Tuesday, January 29, 2013
It is common for many people, especially politicians and judges, to think of the Constitution in fragmented terms, isolating this part and that part to suit the particular needs of any given situation however, the entire Constitution is, when properly construed, consistent throughout. If we take the Bill of Rights, for instance, those Amendments do not add or subtract anything from the Original Constitution, the fact is that they were already Rights prior to the writing and ratification of the Constitution. The federal government ONLY POSSESSES those powers delegated to it, this fact is evident in Article 1, Section 1 when it declares those powers to be VESTED in Congress. The word VESTED is defined as FIXED, meaning the powers of Congress are cannot be based on any contingency authority except those which are expressly delegated, this, by definition, would exclude the idea that there can be a broad interpretation of implied powers available to Congress.
The structure of the entire Constitution is articulated concisely within the 10th Amendment, it defines the foundation of limited government, it reinforces the doctrine of the federal system that the Constitutional Compact, agreed to and ratified as a Contract between the States, created. It is not merely that the 10th Amendment acts as a barrier against federal intrusions on the liberties of the individual and the authority of the States, the 10th Amendment expounds the entire Constitutional Compact of federalism. Without doubt, the Congress and Supreme Court have used an extremely broad interpretation through the doctrine of implied powers, yet there is no other principle that serves as the foundation of the entire purpose and plan of the original Constitution and it is fully expressed in the 10th Amendment. That principle is that the federal government only possesses those powers that are specifically delegated to it by the Constitution and no others. When the Framers wrote the 10th Amendment, all they were doing was reiterating the entire principle upon which the government of the United States rests.
The Constitutional Compact, created by the States, deputized the federal government and delegated to it certain limited and enumerated powers. Many of the Framers believed that since those powers were indeed limited and were enumerated within the Constitution that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary and could, in fact, cause several issues in the future due to the specificity of the Bill of Rights. They were concerned that the Bill of Rights would be interpreted as the only Rights or that they would be used to limit the Rights of the People and the States through a broader interpretation that there were no other negatives issued against federal powers except those first 10 Amendments. Of course, the 9th Amendment, the sister to the 10th, gave an extremely broader view of the Rights reserved to the People, explaining that there were Rights that were not enumerated within the Constitution, but were nonetheless, just as as exacting as though they were enumerated.
Therefore, since it is completely impossible to list all the Rights of the Citizens of these States united in a Compact of Union, there exist Rights that the government cannot define or legislate to contravene. The fact that there is an absence of those Rights enumerated does not, in any sense or construction, deny the fact that those Rights do indeed exist and are just as inalienable and therefore, un-restrainable as those that are enumerated within the Bill of Rights. Indeed, James Madison stated: ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.''
The solution to this potential problem is the 9th Amendment to the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Of course, the 9th Amendment has been essentially ignored by the Courts, and, I might add by those who, for whatever reason, would deny all manner of Rights to other Americans. This denial of Rights has occurred on both the right and the left of the political spectrum. It is therefore, beyond doubt that the Framers of the Constitution believed and asserted that there are additional fundamental rights, that are protected from governmental infringement, which exist along with those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight Amendments to the Constitution.
Since the Constitution only conferred those limited powers that are enumerated in the Constitution itself, it was assumed that the federal government could not reach beyond that which was granted to it. The Framers of the Constitution, using the normal rules of statutory construction, insisted that by forbidding the federal government within certain areas, would allow it to act in areas that were not specifically forbidden by the Constitution. The remedy to such a possibility was the 10th Amendment, which is a bulwark against the government using implied powers to deny or restrain the limitation of any of the Bill of Rights. Thus, as a statutory construction or interpretation, this rule, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, prevents the inference that the Bill of Rights might, in an instance of misconstrued interpretation, imply that the federal government has powers other than those enumerated, and as such, could be used by the government to limit or infringe upon the Rights declared within the Bill of Rights.
Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 Dallas 304 at 308 (U.S. Cir. Ct. Pa.1795)
"What is the Constitution? It is a form of government delineated by the mighty hand of the People in which certain first principles of fundamental law are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed: it contains the permanent will of the People, and is the Supreme Law of the Land; it is Paramount to the will of the legislature, and can be revoked only by the Authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution; they derive their powers from the Constitution. It is their commission ; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be Void. The Constitution is the Will of the People themselves in their original, Sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work of the legislature in their subordinate and derivative capacity. The one is the work of the creator, and the other of the creature. The Constitution fixes the limits to the exercise of the legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all legislative, executive, and judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case with other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt that every act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution if ABSOLUTELY VOID."
This federal government is federal in name only, it bears not a single strand of resemblance to the system of federalism upon which this Republic was Founded. The functionaries of federalism, created to prevent both consolidation and the resulting tyranny, have all but been removed from this government. This government claims corporate capacity, acting independently of its original duty and authority; it assumes to act with discretion outside the Constitution, providing itself with illicit prerogatives and political emoluments never intended or authorized, all to the detriment of the well-being of this Republic.
This government, acting as a self-formed, self-inferred corporate body, does so with a will and purposeful characteristic not unlike all other autocratic regimes, disguised with all the trappings of federalism, but without the limitations or demands of federalism. Our government was intentionally created as a cumbersome institution, the intention was to put as many obstacles in the way of legislation as possible; the Framers of this government feared the propensity of government to abuse power therefore, they made it as difficult as possible.
Today, we are subject to a myriad of commentaries, various political platforms and interpretations that essentially present nothing more than a simulacrum of Constitutionalism, yet these internal enemies of the Republic are engaged in the overthrowing of the Constitution, administering in its place a shell, a sham, leaving the People with little more than the near-lifeless corpse of Liberty. There is no greater treasonous claim than that of the absolute supreme authority of the federal government demanding, as it were, the allegiance of the Several States under the spurious assertion that the States are subordinate to the federal government and that the powers reserved to the States is limited and restrained under the supremacy of the federal government. Such assertions are simply instruments providing the federal government a mere facade of Constitutional legitimacy, serving only to conceal the acts of usurpation and tyranny in which it engages.
Currently, under this simulacrum of Constitutionalism, the States are reduced to provinces, insignificant monads that are allowed to continue with a limited functionary, but ultimately no real power except that which is, as a matter of privilege, granted by the federal government and administered by satraps. While the People, as the body politic, continues to imagine that the electoral process, that their votes change anything of substance within this government, they should realize that all they are doing is electing officials that become little more than a directory of a corporate autocracy. Only cosmetic changes take place, but essentially the policies remain relatively constant from Administration to Administration. This process has been transformed into a mockery of suffrage and self-government, where authorities other than the People control this country, presenting, as it were, a stage play to benefit the People, causing them to think that they still live under a republican form of government, all the while the imperial policy of a supreme governing body insidiously lords over them. Despotism can take many forms, the one that we are now subject to appears benign, it is anything but.
Under the guise of legal proprieties, this government misleads the People with a fraud that has the outward trappings of legitimacy and has, in a very real sense, deluded the People into thinking that all the images and concepts they have of their country is, in fact, they way the Founders of this country intended, yet the internal workings of this government betray the reality. This government has used every instrument possible to maintain its power, to assert its claim of supremacy and to reconcile the People with their plight as subjects to the “divine right” this government. The People, no longer aware of their position, have been deluded into ignoring the real meaning and import of the Constitutional Compact made between the States as well as, the massive reservoir of power inherent within the States and the People. This government, draining resources from the People in the form of taxes, only to be squandered through excess that provide those in political office with lavish fare which those holding office act with indifference to the Will and Consent of the People.
This government has involved itself in preserving its present existence and the powers it claims are inherently absolute. These usurpers of Constitutional Order, are always ready to use pleaded necessity, they invoke the welfare of the People, the public good or safety, but they do so all in the effort to preserve and expand the power of government. Those within government are eager to subvert the system of federalism, for within such a system, even the definition of the word federal decries the very actions of this government. For, it is absolutely incontrovertible, under a system of federalism, that the States must always be Sovereign, and as such, they are superior to the government they created through such a system because that is the nature of federalism. We must never forget that this federal government is, in fact, the government of the States; the Constitution is the Constitution of the States that acted in their Sovereign capacity.
