the Marketplace Fairness Act addresses? Under current US law, states are prohibited from forcing Internet retailers who have no physical presence within their borders to collect sales tax on Internet transactions. This policy gives Internet retailers an advantage over traditional brick-and-mortar retailers who must tack, in some cases, up to 10% onto transactions due to sales tax.

While it is obvious that on-line retailers do have a tax advantage in this particular area, politicians sure have a perverted sense of "fairness." After all, taxes are a creation of the government. Not all states impose sales taxes and sales tax rates vary among the states and sometimes even on different items within a particular state. So this has nothing to do with the market, but everything to do with government interventions in the market. If politicians were truly interested in fairness, they would eliminate coercive taxation from the marketplace altogether. Granted, US Senators have no power over state sales taxes (yet), but the Marketplace Fairness Act would make these taxes that much more inescapable. For Durbin, Enzi, and Alexander, the definition of fairness means that the iron fist of the government should crush all of us equally.

By giving state governments the power to tax Internet retailers, the Marketplace Fairness Act further undermines our already moribund system of federalism. One of the key components of federalism is competition between the states. The idea is that the better the state, the more attractive it will be to individuals and businesses. Folks have the ability to "vote with their feet" for the system of government and level of freedom that they prefer. Conceivably, if on-line retailers were capturing sales from brick-and-mortar retailers due to sales taxes, the brick-and-mortar retailers would pressure local officials to lower their tax rates to allow them to be more competitive or, if possible, move to states with lower tax rates. We see this happening all the time when consumers go across state lines to buy products that are cheaper in an adjacent state due to lower taxes there. The Internet represents another competitor for state governments in regard to commerce and taxes. Unfortunately, if there is one thing politicians won't tolerate, it's competition.

At the state level, the effort to tax Internet commerce is being led by Alexander's fellow Volunteer, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam. Haslam claims that the state of Tennessee is losing between $300 and $500 million a year on untaxed Internet sales. Haslam says, “it’s not going to begin eroding the state’s tax base; it already is. Something has to happen nationally…It has to be addressed on a national level or we’re going to keep playing these kinds of move-around games.” What's next, Governor Haslam? Would you support restrictions on individuals and businesses physically moving from higher tax jurisdictions such as California to lower tax jurisdictions such as Tennessee? Isn't that a "move-around game" as well?

In addition, Haslam's estimate of $300 to $500 million in lost tax revenue is problematic. If folks are forced to pay more for their purchases on the Internet, they will have less money to spend on other purchases. This means that they might not buy as much. Thus, tax revenues may drop in other areas. While tax-and-spend politicians like Haslam are always looking for ways to tighten the onerous net of taxation, they ignore the reality that the more burdensome the tax load becomes the less money they actually collect. Meanwhile, higher taxes further stifle and suffocate the economy. As the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises said, "capitalism breathes through those [tax] loopholes".

Likewise, many brick-and-mortar retailers may be surprised to find that taxing their Internet counterparts may not necessarily result in increased sales in their own stores. Again, higher taxes mean that consumers have less money to spend on other items. In some instances, consumers will pay higher prices for certain items, in other cases they will simply do without, wait for bargains, etc. Thus, higher revenues for all brick-and-mortar stores are not a guaranteed outcome of the Marketplace Fairness Act. Brick-and-mortar retailers should also realize that the Internet offers consumers more convenience and more choices than traditional shopping does. Put simply, the game has changed, and this controversy about taxes is just one aspect of this evolution.

Advocating higher taxes, even on your competition, ends up hurting everyone. But the people that are hurt the most are consumers, everyday working families. The Marketplace Fairness Act will end up forcing consumers to pay higher prices for the goods they desire. It will limit consumer choice. As with all tax programs, it will transfer resources from the productive sector of the economy to the parasitic sector, thereby inhibiting capital formation and investment. It will put shackles on one of the economy's fastest growing sectors, Internet commerce.

As the debt crisis caused by the spendthrift Congress intensifies, Congress will look for more ways to extract tax dollars from Americans. The Marketplace Fairness Act is particularly terrifying because Congress is insinuating itself into an area that has traditionally been left to state governments. Will a national retail sales tax be next? What about a value added tax? Or a "wealth" (property) tax? The Marketplace Fairness Act may be the camel pushing its nose under our tent. 

Don't be fooled by its title, the Marketplace Fairness Act is anything but fair.

Glenn Jacobs [send him mail] is the actor and wrestler Kane. Visit his blog.

The Best of Glenn Jacobs

Dear Senator Graham:

In response to Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster protesting John Brennan’s nomination as head of the CIA, you commented that “this idea that we’re going to use a drone to attack a citizen in a cafe in America is ridiculous.”

Although I don’t speak for Senator Paul, I do not think that he actually believes that there will be drone attacks on US citizens tomorrow, next week, next month, and so forth. What he was protesting is Attorney General Eric Holder’s position that the federal government does indeed claim the authority to carry out such attacks, albeit, in “extraordinary circumstances” or “emergencies.” In other words, Senator Paul was protesting the idea that drone attacks can be utilized against citizens in America.

Unfortunately, history shows that government programs almost never remain within the constraints under which they are first proposed. For instance, the Patriot Act was written ostensibly to give the federal government more tools to fight terrorism. Within a few years of its implementation,however, surveillance powers which the Patriot Act granted the FBI were used to obtain evidence in a cockfighting case in Tennessee. While animal cruelty is abhorrent, I think we can all agree that it is not a threat to national security. Likewise, RICO laws, originally aimed at organized crime, have been used to prosecute everyone from pro-life activists to junk bond dealers. Or look at federal income tax rates which, in 1913, were 1% on incomes up to $20,000 (a sizable income back then) all the way up to 7% on incomes over $500,000. Of course, today these rates are multiples higher.

The fact is that government programs always expand. Giving the government the authority to do something nearly always results in politicians and bureaucrats looking for more ways and more circumstances in which that power can be used. So we should take very little comfort in AG Holder’s postulate that drone attacks would only be used in “extraordinary circumstances.” We may quickly find that these extraordinary circumstances become much less extraordinary than we previously imagined.

I would also remind you, sir, that the United States Constitution is not a set of guidelines or suggestions. It is the supreme law of the land, a document that both you and AG Holder swore to uphold. It is clear that AG Holder’s position concerning the use of drones to assassinate a US citizen in America is unconstitutional and illegal. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

You will notice that the Fifth Amendment does not contain the caveat: “except in extraordinary circumstances or emergencies.”

While some have framed the argument to be between one of liberty and security, that fact is that without liberty there is no security because we are all at the mercy of an authoritarian state. In other words, when it comes to our liberties, when we begin to make exceptions to the rule, these exceptions become the rule.

In response to Senator Paul’s efforts, AG Holder and the White House now claim that the President does not have the authority to “use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil.” Unfortunately, in the words of Senator Paul, it took “a month and a half and a root canal” to get this answer. Of course, it appears that the question of whether weaponized drones could be deployed in America at all is still at the President’s discretion, so the slipper slope remains. As we have seen with the evolution of the federal government’s definition of “terrorism,” it is not hard to envision a scenario in which the government claims that certain acts, cyberwarfare for instance, are forms of “passive combat.”

In any case, Senator Paul’s filibuster was anything but ridiculous. The only thing ridiculous about this situation is that such an act of outright tyranny, assassinating an American on American soil, would even be the subject of a political debate.

