Agorist Marketplace

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Speaking Plain About the Law

Speaking Plain About the Law

One of the things that’s never ceased to amaze, and irritate me, if the way lawyers can dodge and weave through wording like Neo dodged bullets in The Matrix. Many will remember back to the trial of then-President Clinton, and how there was debate over what the word “is” meant.
I have to give credit where it is due; those who study law have a great intelligence to them. They need a mastery of language very few possess. It is their greatest strength, but sadly a strength too often used against the regular people who seek to live their lives as free men and women.
No one needs to necessarily understand language as well as a lawyer does to know that the laws written and passed in this country are done so in terminology and lingo that is so complex and vague that the average person, and even many intelligent people as well, are left dumbstruck as to what is being written, voted on and passed in Congress and the state legislatures in America.
I’m no lawyer. I do possess stronger than average vocabulary skills though. But when trying to read some of the things that pass as laws in this country, it’s pretty clear that they are not written to be understood by anyone outside the elite circles of people who can create and manipulate them. Honestly, is it really necessary to pass laws that consume thousands of pages of text?
Let’s look at the tax codes – the one thing we all suffer under more than anything else, the legalized theft of the fruits of our labor. Is it really necessary to have it written in such overly complicated terms, unless the goal is to make is impossible for the average person to look into it…and worse yet, for those who wrote it and their friends to be able to manipulate it to their advantage? Even if the code of legalized theft were in a “flat tax” format, who needs more than “each person shall have X% of their wages deducted in tax”? Even though I despise being taxed on my labor, this would be sufficient to have 10 or 15% skimmed out of everyone’s pay. Period. No enforcement wing. No armies of accountants. No auditing, no 1040s and W-2s, no forms of any kind. No IRS. Gee, that would save billions of dollars in the federal budget, wouldn’t it? Of course it would. You know it. I know it. And rest assured, all those thieves in Washington know it, too. The common question is, “Why don’t they just simplify the laws?”
Because they don’t want to. It is not in their interests to have laws so simple that they can’t wriggle around them.
Look at other things that have been passed, like the NDAA, CISPA and so forth. You get reassurances from these cretin that the laws will NEVER be used on the people. But thanks to many enterprising people, the laws are shown to be full of legal vagaries that leave them wide open for interpretation in any way a judge sees fit to interpret them. Again, this isn’t some accident. It’s intentionally done to give the governments that “little bit more” of power they so crave.
Sadly, these vagaries can be seen in the Constitution. Think about it – yes, there’s a guarantee against “unreasonable search and seizure” – but nothing is specified as to what constitutes “unreasonable”. Was it left vague on purpose? I’m inclined to think it is – even if the term was commonly known in the 1780s to mean a certain thing, those wise men who crafted the Constitution would have to know that what was commonly known then may not necessarily be known in the future, or that its definition would not change over time.
Even back then, as we so often see today, there was an overriding effort to pass the Constitution quickly, without time to review or debate it. Think about now, with the thousand-page whoppers being voted on without a single representative of the people having actually even READ the document – but are expected to vote yes or no on it. What happens to you if you sign something without reading and understanding it? More often than not, you wind up getting screwed eventually. And boy, do we get screwed by Congress with all the laws they pass without review.
But then – maybe they already know what’s in them, and know that they are unaffected by them or can skirt the law. Or they just know that as Congress, they are not bound to the laws they create (which in and of itself is a horrid travesty) and simply don’t care what’s in it.
In short – is it really necessary to have laws so complex the average person can’t understand them? Who does it serve? It’s most assuredly NOT the people. If we are stuck in a society that requires laws, would it not be in the best interests of the people forced to live under them to have these laws written in simple language? In terms that can be easily understood by all, and not open to microscopic interpretation by wordsmiths?
As a voluntaryist, I personally don’t feel the need for an abundance of laws. Those simple truths we all know innately – treat others and their property with the same respect you’d expect yours to be treated with – is sufficient. (Yes, I understand that there are invariably transgressors, and some sort of methodology of restitution needs to be in place, but that’s for another article.) But since we are not there yet, would it be too much to ask that the laws that exist are written clearly so that all can grasp them, understand them, and be able to easily live within their confines so long as they are non-invasive?
It’s a simple proposition. It’s one you don’t have to be a member of any given political stripe to support, and it’s one that I think EVERY person who cherishes personal freedom can back.

Monday, April 30, 2012

Are You Truly Free In America?

What Makes You Free? The Constitution? Or YOU?

Give this idea some pause. A lot of my friends in the Liberty movement often cite that they are free men because the Constitution guarantees them their rights. Sure, it's easy enough to cite this; looking at the document itself, there are plenty of statements in there about how certain rights "shall not be infringed", about how Congress is chained down to certain duties and no more.

It sounds great, I know. It envisions a simpler time when people went about their lives without being regulated and taxed to death. Where we minded our own business and everything was just fine and/or dandy.

But, and please look at the totality of the situation. If the federal government was so restrained, we wouldn't even be having this conversation now. We wouldn't be concerned with nightmares like the NDAA or CISPA, we wouldn't have our pockets picked by the IRS, sometimes even at gunpoint. We wouldn't be told we can't eat or drink certain things, or as some factions will lament, ingest "herbal remedies" freely.

If we were really free thanks to the Constitution, would we be worried about getting permission to carry a firearm, or a knife, or anything else to protect ourselves and our property? The short answer to this is no.

I refer to my previous post (and no, I'm not citing it as though it were gospel) - the Constitution, for all it's grand talk of freedom and limited government, is either just window dressing, or it was never really intended to protect us. It appears from history to merely be that inital power grab by those elites who hated the fact that the central government under the Articles of Confederation relied on the cooperation of the states for help. They wanted to be able to coerce the states into supporting the central government, not merely waiting for them to help when they felt it necessary.