There is no Constitutional coercion of the States, the States of this Union voluntarily acceded to it as an act of Sovereignty and in accordance to the Will of the People of each of the Several States. Being parties in a voluntary act, they could not, by any measure, be made involuntary parties through ratifying the Constitution, [which they are sole party to] and thereby joining this Union of States. The federal Constitution, as a stipulated Treaty between separate Sovereign States, was an instrument used by the States to settle potential foreign issues, to mediate issues arising between the States. In a very real sense, the Constitution is, as spoken of by many of the Framers, a Treaty between Sovereign Nations that chose to join in a Union based on federalism. Essentially, the Constitution legally displaced what would normally be international law pro tanto. The status, as far as the law of nations is concerned, of the States is Sovereign political bodies, each Free and Independent of the other, though within our Constitution instead of the description being labeled “nations” they are titled States. If this Treaty, this Constitution was annulled, the States would resume their full capacity in terms of their legal sphere of action as actual Nations of the world.
John Marshall, later Chief Justice to the Supreme Court, stated, in Convention: “Those who give, may take away. It is the people that give power,and can take it back; what shall restrain them? They are the masters who gave it, and of whom the servants hold it. Are not Congress and the State legislatures agents of the People?”
James Wilson, who held position in both the federal convention and the convention for the State of Pennsylvania stated what could be considered the most concise statement on the subject: “The SUPREME, ABSOLUTE AND UNCONTROLLABLE POWER IS IN THE PEOPLE before they make the Constitution, and remains in them after it is made...The absolute SOVEREIGNTY never goes from the People.”
Even the nationalist Daniel Webster admitted the fact that: “The SOVEREIGNTY of government is an idea belonging to the other side of the Atlantic. No such thing is known in North America: with us ALL POWER IS WITH THE PEOPLE. THEY ALONE ARE SOVEREIGN; and will erect what governments they please and confer on them such power as they please. NONE of these governments is sovereign.”
There is not a single hint in any of the writings of those who crafted and founded our Republic, that the federal government, nor even the State governments could or would have any inherent power or sovereignty. The States, being the expression of the People residing in those States bear the closest character of Sovereignty, the federal government bears no such character and acts on behalf of the States as merely an deputized agent, nothing more. The assumption is that the only Rights are those reserved to the States, but demonstrated in numerous writings, the People of the Several States are, in fact, Sovereign; as such, it is the People that have the Right of self-government, self-determination and, acting upon that Sovereignty, they can, through the States, recall their authority and power at any time, whether through the Constitutional process or Revolutionary process. Nullification, in its most elemental form is nothing more than the People exercising their Inherent Power as Sovereigns. Ordinaces of Nullification must be enforced with accompanying Ordinaces of Secession, giving the full import and intent of the People to defy all manner and means of illegitimate governance; defending what remains of this Republic and in the process, restoring it. This is, I fear, our last chance to regain this country and restore the Constitutional Republic as it once stood so many decades ago.
When the State of Massachusetts ratified the Constitution of these united States of America the wording was incontrovertible, they are no less valid today than when they were penned:
“That the people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive Right of governing themselves, as a Free, Sovereign, and Independent State; and they will Forever exercise every Power and Right, which may not be by them Expressly Delegated to the united States, assembled in Congress;
That all Power, residing originally in the People, and being derived from them, all officers of government are their Substitutes and Agents, and are at all times Accountable to them;
And, finally, that the People of the commonwealth alone, have an inalienable and indefeasible Right to institute government, and to reform, alter or totally change the same, whenever they think their safety and happiness require it.”
Before the Declaration of Independence, the Thirteen Colonies were little more than provinces of the Crown, ruled and governed by the supreme power of the Crown. It is therefore, far beyond belief that the Framers of the Constitution would create a government that would subjugate the States into a similar status as they fought to gain independence, indeed, they did not. Today, the federal government has assumed the position of the Crown, with absolute supremacy that is enforced through various means of coercion and has been enforced, in the past, through the spilling of precious blood.