In response to Senator Rand Paul's filibuster protesting John Brennan's nomination as head of the CIA, you commented that "this idea that we're going to use a drone to attack a citizen in a cafe in America is ridiculous."

Although I don't speak for Senator Paul, I do not think that he actually believes that there will be drone attacks on US citizens tomorrow, next week, next month, and so forth. What he was protesting is Attorney General Eric Holder's position that the federal government does indeed claim the authority to carry out such attacks, albeit, in "extraordinary circumstances" or "emergencies." In other words, Senator Paul was protesting the idea that drone attacks can be utilized against citizens in America.

Unfortunately, history shows that government programs almost never remain within the constraints under which they are first proposed. For instance, the Patriot Act was written ostensibly to give the federal government more tools to fight terrorism. Within a few years of its implementation,however, surveillance powers which the Patriot Act granted the FBI were used to obtain evidence in a cockfighting case in Tennessee. While animal cruelty is abhorrent, I think we can all agree that it is not a threat to national security. Likewise, RICO laws, originally aimed at organized crime, have been used to prosecute everyone from pro-life activists to junk bond dealers. Or look at federal income tax rates which, in 1913, were 1% on incomes up to $20,000 (a sizable income back then) all the way up to 7% on incomes over $500,000. Of course, today these rates are multiples higher.

The fact is that government programs always expand. Giving the government the authority to do something nearly always results in politicians and bureaucrats looking for more ways and more circumstances in which that power can be used. So we should take very little comfort in AG Holder's postulate that drone attacks would only be used in "extraordinary circumstances." We may quickly find that these extraordinary circumstances become much less extraordinary than we previously imagined.

I would also remind you, sir, that the United States Constitution is not a set of guidelines or suggestions. It is the supreme law of the land, a document that both you and AG Holder swore to uphold. It is clear that AG Holder's position concerning the use of drones to assassinate a US citizen in America is unconstitutional and illegal. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

You will notice that the Fifth Amendment does not contain the caveat: "except in extraordinary circumstances or emergencies."

While some have framed the argument to be between one of liberty and security, that fact is that without liberty there is no security because we are all at the mercy of an authoritarian state. In other words, when it comes to our liberties, when we begin to make exceptions to the rule, these exceptions become the rule.

In response to Senator Paul's efforts, AG Holder and the White House now claim that the President does not have the authority to u201Cuse a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil.u201D Unfortunately, in the words of Senator Paul, it took u201Ca month and a half and a root canalu201D to get this answer. Of course, it appears that the question of whether weaponized drones could be deployed in America at all is still at the President's discretion, so the slippery slope remains. As we have seen with the evolution of the federal government's definition of u201Cterrorism,u201D it is not hard to envision a scenario in which the government claims that certain acts, cyberwarfare for instance, are forms of u201Cpassive combat.u201D

In any case, Senator Paul's filibuster was anything but ridiculous. The only thing ridiculous about this situation is that such an act of outright tyranny, assassinating an American on American soil, would even be the subject of a political debate.

Glenn Jacobs [send him mail] is the actor and wrestler Kane. Visit his blog.

The Best of Glenn Jacobs

Isn’t it ironic that even after history has proven his theories wrong, dangerous, and potentially suicidal, Karl Marx still influences so much of contemporary economic thought?

The idea that businessmen exploit their workers is straight out of Marx’s theory of economics. According to Marx, the relationship between business and labor is one of conflict and exploitation on the part of capitalists. To be fair, Marx was reacting to the crony capitalism of his day. Many businessmen did indeed owe their position to favors from the state, and, unfortunately, this system is alive and well today. However, where Marx identified the business owners as unjust exploiters and framed his analysis of class as one of conflict between the workers and the owners of the means of production, libertarians recognize that it is the state which is the culprit. Our class analysis delves not into the conflict between economic classes, but between political classes, i.e. those who possess political power and those who are subject to that power. In reality, there is no conflict between economic classes at all. In fact, the relationship between business and labor is, or at least in a real free market would be, harmonious.

First, let us dispense with the idea that business owners are the only ones who own the means of production. Every individual owns his labor which is the ultimate source of all production. So all of us are owners of a means of production in this manner. Of course, the difference between a capitalist and an ordinary worker is that the capitalist has accumulated resources and wealth — capital — in order to greatly enhance his ability to produce. In most cases, this includes the ability to buy the productivity of other individuals. In other words, buying their labor.

Marxist exploitation theory places workers at the complete mercy of business, but just as businesses must compete against one another to attract consumer dollars, they must also compete against one another to attract workers. Hence, the idea that workers must accept whatever terms they are offered is a fallacy. Reduced to it logical conclusion, this fallacy means that business would be able to drive the wage rate down to zero. Marx’s theory ignores the market mechanism which actually determines the going wage rate: workers competing for jobs drives wages (and total compensation) down; businesses competing for labor drives wages up. The market wage rate is the point at which these two opposing forces intersect.

Since all of us own our labor — our own personal means of production — we must agree to sell it. Forcing us to sell our labor against our wishes is an act of aggression and therefore a crime, either forced servitude or slavery. If the decision to sell our labor, on the other hand, is voluntary and consensual, and if there is no fraud involved, how can this agreement be called "exploitation?"

How can one side take advantage of the other when both sides enter the agreement believing it will improve their condition? This action, and all such actions on the free market, are positive sum; both sides expect to benefit.

Sure, sometimes the alternatives from which to chose are not all that attractive and sometimes our circumstances may move us to do something that we would not do if things were different. For instance, if an eBay user is in need of money and decides to sell his laptop computer for $1000, but he accepts my offer of $800, have I exploited the seller? Of course not. While the seller may have wanted the extra $200, he still valued the $800 more than his laptop so he made the trade. If this was not the case, he could have rejected my offer and took his chances on a better one. Should the government step in and mandate a minimum price for laptop computers on eBay? Well, if that were to happen and the price were set above $800, neither I nor the seller would be happy as the trade to which we both agreed would have been prohibited.

Since our decisions are made based on incomplete and imperfect information sometimes our choices turn out badly; sometimes our short-term desires and what is good for us in the long-term conflict; and sometimes one side does benefit more than the other. But is this "exploitation?" Or is it the result of human action in a world of uncertainty?

The problem comes when we try to apply the concept of "fairness" to decisions ex post, i.e. after the decision has been made and the action taken. Unless force or fraud is involved, when two parties enter into an agreement both parties accept the terms of that agreement including the outcomes which is something they cannot know ex ante. How then is this not fair?

Well, it is, unless one is interested in using the power of the state to impose a better outcome for one side of the trade which will necessarily come at the expense of the other side or a third party, generally tax-payers.

Businesses will use the state to limit competition through regulation and licensing, resulting in a smaller pool of employers with whom the worker can negotiate to sell his labor. This process also erects prohibitory obstacles to the worker if he decides to compete with his company by going into the business himself as regulations raise the cost of doing business, while licensing bars him from entering the field all together. Businesses will also appeal to the state for subsidies paid with tax-payer funds. While this may benefit the worker in his role as an employee of the company since he may receive part of the subsidy, it harms him as a consumer because subsidies are used by inefficient companies to compete with more efficient companies, thus raising the price of products higher than they would otherwise be in a free market.