A lot of the expansion of power under the current Constitution came to us via decisions handed down from the Supreme Court, which almost invariably favors the federal government. Notice that while Congress can impeach federal judges, they never do. The judges are the ones who are giving the government the power to expand infinitely, so why would they strike at their bread and butter?

Congress is elected (at least in theory), as is the President. But the judiciary? All appointed. The real power lies there, and the ones in power have a vested interest to stay in power. And they stay in power by making sure you and I have less power to fight back with.

Under the Articles, if a state did not approve of the central government's actions, they would use their militias to push back. Now - no such thing. That notion was crushed in the Civil War. The government exerts its power on the individuals, not the states. If you don't comply with the laws, they will come busting down your door to force compliance. They don't go after the states. You can't arrest a state. But you sure as hell can arrest people who get out of line.

The Constitution is allegedly only effective through the "consent of the governed". But are you free to not consent? Can you say, "No, I don't consent to having my money taken without my asking"? Can you say, "These laws are unjust and illegal, I will not obey them"?

Absolutely not. You'll get locked up.

You are not free to do that. And if you can't voluntarily choose to not comply, you are not free at all. You are a slave to the government. And you have the Constitution to thank for that. Either through malicious abuse by crafty lawyers and legalese, or through intentional design in the wording of the Constitution, you don't have those freedoms.

A sad thought for certain. But look at the facts. You can't decide to not comply without expecting severe repercussions. Happily, some people see this and are working on competing systems like Agorism and other truly free-market systems where the government is not involved at all. It will only be through competing systems, competing currencies, and true competition that we can break free from the yoke of tyranny that all governments eventually become.

Do I expect a stateless America in my life? No. If and when the current government implodes, and that will likely be in my lifetime, there will be a void. And odds are that void will be filled with a horrible system. True freedom will take decades if not longer to come about. It is that goal of one day not relying on being ruled that keeps me and people who truly love freedom going. It's not about us. It's about our kids, and their kids.

It won't be an easy ride by any means. But it's a ride worth taking.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Is the Constitution Really About Our Liberty?

I've spent a lot of time thinking about the state we are in as people in what was once a free country.

I know that there is a growing cry for our government to be placed back into the chains of the Constitution, to rein in that beast in Washington which has run afoul of the law and grown into what is more and more accepted as a tyrannical police state. These cries are perfectly justified; there is certainly hypocrisy in a nation proclaiming itself as “the leader of the free world” and lambasting other countries for their abuses of human liberties, while at the same time constantly if incrementally clamping down on those same liberties within its own borders.

While these sentiments are welcomed and long overdue, the question needs to be pursued – is the Constitution really that bulwark of freedom we think it is, or was it merely a Trojan Horse for power-grabbing elites? It's definitely not a pleasant thought to consider, and even more uncomfortable to accept.

Before I continue, I'll just say this is exclusively my take on it. I want to do something with more meat to it, but for now I'm giving some background and some things to consider. Take this for what it is – an opinion piece.

Before the American Revolution ended, the thirteen colonies had met to draft a document to serve as the form of government for themselves. They did not want to revive British Parliamentary rule, and did want want a possibility of another tyranny replacing the one they just cast off. What they came up with was a form of government that was centrally very weak; most of the real power was with the individual states, and the central government was more of a formality for larger issues. Those who fought for freedom rightly had a healthy mistrust of centralized power, and this showed in the formation of a confederacy. This central government had very little power to do anything. They could not use force to collect taxes. There was no standing army (which was a very serious concern and one of the main reasons the colonies went to war with England). The Articles themselves had to be agreed to unanimously. No majority – EVERYONE had to agree to it. This was not a compulsory situation – but rather a voluntary one. The thirteen colonies were considered sovereign states, free to make their own decisions as they saw fit. The central government provided for diplomacy and did help to a degree conduct the American Revolution.

But if you read the conventional history, this was a dark and terrible period, because there was no powerful central government there to get everyone together. This sentiment and fear-mongering was brought up in many of the Federalist Papers. The problem, Hamilton and company said, was that the government needed “just a little more power” to get things right.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Every time there's a problem in America now, the calls are always to give the government “just a little more power” to solve the problem.

Put two and two together and you can see that the Constitution was merely the foot in the door needed to start consolidating power in a central government, power that came away from the States and into the hands of a small group not attached to or concerned with the people. Amendments to the Constitution, while on paper are supposed to guarantee rights to the people, are used instead more to give the government more power.

The central government under the Articles of Confederation had very little power to make laws at all. The government we have now passes laws in such numbers and in so much complicated legalese that no human could ever dare to comprehend the laws passed in just one session of Congress in their entire lifetime. Is this what we need from government? Is that what those brave men who died to break free from England wanted? Are we supposed to be free people, able to live our lives as we see fit, or are we merely civilians in a state that takes a third or more of what we work for, without our consent, under threat of force? Are we free when we are told what we can and can noy consume? Are we free when we are under surveillance constantly? Are we free when we need permission to drive a car, or to leave the borders of this land? Are we free when we have to pay taxes on property we supposedly own?

No, we are not free. And to a large degree, we can trace this loss of freedom back to the original grab for “just a little more power”, the Constitutional Convention. Note that one of the key planks of the Articles was that the Articles are perpetual, and can only be altered by approval of Congress with ratification by all the state legislatures. The Constitutional Convention was initially brought about to merely amend the Articles, not to scrap them and replace them. Something else to consider, isn't it?

I will write more as I continue researching and reading. I would of course encourage you to do likewise. Arming yourself with information is the best weapon you can have.