This government, this regime, changed itself, through force, from a deputized agency into a sovereign, the very thing our Fathers fought so vigorously from which to free this People. This Union is just that, a Union between Free, Sovereign and Independent States; this Union is not the federal government, indeed, America is not the federal government. The States meet in Congress Assembled, Congress is, or should be, the Voice of the States, not the federal government, nor is Congress employed by the federal government, although that is indeed the perverted functionary of Congress today, corrupted by powers stolen, usurped and the Law abridged.
The States did nothing more than federalize themselves, they did this to create a far more efficient government than that formed under the Articles of Confederation of 1778. In terms of the federal government, the purpose was extremely limited, primarily the purpose of deputizing the federal government was to act as one voice in foreign affairs, to act as a mediator between the States and the Citizens of different States, and it was to act as an agency to act for the common cause of all the individual States, but very little more. The Constitution however, was not perfect in its construction, for it was open to interpretations that gave rise to the heretical stance of implied powers, loosely translating those expressed powers, the delegated authority into a perverted open-ended albatross around the necks of the Several States that created it, entrapping them and placing upon them the burden of federal coercion and forced unity.
The Constitution of the united States was an adjunct to the Constitutions of the Several States, respective of the fundamental Laws of the States themselves. The purpose of federalizing was to avoid consolidation, the very thing that happened during the 1860s with the perversion of every Constitutional edict and principle by the federal government under the hands of corruption and vile treason. Rather than the Union being saved, the Union based on federalism, based on a republican government, was rendered outlaw, the Constitution utterly morphed into a nationalistic shell, a facade hollowed out and rendered ineffectual in terms of original Law.
In the character and nature of federalism as Article VII of the Constitution, inferentially concludes and thus proves the fact that the States, being Free, Sovereign and Independent remain so after ratifying, take notice: “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”; This ratification, being voluntary in nature and character rather than compulsory, only declared that those ratifying it were the only ones affected by it, thus it only took 9 of those States to ratify the Constitution, but those which did not were not forced to comply, they remained outside of the newly formed government. Had this Constitution and therefore, the Union it created been as compulsory as Lincoln asserted, then the remaining States would have been compelled to join, they were not because that was not the manner and means by which this voluntary Union as crafted.
In the system of federalism, the States would send Ambassadors to the Congress Assembled, those Ambassadors were Senators, the Ambassadors of the People, Representatives. As with foreign nations, so too were the States, sending those who best serve in the interest of the individual States, acting on their behalf and on the behalf of the People of the Several States. Until the perversion of the Senate with the passage of the 17th Amendment, which nationalized the Senate, Senators represented the Sovereignty of the States they served and the Senate itself was to act as a bulwark, preserving the Sovereignty of their respective States. There is ample evidence within The Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, that the Framers considered the Senate, as well as the House of Representatives, in the manner described.
We must remember that at one time, the Citizens of the Several States thought of their individual States as their countries, the federal government was nothing more than the deputy of the States and the Union was simply the expression of the Association between the Several States. They did not view this country in the terms that arose later, meaning “one nation”, their Allegiance was to their States, they could not swear Allegiance to anything higher than the highest Sovereignty in the Land, which was and is the States. The federal government was merely entitled to obedience under the Constitution to only those powers delegated to it, but that was the full extent of any consideration of the federal government. In fact, you would not have seen the Stars and Stripes fly over any State, only the flags of the individual States flew over them. It was only until much, much later, actually in the late 1800s that the flag of the United States was, somehow, forced upon the States. It was the flag that denoted only the deputized agent of the States and was only flown over federal territories, military installations, and Naval vessels, but not over the Sovereign States, for there was not valid recognition of that flag as being over anything other than federally controlled territories.
Patriotism, another misused and abused term that has been essentially nationalized, just as the flag, was, for the Citizens, toward their individual States, but not a deputized agent of the States.