Likewise, the state forces companies to provide certain benefits for workers. The company may be required to provide a certain level of compensation, health insurance, and family and medical leave; the company also has to pay taxes on behalf of the workers for government programs such as unemployment programs, Social Security, and disability insurance. In a free market, some companies may provide some or all of these programs as an enticement to attract and keep the best workers (a process that still occurs to some extent). Others may not. Market forces would decide what package of benefits was the most desirable and cost-effective for each particular company and worker. Instead, it is political forces that decide these things, and the consumer again loses because prices are higher than they would probably otherwise be.

And what about the workers who would rather receive higher monetary compensation in lieu of benefits? Like all government policies, one-size-fits-all standards benefit some folks while harming others. No one is free to makes choices for himself based on his own situation. In the market, on the other hand, everyone is free to seek out what best fits him.

When the state becomes involved in deciding what is "fair," the result is that everyone seeks to unjustly take advantage of everyone else, to exploit everyone else. We all seek to control the state so that we can impose our vision of fairness on whoever disagrees with us. While the state guarantees conflict, the market promotes harmony.

So the next time you hear someone scream "exploitation," ask yourself if this is really the case or is it just a cry for the state to impose one party’s idea of what is fair onto another party?

And keep in mind that even after it has proven itself an utter failure, Marxist economic theory is still alive and well.

Glenn Jacobs [send him mail] is the actor and wrestler Kane. Visit his blog.

The Best of Glenn Jacobs

One of the problems that libertarians encounter when discussing various issues is determining ownership, or, in many cases, articulating the nuances of applying property rights to the issue. These problems are compounded when government is thrown into the equation since the same rules about property and ownership that apply to private individuals do not apply to coercive government. The hot-button issue of immigration is a great example, illustrating the complexities involved in applying property rights to an issue.

Ownership means that one not only possess something, but one also controls the thing. In other words, if you truly own something, you must be free to use the thing as you wish so long as doing so does not violate the property of others. You must also be free to transfer the thing to another person so long as the transaction is voluntary and consensual. When it comes to land, property rights, i.e. control over that land, include controlling who enters into the boundaries of the land.

When dealing with the topic of immigration, that is, the movement of individuals across political designations, this is where things get confusing. The State claims not only to be able to control who crosses the land that it owns, but also to control who enters land owned by private individuals. It also claims the authority to prohibit certain individuals from living within its borders, even if these individuals acquired their land rightfully (using the criteria above) by homesteading or through voluntary exchange. Those of us who believe that private property is the basis of a free society must ask: how was this authority engendered?

If we continue along this line of thinking, the logical conclusion must be that the State owned all the land within its borders a priori since it is the government which sets the conditions for how that land may be used, and to whom it may be transferred in the future. The State continues to retain a high degree of control since the government has the ultimate authority to make the rules for all property, even property now in private hands.*

To the libertarian, or anyone who believes in the sanctity of property rights, these conclusions are quite troubling. When it comes to land ownership in America, property rights are not at all secure; they are not really rights at all, but government granted privileges.

While our system of property rights is already imperfect, the current immigration policy leads to even greater infringements on these rights. For example, if one owns property on or near the border, the government may claim the authority to build a fence or a wall on one’s property, and government agents may come and go as they please without the property owner’s permission.

These problems remain even if we move away from the border. For example, if the government suspects that I am employing undocumented workers, it claims the authority to raid my business — to enter my property without my permission — with armed agents.

If one truly owns one’s property, how is it that the government can control who is allowed on this property in opposition to the wishes of the property owner? In other words, why should my friend from Mexico beg for permission to enter the country in order to have dinner with me? Shouldn’t free people be able to associate or not associate with whomever they wish so long as those interactions are voluntary, consensual, and do not harm a third party?

The same is true of economic activities. So long as commercial activities are voluntary, consensual, and do not encroach upon other individuals or their property, what is the justification for the government prohibiting these activities or associations?

In the contemporary world of immigration politics, property rights and the freedom of association are trumped by the omnipotent State. Is the State some sort of god before whom we must plead to recognize us as "official" persons? After all, that is the crux of the immigration question — must the individuals coming to America have the sanction of the State? As the State continues to lose legitimacy in the eyes of so many in the liberty movement, one wonders why many of these same folks still demand that individuals who peacefully come to this country seek the State’s approval above all else. After all, it is the State that determines who is "legal" and "illegal."

Now one may argue that despite all this, illegal immigration is a crime and as such must be punished. The question is, who is the victim of this crime? So long as the immigrant has not harmed another individual or violated another individual’s property, who has suffered injury? Just like so many other "crimes," this activity is a crime against the State, and should fall into the category of victimless crime. While such activity may violate State edicts, it can hardly be considered a crime in the sense that no individual was harmed by the activity.

When dealing with laws restricting the movement of human beings, we should keep in mind Thomas Paine’s prophetic observation: "he that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Demanding that the government "do something" about illegal immigration will result in bigger, more intrusive government and less freedom for all of us.

Already efforts ostensibly aimed at illegal immigration undermine the ability of Americans to travel freely in our own country. In the Southwest, the Border Patrol has built permanent checkpoints well inside the United States, located along major travel routes like I-35. All travelers must exit the freeway and be processed by ICE agents, including questioning and possible searches. Since federal agents operating in this geographic area are not constrained by the probable cause standard of the Fourth Amendment, there is no protection against arbitrary searches and seizures even for American citizens. This fact has prompted the ACLU to declare the areas within 100 miles of America’s borders as "Constitution Free Zones."

In addition, in some of the airports in this area including Laredo, TX and Tucson, AZ, travelers are subject not only to the indignities of TSA searches but also questioning by ICE agents about their citizenship.

To believe that a government program targeting a specific group of people will not affect everyone in general is nave and contrary to history. If nothing else, the government faces the problem of determining if an individual belongs to the target group. No one, not even a government agent, has the magical ability to determine one’s nationality simply by looking at him. For example, during the 1950s an aunt of mine, a third generation American, was denied service at a restaurant in New Mexico because she was dark complected and, despite her French and German ancestry, it was assumed that she was a Mexican. If someone has dark skin and Hispanic features, are we automatically to assume that he is an illegal alien? Likewise, what about light-skinned folks who may be here illegally? Will they simply fall through the cracks?

For these reasons, the government will demand to know the legal status of everyone. In other words, it will not be up to the government to prove that one is here illegally. It will be up to you to prove otherwise. That is why Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham are proposing a biometric national ID card for all Americans. You see, the government has a compelling need to know who you are, to put your information into another database, and to determine if you are "eligible" to work here. De facto work permits for Americans in America?! Nice. I’m sure it would never cross the mind of any politician to turn off the work permits of his political enemies.

The answer to the immigration debate is the same as it is to all other issues — more freedom, not more government. Instead of asking the government to crack down on immigration, we should recognize that it is government programs and interventions that are the problem and demand that the government cease these activities.

Unfortunately, while recognizing the problems that government causes in so many other areas, many folks, especially conservatives, apply a double-standard when it comes to immigration. For example, while conservatives rightly blasted ObamaCare pointing out that it will result in the nationalization of the health care system, these same people lament how immigrants are destroying "our" hospitals. They are not "our" hospitals; they are, or at least should be, private businesses which should be able to exclude anyone from receiving their services, but are restricted from doing so by government edict. Likewise, we hear that immigrants are overwhelming the public education system, yet conservative icon Ronald Reagan advocated disbanding the Department of Education and, at a federal level anyway, getting the government out of the education business.

Finally, we have social welfare. It is the existence of government welfare programs that are much of the problem, attracting people to this country who wish to live off the labor of others. Eliminate these programs and you eliminate this problem.

When you empower the government to do something, the government often ends up using these powers in ways that you do not foresee or intend. And it may end up using these powers against you. In the preface to her novel Anthem, Ayn Rand lambasted socialists for not recognizing or taking responsibility for the consequences of the policies that they advocated, u2018they expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps to escape the moral responsibility by wailing: "But I didn’t mean this!"’

As the United States continues its war on immigration, the government is building the infrastructure for a police state — internal checkpoints, national ID cards, work permits. When we wake up in that police state, will the anti-immigration crowd cry: "But I didn’t mean this!"

*Unfortunately, there is much truth to these statements since land titles in the United States are based on a relic of the feudal system, fee simple, meaning that while one can have an "interest" in one’s land, the land is actually owned by the government, i.e. the government has dominium eminens or supreme lordship.

Glenn Jacobs [send him mail] is the actor and wrestler Kane. Visit his blog.

The Best of Glenn Jacobs

Unfortunately, it was the convoluted logic of the LTV that led President Obama to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on January 29. The Ledbetter Act changes the statutory limitations period to sue an employer from 180 days from the date on which the employee’s pay was agreed on to 180 days from the issue of each new “discriminatory” paycheck.

To better understand the implications of the laws prohibiting discriminatory pay, let us examine the nature of the relationship between an employer and an employee.

Despite rhetoric to the contrary, jobs are not the property of the employee. Unions will state that the positions which they hold are “their jobs”; protectionist anti—free-traders will claim that immigrants are stealing “American jobs.” The fact is that the job is the property of the employer. There is a very simple way to logically prove this fact. If an employee worked for a single individual and that individual died would the employee still receive remuneration? Would the employee still have a job? Of course not; the job has died with the employer. But if, on the other hand, the employee died, the job would still exist.

Employment is a contract between an employer and an employee. Thus, laws prohibiting discriminatory pay are an infringement on private contracts. Laws that infringe contracts are a violation of the U.S. Constitution: the Ninth Amendment states that rights not enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, such as freedom of contract, are still retained by the people, and Article I, Section 10, prohibits state governments from “impairing the obligation of contracts.”

Freedom of contract — the ability of individuals to bargain freely without government interference — is the bedrock of a free-market economy and was a fundamental part of American legal doctrine until the late 1930s. In Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923), the Supreme Court rejected federally mandated minimum-wage laws as a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, under pressure from President Roosevelt, reversed course in 1937 in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish in which it overturned Adkins.

Another common misconception about employment is that the employer is buying the employee’s labor. However, the employer is not buying the employee’s labor per se; he is buying the employee’s productive ability. In general, the goal of a businessman is to maximize production while minimizing cost, thereby maximizing revenue and profits. That is the reason that machines have replaced so much of human labor; machines are more productive, cost less, and free up people to do jobs that machines cannot do. Thus, discrepancies in pay are not always due to discrimination, but to the perception, real or otherwise, that one employee is more productive than another.

The unintended consequence of the laws prohibiting discriminatory pay is that they, like minimum-wage laws, will harm the people that they are intended to help. In a free society, individuals enter into contracts of their own accord with the assumption that the contract will benefit them. Government interference in private contracts prevents this process from taking place, hindering the individual’s ability to improve his standard of living and usurping control over his life.

By mandating equal pay, the government erases the competitive advantage of those people who are willing to take less pay. In addition, employers are less willing to hire employees who they believe could subject them to increased liability. Thus, instead of equalizing pay between men and women, the Ledbetter Act will lead to higher unemployment rates among women.

The Ledbetter Act is aimed at equality. But individuals are not equal. We all have different talents, resources, interests, abilities, educations, and backgrounds. In a free market, individual persons can find the niche in which they can exploit their talents to mold their lives in the way that they wish. Far from encouraging discrimination, the free market leads to social harmony as people view each other not as members of disparate groups with hostile intentions, but instead as individuals providing products and services that improve one another’s lives.

Far from being a panacea that promotes fairness and prohibits discrimination, the Ledbetter Act and laws like it promote resentment and social strife and undermine individual liberty. Most ominously, they are a recipe for government oppression. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek said, “A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.”

Glenn Jacobs [send him mail] is the actor and wrestler Kane. Visit his blog.

The Best of Glenn Jacobs

Me: "Congressman Frank (handshake), why are you holding H.R. 1207 in committee?"

Frank: "What is 1207?"

Me: "Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Fed."

Frank: "Oh, yeah. Ron and I have talked about that. We are going to attach it to a comprehensive monetary Fed bill."

Me: "But you’re not going to water it down, right?"

Frank: "No, we don’t want people to trade off of what the Fed is doing so we don’t want it released the same day."

Me: "Cause the American people deserve to know what the Fed is doing?"

Frank: "That’s what I just said. You come up to me and you’ve got a chip on your shoulder. And I don’t understand it!" Turns and walks away.

(Frank’s statement that he "doesn’t want people to trade off what the Fed is doing" is absurd. An audit takes place after an action. Even releasing it the same day wouldn’t matter as one would need foreknowledge to take advantage of the Fed’s actions in the way Frank is talking about. Besides, the Fed already publishes press releases, policy statements, speeches, etc. In addition, how perverted is it that every investment decision is subject to the actions of a small group of central planners?)

Now, to be fair, I should have introduced myself to Congressman Frank and thanked him for some really great piece of legislation he had introduced — except that as a libertarian, I couldn’t think of anything worthwhile to thank him for — but I was excited and wanted to catch him before he boarded his plane (he was flying to Reagan, one gate down from mine). However, I was pleasant, courteous, and respectful during the entire encounter and would have gladly thanked him for his time given the chance. Instead Congressman Frank stormed off like a petulant child.

I guess when it comes to politicians and their constituents (read employees and their bosses) courtesy and respect are a one-way street.

Glenn Jacobs is the actor and wrestler Kane. Visit his blog.

The Best of Glenn Jacobs

Like you, I read LRC every morning, but in my bad dream I turned on my computer only to find a 404 page-not-found error. LewRockwell.com was no longer on the air.

I immediately wondered: what the heck is going to happen to all of us who depend on LRC? One lady said it kept her out of a padded room. A college student wrote that this site helped him refute liberal professors. A businessman said it taught him all he needed to know about the nature of government.

As for me, well, I feel like I have a virtual degree in Murray Rothbard studies.

Of course, if insults and smears were physical blows, Lew Rockwell would be in a body cast. But you know what? He’d still be hobbling along, smiting the enemy, unstoppable.

Thank goodness he’s that way, for all our sakes. Thank goodness the neocons and all the other statists don’t faze him. Thank goodness he finds joy in the battle. And thank goodness he’s a great editor. There is a reason that LRC is the best-read libertarian site in the world, and ranked 11 of the 100 most important political sites in America.

Basically, as one young lady wrote, "LewRockwell.com rocks." Of course, politicians don’t like it. Except Ron Paul, who calls LRC his "favorite site in the whole world, and the first one I read every morning."

The old media can’t stand LRC. Where, they want to know, as Hillary put it, are the regime’s "gatekeepers"? They are locked out of LRC. That’s why lovers of government coercion — neo, fasco, Marxo, and all the rest — despise LRC (while secretly reading it, of course).

Their animus is a medal on Lew’s chest. But medals won’t pay the bills, and if the LRC bank account were a gasoline gauge, the needle would be nearing the big E.