Long since has such Patriotism been subverted, diverted to a subordinate functionary by the political tricksters preaching the fanatical religion of unionology, bowing down to Washington, D.C. as though to Mecca, sacrificing the Constitution to the doctrine of nationalism. It is absolutely impossible to have two separate Sovereignties, the only Sovereignty is that of the People acting and expressing that Sovereignty through the Several States. A deputized agent that has limited power and limited authority cannot be Sovereign, only represent the Sovereign that deputized it.
When the British Crown was displaced by Independence, each of the former Colonies were recognized by the Crown as Free, Sovereign and Independent States, not as a nation, but as separate, individual Nations or Republics. Since that event of Sovereign displacement, the People have retained that Sovereign Status, expressed within the States therefore, it is the most fundamental principle that governs These States united, that the Absolute Right is Inherent, not in some deputized federal government, but in the People as expressed through the States where they reside. This principle points to the fact that there is no such thing as a Republic unless the People continue in their Sovereignty and can exercise the Solemn Right of Self-Government. The People, in their Sovereign Capacity never organized anything directly except the governments of the States themselves, the States then, acting on behalf of the People of the Respective States, crafted and delegated certain limited powers and authority to the federal government as a deputized agent but nothing, absolutely nothing more.
How far we have fallen from this lofty principle of Law and the nature of this Constitutional Republic?
Friday, June 29, 2012
It is, without doubt, possible to overlook or simply ignore those things which are not very obvious in our daily lives, it is this fact that makes many of the actions of our government possible. Actions of government in the area of economic markets, which, must include the primary economic medium of exchange: money, will always, without exception, create interference within the forces that normally function within the market. It is the sole aim of government to influence not only the market, but also the behavior behind the market through such intervention, such interferences always alter market forces, distorting them and in most cases hindering the natural flow of such forces to the point that the market system is thrown into economic chaos. Like money, most government intervention seeks to direct consumption that would not otherwise be a market directed choice, in a very similar fashion as the government seeking to direct, through legal tender laws, the use of its monopoly fiat paper money substitutes.
As these distortions continue there is a growing amount of economic dislocation of normal resource allocations, direct market signaling systems are misdirected into areas that would not otherwise be present or prevalent in the market itself. Since the aim of government intervention into the market is not simply an economic, but a social interference, directing certain social agendas with a political basis in origin, we can assume from such a conclusion that there is, based on this official aim, a motive to create a controllable society in which the government is the primary source of all economic and thus social forces within the country.
While that might sound a bit conspiratorial, the fact is simply that the character of government, especially when it reaches a particular point in its evolutionary growth, is to assume such a position of bureaucratic control. Such events are not novel to history, but quite common in all large civilizations; Ancient Rome being the most notable and perhaps the most comparable. As in the decaying Roman Republic, our Republic, long lying upon its deathbed, has been subjected to the same type of government mentality. Our government appears to be equally as eager to keep up appearances of one of republican ideas of liberty and freedom, all the while subverting those very vital principles through directing the forces of economic and monetary markets to achieve a social and political goal that is not consistent with the principles upon which this Republic was founded.
As with all government interference and regulation, the purpose appears to be to use such interference and regulation as a means to an end, but not the end itself, for the actual purpose of all interference and regulation is subservient to the ultimate goals of control. While we are sold on the idea that such interference and regulation is protective, the fact is that the goal is an indirect encroachment on the rights of the individual to make individual choices based on his or her own decisions and needs.
This government has assumed an old and ancient ideology, strange as it might sound, as its creed the “Divine Right of Kings”, for Kings of old thought themselves divinely appointed to care for their subjects and to direct the lives of their subjects, whether just or unjust, based on the divine direction they assumed to be correct. For ultimately, this divine right provided the Kings of old with such a degree of divine wisdom that their decisions were essentially beyond reproach and beyond the ability of the King’s subjects to question. Thus, the providential guardianship of the King over his helpless and unknowledgeable subjects presented a degree of power that would not have otherwise been available to the King. The same is true about our own government, especially today. Today, our government assumes essentially what could easily be considered as “Divine Right” over its “kingdom” and operates under the assumption that it knows what is best for its subjects.