So far there is no "404" notice, and may there never be! But there is some good news that slightly worries me. With few resources, Lew wants to expand LRC. He wants to make it more like a daily libertarian newspaper for the 21st century, covering culture and sports as well as economics, history, politics, and everything.

First, however, Lew wants to add comments to the blogs and articles, which readers have been clamoring for. But it’s expensive if done right. We have to make sure that our anti-spam software is the best, since spam can knock a site off the air by itself. And we must have moderators to make sure that the comments are civil and intelligent. Why? Because Lew is a lightning rod.

For a guy dedicated to social cooperation and international peace, to freedom and non-violence, to private property and sound money, to our libertarian heritage and our great heroes, Lew sure has a lot of opponents. There are the freedom haters. But the regime pays well, in fact and in prospect. Others will offer their souls to the state because it seems cool, and so uncool to be a dissident in fascist times.

But there are many of us who love this site, and who think it’s essential to the cause of liberty, here and all around the world, and we love liberty. Not only must LRC survive in that cause, it must thrive. My dream: to see it challenge the very top sites in news and opinion. It is possible.

But first LRC must survive. Please help me make sure it does. Help me make sure that LRC grows and influences many, many thousands more for freedom. Make a generous donation to LRC. Go here to give.

Help me keep LRC going and growing. There must be no popping of champagne corks on Capitol Hill or in any other place where "the gang of thieves writ large," as Murray put it, meets to rip us off.

Help me keep the LRC dream alive.

Glenn Jacobs is the actor and wrestler Kane. Visit his blog.

The Best of Glenn Jacobs

It was a nightmare.

Like you, I
read LRC every morning, but in my bad dream I turned on my computer
only to find a 404 page-not-found error. LewRockwell.com was no
longer on the air.

I immediately
wondered: what the heck is going to happen to all of us who depend
on LRC? One lady said it kept her out of a padded room. A college
student wrote that this site helped him refute liberal professors.
A businessman said it taught him all he needed to know about the
nature of government.

As for me,
well, I feel like I have a virtual degree in Murray Rothbard studies.

Of course,
if insults and smears were physical blows, Lew Rockwell would be
in a body cast. But you know what? He'd still be hobbling along,
smiting the enemy, unstoppable.

Thank goodness
he's that way, for all our sakes. Thank goodness the neocons and
all the other statists don't faze him. Thank goodness he finds joy
in the battle. And thank goodness he's a great editor. There is
a reason that LRC is the best-read libertarian site in the world,
and ranked 11 of the 100 most important political sites in America.

Basically,
as one young lady wrote, "LewRockwell.com rocks." Of course,
politicians don't like it. Except Ron Paul, who calls LRC his "favorite
site in the whole world, and the first one I read every morning."

The old media
can't stand LRC. Where, they want to know, as Hillary put it, are
the regime's "gatekeepers"? They are locked out of LRC.
That's why lovers of government coercion – neo, fasco, Marxo,
and all the rest – despise LRC (while secretly reading it,
of course).

Their animus
is a medal on Lew's chest. But medals won't pay the bills, and if
the LRC bank account were a gasoline gauge, the needle would be
nearing the big E.

So far there
is no "404" notice, and may there never be! But there
is some good news that slightly worries me. With few resources,
Lew wants to expand LRC. He wants to make it more like a daily libertarian
newspaper for the 21st century, covering culture and
sports as well as economics, history, politics, and everything.

First, however,
Lew wants to add comments to the blogs and articles, which readers
have been clamoring for. But it's expensive if done right. We have
to make sure that our anti-spam software is the best, since spam
can knock a site off the air by itself. And we must have moderators
to make sure that the comments are civil and intelligent. Why? Because
Lew is a lightning rod.

For
a guy dedicated to social cooperation and international peace, to
freedom and non-violence, to private property and sound money, to
our libertarian heritage and our great heroes, Lew sure has a lot
of opponents. There are the freedom haters. But the regime pays
well, in fact and in prospect. Others will offer their souls to
the state because it seems cool, and so uncool to be a dissident
in fascist times.

But there are
many of us who love this site, and who think it's essential to the
cause of liberty, here and all around the world, and we love liberty.
Not only must LRC survive in that cause, it must thrive. My dream:
to see it challenge the very top sites in news and opinion. It is
possible.

But first LRC
must survive. Please help me make sure it does. Help me make sure
that LRC grows and influences many, many thousands more for freedom.
Make a generous donation
to LRC. Go here to
give.

Help
me keep LRC going and growing. There must be no popping of champagne
corks on Capitol Hill or in any other place where "the gang
of thieves writ large," as Murray put it, meets to rip us off.

Help
me keep the LRC dream alive.

July
6, 2009

Glenn
Jacobs is the actor and wrestler Kane.
Visit his blog.

The
Best of Glenn Jacobs

This
paper examines the role of aggregate-demand stimulus in ending
the Great Depression. Plausible estimates of the effects of fiscal
and monetary changes indicate that nearly all the observed
recovery of the U.S. economy prior to 1942 was due to monetary
expansion [emphasis mine]. A huge gold inflow in the
mid- and late 1930s swelled the money stock and stimulated
the economy by lowering real interest rates and encouraging
investment spending and purchases of durable goods. That monetary
developments were crucial to the recovery implies that self-correction
played little role in the growth of real output between 1933 and
1942.

Mrs. Romer
is now the chair of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors
and was the co-author the administration’s economic recovery plan.

In Romer, Fed
Chairman Ben Bernanke has a willing accomplice in his quest to print
money, errr…I mean engage in quantitative easing. Like Romer,
Bernanke is an expert on the Great Depression. Like Romer, Bernanke
believes that the solution to our current economic ills lies in
devaluing the dollar through monetary expansion. After all, Bernanke
promised Milton Friedman that the Fed would never again refrain
from providing liquidity during a downturn like it did during the
Great Depression.

It seems as
if Romer, Bernanke, et al. are proposing something new and revolutionary
— inflate the money supply and devalue the currency. Genius! But
there is a big problem. This solution is neither new nor revolutionary.
Although it has never before had as fancy a euphemism as "quantitative
easing," the practice of monetary devaluation is ancient and
is standard government operating procedure. Unfortunately, it has
also proven a disaster everywhere it has been implemented.

The
Romans tried it. The result was the implosion of Western civilization;
a hole out of which it took a millennium for Europe to climb.

The French
tried it. Twice, in fact. The first time, in the early 18th century,
resulted in a classic speculative bubble. Fortunes were made and
then lost in the blink of an eye. The second time, after their revolution,
was even worse. In order to combat price inflation — which was causing
rioting and civil unrest — the government imposed price controls.
Shortages ensued causing more rioting and civil unrest. The French
finally gave up and instituted a gold standard.

The Germans
tried it after World War One. Their experience was much worse than
the French experience but the outcome wasn't quite as bad as the
Romans — the Weimar inflation contributed to the rise of National
Socialism and the subsequent deaths of over 72 million people. Okay,
maybe it was a bad as the Romans.

The Russians
have also tried it. As have the Poles, the Hungarians, the Greeks,
the Chinese, the Argentineans, the Brazilians, the Chileans, and
the Yugoslavians. Oh, and the Zimbabweans are trying it right now.

All of these
episodes ended in catastrophe. Of course, the American experience
will be different, right? After all, folks like Romer and Bernanke
are experts.

German Finance
Minister Karl Helfferich was an expert on money, too, and even he
could not resist the temptation to crank up the printing press:

To
follow the good counsel of stopping the printing of notes would
mean refusing to economic life the circulating medium
necessary for transactions, payments of salaries and wages,
etc. It would mean that in a very short time the entire public,
and above all the Reich, could no longer pay merchants, employees,
or workers. In a few weeks, besides the printing of notes,
factories, mines, railways, and post offices, national and
local government, in short, all national and economic life would
be stopped.

As it turned
out, it was the continued printing of money — and not the cessation
— that caused all of these things to occur. But we know better now,
right?

$32
   $22

No matter what
the epoch, the laws of economics remain constant. Prices are information.
They relay to entrepreneurs where to best allocate resources in
order to satisfy consumer demand. Because it is a society's medium
of exchange, money has a universal price; generally, everything
is priced in terms of money. Distort the price of money and you
throw the entire system into disarray causing what Austrian economists
call malinvestment. Resources flow into areas that they should not
and away from areas where they should, not because entrepreneurs
have lost the ability to make sound decisions, but because the information
upon which they rely to make those decisions is corrupted.

Romer and Bernanke
are playing a dangerous game. They are also operating under false
premises. First of all, the Great Depression was not caused by a
"lack of aggregate demand" but by the malinvestment brought
on by the Fed's monetary inflation of the 1920s. The reason the
depression lasted so long was that the government refused to allow
the malinvestment to liquidate.

As for the
asset and price deflation of the Great Depression, this was not
the result of the Fed's failure expand the money supply but a result
of a drop in the velocity of money — the rate at which money exchanges
hands. As Murray Rothbard has illustrated in America's
Great Depression, bank reserves actually increased throughout
the Great Depression. However, banks were leery of lending, fearing
bank runs and failure. The demand for money was high as people sought
safety by holding onto cash; saving and not spending. All of this
meant that the price of commodities other than money dropped as
people would rather hold onto their money than spend it.

The situation
is much similar to what we face today. Unfortunately, because Bernanke
believes that the Great Depression could have been avoided if the
Fed had inflated aggressively, he has readied an inflationary tsunami.
The only thing holding this tidal wave of dollars back is that much
of it is still sitting in bank reserves and the velocity of money
is still low. Count on Romer and the government to do everything
and anything necessary to change that.

Bernanke
believes that once the economy takes off again, he will be able
to remove the "excess liquidity" from the system by selling
the Fed's assets. Unfortunately, he faces a big problem. Much of
the increase in the Fed's balance sheet is the result of the Fed
removing toxic assets from the banking system. Ummm, they are called
toxic for a reason; no one wants them. To whom then is Bernanke
going to sell them?

In addition,
the Obama administration, following Romer's advice, is going to
have to fund its profligate spending somehow. U.S. treasuries —
government debt — were once considered the safest investment in
the world. Now, because of the massive debt the federal government
is accruing, no one is buying. According to the Treasury
International Capital System, capital is now
flowing out of the U.S. That leaves one buyer for trillions
of dollars of new debt — the Fed. In other words, not only will
Bernanke not be able to sell the government debt the Fed already
owns, he is going to have to buy oodles and gobs more.

Perhaps Romer
and Bernanke are right. Perhaps printing money is the solution.
Perhaps this one time the laws of economics will prove malleable.
And perhaps donkeys will fly.

If history
is any guide, I'm betting on the donkeys.

May
25, 2009

Glenn
Jacobs [send
him mail] is the actor and wrestler Kane.
Visit his blog.

Like so many
others, I have a great deal of respect for what you have accomplished
in your life. You are the epitome of the American Dream; rising
from a troubled childhood to the heights of international celebrity.
While you and I may not agree on many political issues, I believe
that you are sincere in your concern for the future of the American
republic.

However, I
think you miss the mark with your support of the Fair Tax. Yes,
the current federal income tax system is immoral, invasive, and
represents a form of slavery (resting on the premise that individuals
are not entitled to the fruit of their labor), but eliminating one
tax and replacing it with another is never a good idea.

Besides, we
have bigger fish to fry. While taxes are certainly an important
issue, it is not the taxes we see that are our greatest worry at
this point. The tax we should be concerned about is the one that
we don't see.

As long as
the Federal Reserve System retains the monopoly power to issue currency,
it really doesn't matter what the tax system is. Theoretically,
the Fed can print all the money the government needs and we will
be taxed through the loss of purchasing power of the dollar. This
is going to become more and more evident as the federal government
grows to unprecedented proportions. The crisis that we are witnessing
now pales when compared to the unfunded liabilities of Social Security
and Medicare. The only way for the government to deal with them
is to inflate the debt away.

The Fed is
an unconstitutional institution. According to Article 1, Section
8, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is empowered to "coin
money and regulate the value thereof." In 1913, Congress delegated
that authority to the Fed. This action in itself is questionable
as it would seem that a constitutional amendment would be required
for Congress to delegate authority with which it is specifically
vested.

The issue,
however, is even bigger than that. It is no accident that these
powers were included in a clause which grants Congress the authority
to "fix the standard of weights and measures." That is
because the dollar itself is not money; it is a measure of money.
Money, according to the Framers, was gold and silver. Congress is
simply empowered to standardize the dollar as a measure of precious
metal – traditionally, 1/20 of an ounce of gold.

In other words,
the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to create money
or to regulate the value of the dollar by manipulating the money
supply. The power which the Fed claims to posses under congressional
mandate – the power to create money – never existed in the first place.

As Thomas Jefferson
predicted, the Fed's monopoly on the issuance of currency is enslaving
America. Most insidiously of all, we are being enslaved with our
own productivity. The law
has been perverted into an instrument of plunder. All these
bailouts are really reverse wealth redistribution as taxpayer money
is lavished on political capitalists.
In addition, the Fed is backstopping trillions of dollars of losses
in the commercial banking sector. Where are the Fed and the government
getting all this money? What the government cannot expropriate or
borrow will be created out of thin air by the Fed, expanding the
money supply and ultimately causing price inflation.

Inflation is
most pernicious tax of all. It destroys savings by devaluing the
monetary unit. It distorts the price signals on which entrepreneurs
rely to make decisions about how best to meet customer demand, choking
the economy with waste and inefficiencies. It punishes the poor
since they receive the new money only after prices have already
risen, if they receive the new money at all. And worst of all, very
few realize who is to blame for these problems.

Inflation is
the politician's best friend. It allows him to promise his constituents
all sorts of goodies seemingly for free. When the bill comes due
in the form of higher prices, the politician can blame greedy businessmen
or OPEC sheiks. In reality, the trail leads back to the government
profligacy.

Some will say
that the Fed is an independent agency and is therefore not subject
to political caprice. Balderdash. The Fed works closely with the
President to implement monetary policy. In addition, the folks at
the Fed are people just like you and me. Who wants to take the blame
when the economy takes a downturn as it inevitably will if the Fed
contracts the money supply? Why not just keep the printing presses
cranking and let your successor deal with the consequences? That
is what Alan Greenspan did and he was heralded as a god; don't you
think that that may have gone to his head?

The problem
with central banking is not whether the central bank is run by private
interests or the government. The problem is that it is controlled
by people, people who answer to political pressure and not market
forces. For this reason (as well as many others), central planning
never works. The Fed – America's central bank – is simply central
planning under a different name.