This extends, not only to government regulation and interferences into the physical markets, but also this government has, for decades, been on a quest to even control the mental, spiritual and moral makeup of the country; while not directly imposing a government authorized moral system, there are, through the control of economic forces, a degree of control over the ability of the individual to choose what to believe, how to behave and what to think. The government assumes to know what is best, what type of money is best, which type of businesses are best, what type of consumer goods are best. What is good and not good for your body, what manner of speech is proper and correct, what mental attitudes are acceptable to society; it is a means to an end, and that end is and has always been controlled regimentation, conformity and compliance!
In the eyes of government bureaucracy, the ideal would be to remove all determination from the individual to make choices in his consumption of goods and services, in his ability to think for himself, to have a type of censorship that only allows for the individual to think that which is generally acceptable to the whole of society, of course, what is acceptable to the whole of society has been engineered through decades of gradual compulsory regiments, each building one upon the other, all with the goal of a collective conformity of purpose. We talk about the dumbing down of the American public, but we fail to understand that has simply been one of the methodical processes of control that the government bureaucracy has implemented in its quest for placating and thus dominating the independent spirit of the individual. This government has evolved into what other governments throughout history evolved into, that being a Paternal Organization set to develop the public opinion with a defined belief system, one that is ultimately compliant with and supportive of government without the necessity to question its directives.
It is therefore, essential that any hint of free market decision-making be eliminated, for once a person cannot longer determine his own choice in consumption, then the individual becomes essentially a ward of the State. Likewise, the assault on the idea that there is a Right to Private Property is an equally essential component of the overall directive of control. When the government can issue money substitutes that cannot, by definition, be considered the actual real property of the bearer, then the remaining directives become easier to establish. Government intervention and thus interference in economics is the main avenue utilized by government to implement its controls over the population. What has happened and is happening is nothing short of a longer version of a communist revolution; instead of a radical violent revolution, the same effects can be achieved through a gradual introduction of what amounts to communism through incremental government directives, regulations, prohibitions and induction training in public opinion, i.e. “political correctness”.
Never assume that there is not a political and social purpose behind the governments programs, which directly interfere with market forces, whether it is through regulation, monetary creation or manipulation, all are methodologies toward the goal of ultimate control over an increasingly compliant population. It is evident that through such interference into the markets, businesses and entrepreneurs are systematically forced to actually change the way they do business from market induction to government bureaucratic dictates. Business must take its signals from a distorted view of the market, one that is regulated and controlled instead of proper market signals. Instead of obeying market directives, which actually generate a market result, businesses must obey a plethora of government regulations that are so immense that even the regulators cannot adequately discharge their regulatory duties and can rarely properly interpret the very regulations they are responsible to enforce. Far from being a negative for government regulators, such vagueness is necessary for it provides government with a broadness of implementation and an “out” when such policies are questioned.
Such bureaucratic systems are always subject to corruption, this is true anytime actual market forces are interfered with and controlled. Under normal free market conditions, fraud is short-lived due to the fact that there are signals given that alert the consumer early of the possibility of corruption. Under a system where government intervenes and interferes with market processes, fraud becomes easily hidden since the market signaling process is distorted through government intervention and the regulatory processes employed. It is also essential to understand that any system that employs force to achieve a goal will always create an atmosphere where few will profit from many and income distribution is always stratified through such systems of bureaucratic controls and intervention. Government patronages become common place as those with political connections benefit the most.
Opportunities become very limited due to regulated competition that favors certain politically connected corporations, entrepreneurship becomes increasingly difficult to compete in business where regulation is based upon government patronage to the virtual exclusion of those that might build a better mouse trap but are limited in the opportunity to do so because the established mice trap company is protected by official regulatory walls. There can be no possible way to insure an equitable field of opportunity under such systems, as a rule there are those few therefore, who will prosper at the expense of the majority of individuals. As we have seen, risk becomes socialized while profits remain privatized which, is a complete distortion of market principles where risk and profits are always a private combination of business.