The
only way for the American people to restore their freedom is to
take back control over their money. We must eliminate legal tender
laws and break the Fed's monopoly on currency. If the government
is going to be involved in monetary affairs at all, we must reinstate
a gold standard in order to limit its ability to inflate.

Chuck, you
have never backed down from a fight, and this fight will be an epic.
The people who think that they run this country are not just going
to give up. Just like Nicholas
Biddle, they will do everything possible to stay in power, even
threatening to destroy the economy. The truth is that the economy
is being destroyed right now and the only way to save it is to allow
the free market to work.

There is a
movement in America which, although it is still in its nascent stages,
is causing the Establishment to tremble. It is a movement which
promises to smash the shackles of the central bank and liberate
Americans from the clutches of power-mad politicians and their corporate
cronies.

Chuck, forget
about the Fair Tax and add your voice to our battle cry.

END THE FED!!

March
21, 2009

Glenn
Jacobs [send
him mail] is the actor and wrestler Kane.
Visit his blog.

Professor Reich:

I have some
questions about some of the points that you brought up when you
appeared on CNN's
The State of the Union show Superbowl Sunday. Although all my
own training in economics is purely autodidactic, it seems to me
that your arguments rest on faulty premises.

When asked
what is the fastest way for the government to create jobs (a question
which itself relies on the erroneous presumption that the government
has the ability to "create" jobs), you replied with a
three-part answer, and first stated that "almost all economists
agree" with you.

Whether almost
all economists agree or not of no importance, but gives your answer
an air of authority. Unfortunately, it is the policies of these
same economists which have caused the mess in which America currently
finds itself. While "almost all economists" may still
possess authority in academia, their credibility on Main Street
is sorely lacking. In addition, many economists do not agree
with you. In fact, Austrian economists vehemently disagree with
you.

In any case,
you said that the government's first priority should be to expand
the social safety net, which will cause money to go directly into
circulation.

Historically,
government welfare programs have been wasteful, inefficient, and
corrupt. Private charities do a much better job of administering
aid to those in need with the final goal of helping the unemployed
get back to work. Government programs, on the other hand, lead to
longer periods of unemployment by encouraging welfare recipients
to remain on the dole as long as possible.

I am also curious
as to how you propose to fund these programs. There are only three
ways that the government can raise revenue: taxation, borrowing,
and printing (both the latter are actually forms of deferred taxation).
All of these methods have dire implications for the economy. Direct
taxation retards economic growth by punishing producers. Borrowing
crowds out investment in the private sector. Printing money causes
distortions in the market, misallocation of resources, and eventually
destroys the purchasing power of the monetary unit.

In addition,
of what importance is "money in circulation"? You contend
that passing money around will create jobs, but the fact is that
passing money around is simply passing money around. What you seem
to be proposing is that the government take money from some people,
and then give it to people on welfare so that they can buy stuff
from the same people that the government originally took the money
from in the first place. How is that going to create jobs? Why not
allow the people with money to invest it and build their businesses
so that they can hire the people to whom the government is planning
on giving their money?

Professor Reich,
it seems that you have confused money with wealth. The government
can create all the money it wants simply by printing it. Wealth,
on the other hand, can only be created through saving and investment.

The government's
second priority, you said, should be to build infrastructure — putting
people to work building roads, bridges, a new electrical grid, and
a broadband internet system.

While we certainly
need those things, how is this going to create jobs and why is it
the government's business to build them anyway?

Labor is not
homogeneous. Yes, people can do many different jobs, but many jobs
require specialized training and skills. While building a road may
be a boon to the road construction industry, how does it benefit
an investment banker who just lost his job? How does building a
bridge in California benefit an aerospace engineer who was just
laid off in St. Louis? Or running fiber optic cable in North Dakota
benefit a real estate agent out of work in Florida?

While the government
can create jobs in one sector of the economy, it can only do so
by destroying jobs in another sector of the economy. Perhaps you
are familiar with Frdric Bastiat's famous essay What
Is Seen and What Is Not Seen. In it, Bastiat explains that
when the government undertakes a project such as building a bridge
we see the benefits it brings — the jobs that it creates. What we
do not see are the things that are destroyed because of the project
— the jobs that are not created because the government confiscates
the resources needed to create them.

You may also
be familiar with the Nobel Prize winning economist F.A. Hayek. One
of the major themes of Hayek's work is that the free market is a
discovery process. Since none of us are omniscient, none of us has
perfect knowledge of market conditions. Hence, no central planner
can effectively allocate resources.

In contrast,
the free market's pricing mechanism provides us with the information
needed to efficiently allocate resources, and rewards those who
do so correctly and punishes those who do not.

Instead
of relying on market signals to determine where to allocate resources,
the government relies on political pressures. Most likely, roads
and bridges will not be built where they are needed, but where the
politicians think it will best serve them. The beneficiaries of
these programs will not be the American people in general, but political
patrons and special interests.

The government's
third priority, according to you, should be tax cuts. I wholeheartedly
agree. Let's eliminate personal income tax, property taxes, sales
taxes, and corporate taxes, as well as the onerous regulations that
have driven so many companies out of the country. Unfortunately,
that's probably not what you meant by tax cuts, is it?

All in all,
Professor Reich, it seems to me that your arguments defy logic and
common sense. However, as a prominent economist, public policy expert,
and opinion molder, I'm sure that you can explain what I am missing.
I anxiously await your reply.

February
3, 2009

Glenn
Jacobs [send
him mail] is the actor and wrestler Kane.
Visit his blog.

DIGG THIS

Since Barney
Clark received the first Jarvik-7 artificial heart in 1982, more
than 350 people have used the device, mostly as a temporary measure
until they could receive a heart transplant. In addition to his
totally artificial heart, Robert Jarvik, the inventor of the Jarvik-7,
has developed a ventricular assist device (VAD), the Jarvik 2000,
which augments the diseased heart’s ability to regulate blood
flow. Jarvik’s company, Jarvik Heart, develops and manufactures
medical devices for the treatment of congestive heart failure.

Indeed, Robert
Jarvik should go down in history as a giant of modern medicine,
a man whose ingenuity, whose ability to merge mechanical engineering
and medicine have given hundreds of people a longer life and have
improved the quality of life of many thousands more, including those
who will benefit from the efforts of researchers who will build
on Jarvik’s work. As it turns out, however, Robert Jarvik is
actually a dire threat to public welfare, or so Congress would have
us believe.

In 2006, Jarvik
began appearing in television and print commercials for Pfizer Pharmaceutical’s
cholesterol-lowering medication, Lipitor. Because of the scientific
research that links heart disease and high cholesterol, as well
as the fact that Jarvik is a scientist who has studied the human
heart extensively, he would seem a perfect fit as a spokesman for
Lipitor. U.S. congressmen John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) and Bart Stupak
(D-Mich.), however, don’t see it that way.

The congressmen
believe that Jarvik appears to be giving medical advice in the ads,
something which he is not qualified to do under current laws. Despite
his medical degree, Jarvik is not a licensed physician but a medical
scientist. One must wonder, however, what qualifies Dingell and
Stupak to question the qualifications of anyone in the medical field
other, of course, than their positions as U.S. congressmen.

However, the
issues here are deeper than simply determining whether politicians
are qualified to determine who should be giving medical advice and
who should not. (By the way, Pfizer submits its advertising concepts
to the FDA for review in advance of beginning its ad campaigns.)

Pfizer hired
Jarvik not as a medical expert but as a spokesman. In the ads, Jarvik
simply states what Pfizer, on the basis of scientific studies and
research, claims Lipitor does. Moreover, Jarvik specifically states
that consumers should consult with their personal physicians before
using the drug.

Having Jarvik
in the ads certainly carries more weight because of his status,
but isn’t that exactly what one would want in a spokesman?
Someone who the consumer believes is credible and knows what he
is talking about? In any case, unless Pfizer or its spokesman commits
fraud by knowingly making false statements, what does it matter
whom Pfizer employs as its spokesman? As long as the statements
that Pfizer and its representatives make about Lipitor are not fraudulent,
Pfizer’s choice of spokesman is none of the government’s
business.

For the sake
of argument, however, let us assume that Jarvik is giving medical
advice in the Lipitor commercials. Does the fact that he is not
a licensed physician inherently disqualify him from offering such
advice? Using Dingell and Stupak’s logic, a licensed general
practitioner is more qualified to offer such advice than a research
scientist who specializes in cardiac function and whose work is
on display in the Smithsonian Institution.

All too often,
licenses simply represent government sanction, nothing more. Despite
what politicians claim, licensing laws are not designed to protect
the public, but to eliminate competition by protecting those individuals
and companies already established in the specified field. This holds
especially true in the heavily regulated world of medicine. Nobel
Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, for example, called the
American Medical Association a government-sanctioned guild that
drives up the cost of medical care by limiting the supply of physicians
and reducing or eliminating competition from other medical practitioners,
such as chiropractors.

Jarvik’s
plight, along with paternalistic and often corrupt practice of licensing
laws, illustrates the attitude of modern politicians towards the
relationship between the state and its citizens. While the Founding
Fathers believed that government’s main responsibility was
to protect its citizens from external threats, too many current
politicians believe that the government must protect us from ourselves.

Do Dingell
and Stupak really believe that thousands of Americans are going
to run out and start taking Lipitor just because they saw some guy
on TV pitch it? While a small minority may do so, most people will
not. In addition, most people do rely on their personal physician
for medical advice. Perhaps Dingell and Stupak believe that doctors
will swoon after seeing Jarvik on television and begin prescribing
the drug like maniacs because they are awed by his celebrity. Are
politicians then protecting us from our own doctors? Let’s
hope not.

There may be
a political component at play here as well. Pfizer recently announced
plans to close three plants in Michigan, Dingell’s and Stupak’s
home state. Dingell’s and Stupak’s actions may be an attempt
to punish Pfizer for that decision. However, whether it is political
revenge or paternalism that motivates Dingell and Stupak, it is
the nanny state that has empowered them. The government should treat
Americans like grown-ups fully responsible for their own lives and
decisions, not children who need to be watched over and told what
to do. As C.S. Lewis said, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised
‘for the good of its victims’ may be the most oppressive.”

Pfizer should
be able to choose any spokesman it wants to promote its products.
It is still the consumers’ responsibility to educate themselves
about the products. Fortunately, because it is in doctors’
best interest to keep their patients healthy and happy, most competent
doctors will research the benefits and risks of drugs and can usually
give their patients expert advice. Can the politicians who seek
to control our healthcare system say the same?

If liberty
means nothing else, it means that individuals should be in control
of their lives and therefore should be free to voluntarily associate
with whomever they wish and to seek advice from whomever they wish.
Instead, politicians and bureaucrats continually infringe upon these
freedoms and force their will on us through government edict.

The fact that
the government now has Robert Jarvik in its crosshairs just reinforces
what many of us have long known. The State has no heart … and
no head.

February
7, 2008

Glenn
Jacobs [send him mail]
is a writer residing in Tennessee.

DIGG THIS

April 19 marked
the 14-year anniversary of the BATF-FBI massacre of the Branch Davidians
at Waco, Texas. Some might say that the use of the word “massacre”
is harsh, instead opting to call it a “tragedy.” After
close examination of the events of April 19, 1993, however, any
reasonable person must conclude that massacre is the appropriate
term. The tragedy is that all too many Americans failed to reach
this conclusion when the news about Waco broke and that the lessons
of Waco still go unrecognized by so many.

The events
at Waco have become part of American mythology. Ask someone what
happened and the likely response will be that the ATF was just doing
its job, protecting the American people from a bunch of religious
fanatics with machine guns. Sure, things got out of hand, they’ll
say, but the fault lies with David Koresh and the Davidians, just
as Janet Reno and Bill Clinton said.

Well, what
Janet Reno and Bill Clinton didn’t say was this: the Davidians
were initially subjected to a paramilitary raid by a heavily armed
force nearly the size of an army company. The federal government
then employed bizarre psychological warfare, including blaring out
sounds of rabbits being slaughtered and Nancy Sinatra’s hit
song “These Boots Were Made for Walking,” as well as using
unreasonable and unnecessary force, including military tanks, helicopters,
and chemical weapons.

In the subsequent
investigations, the government whitewashed the incident, suggesting
to the American people that it was more important to “put the
incident behind us” than to uncover the truth. In spite of
all this, however, instead of being held accountable for criminally
negligent (or perhaps worse) acts, those involved in the Waco massacre
were actually praised.

Under the legal
concept of isonomy, all citizens should be subject to the same laws.
This was the message sent to King John when he was forced to sign
the Magna Carta in 1215, essentially agreeing that the will of the
King was bound by law. In America today, we are sending a much different
message to the people in government. When politicians are praised
for actions that result in mass murder, there is something shockingly
wrong.

The message
that Americans are sending the government today is “You know
best. We trust you. Do whatever you deem necessary.” Remember
the argument in the lead-up to the Iraq War? “We must trust
the administration; it knows more facts than we do.” As it
turns out, all these assumptions were wrong. Too many Americans
treat the government as if it were populated with Homo superiorus,
people endowed with superior wisdom and benevolence. Military Commissions
Act? No problem. NSA domestic spying? They’re only listening
to the bad guys. Destroy habeas corpus? That only applies to terrorists.
Eliminate posse comitatus? They’d never use the military against
us. Yet if everybody in government is so wonderful and trustworthy,
how do we explain Waco?

The lesson
that we should have learned from Waco is that we have a right, indeed
a duty, to be suspicious and distrustful of our government. For
generations, this suspicion was a uniquely American quality. However,
during World War II and then the Cold War, Americans began to trust
their government. As with totalitarian regimes, American politicians
recognized the benefits of having foreign enemies, even imaginary
ones. People band behind their government, seeking protection from
the enemy. We now live with that legacy.

At Waco, 80
of our fellow Americans (including both Davidians and ATF agents)
were killed because of the federal government’s negligence
and aggression. Most of us swallowed the government’s story.
Seemingly every day, more of our civil liberties are threatened
and restricted. We accept this as normal in a post-9/11 world. Time
and again, mini-Wacos occur when police, who often suffer no consequences
for their actions, terrorize and sometimes kill innocent people
and nonviolent offenders in no-knock drug raids. We are told these
incursions are simply a result of the government protecting us from
the evils of illicit drugs. There is no law saying that this is
the natural way of things, but until Americans once again look upon
their government with distrust, hold the people in government accountable
for what they do, and reevaluate the legitimate role of government
in a free society, we will continue down this path.

If we fail
to treat Waco as a wake-up call to change our attitudes toward government,
then that will be the true tragedy.

April
25, 2007

Glenn
Jacobs [send him mail]
is a writer residing in Tennessee.