It can be observed therefore, that there is simply no possible method by which the bureaucratic regime can exert such power with any degree of fairness or equitable distribution of opportunity. There is the assumption, by those in government, that it is within the power of government to implement changes in the market that will actually produce equitable results, thus the exercise such power under that assumption, but reality points to a very different set of results. Government intervention into the markets is based on certain assumptions. Most bureaucrats tend to view the public with a condescending eye, one that sees the public as needing direction and guardianship. Thus, government becomes the social worker and policeman of the population. It is this attitude that permeates bureaucracy and provides the excuse for more and more intervention into individual lives, organizing the individuals through classifications and groupings, stratifying the population into distinct and separate classes all for the purpose of social control.
Under such bureaucratic systems, normal legal values are tossed aside and replaced with a regulatory mentality that implies the superiority of a “higher law”, this ideology began in this country during the Administration of Lincoln and it has simply ballooned to the point that we are subject to the arbitrary interpretation of “higher law” rather than the actual Law de jure. Social construction is paramount to the bureaucratic regime, and it is employed through a variety of means, but primarily through intervention into the market processes, controlling and directing both production and consumption. Since the advocates of the “higher law” must mete out a form of justice that is rarely equitable, they do so under the pretense of equality and fairness for the public good. Thus, those who advocate free markets, liberty and freedom of the individual are seen and described as opponents of equality and the public good. They are portrayed as greedy and selfish because the assumption is that the public good cannot be advanced under a pure market system where government is not involved with intervention to create what it imagines as beneficial to the “many” rather than the “few”, but the very system promotes exactly the opposite of what the pronounced intention is and how it is promoted. The assumption by government bureaucrats is that all forms of exploitation can be eradicated through government intervention yet, with this assumption there comes a blindness that prevents those in power to understand that they actions create far more exploitation than it can ever eliminate.
Of course, with these assumptions come the efforts to equalize both income and wealth, thus all manner of redistribution schemes find its way into legislation, whether it is through various taxation or programs. Anyone seeking to actually improve their lot, to actually embark on a path of success where income may be considered above average is castigated as greedy and shameful, detrimental to the public good and the equitable cause of “higher law” and “social justice”. It is therefore, the character of interventionism to foster corruption, there is after all, nothing but the arbitrary decision-making process of bureaucrats to determine the application of what might be considered fair and just, for the Law de jure has been neutralized throughout the system.
Essentially, while we all know that the free market doesn’t provide a “free lunch” that is exactly what the government bureaucratic system seeks to provide, all at the expense of the actual producers in the controlled market. The bureaucrats don’t understand that in all forms of market expression, resources are always scarce, thus anytime any good, whether it is a consumable good or even money, the consumption of that good will always, as it must, come at the expense of someone. The government, through its various means of control, does not appear to understand that fact, or if it does understand it, it assumes the power to disrupt such market forces with an artificial construction seeking to replace market principles with a planned system, centralized and consolidated. The government however, can never be an actual producer and can only siphon off productive activity and in the process it ultimately destroys any productive results to the point that the entire economic system eventually enters a state of failure. Not only that, but since the government and its intervention cannot possibly account for actual economic calculation, the system goes into dystrophy, its artificial monetary substitution system loses economic potency, the entire structure enters various stages of decay that befuddle government economists because they have been so indoctrinated into the official government assumptions rather than the economic reality that the market will always seek to restore.
It is therefore, ultimately impossible for such a mercantilist market to remain stable, there are simply far too many distortions created by the system itself to remain viable. Since government intervention cannot adequately reproduce economic calculation, all of its efforts of control over the market culminate in social and economic destruction. As was mentioned in the beginning of this essay, the government is seeking to displace market choice and yet, since all markets deal with the scarcity of resources it is impossible for the government to implement a system where choices are completely eliminated. Since choice determines price or costs within the market, the governments attempts to restrict or limit choice, thus competition, within the market through regulation displaces normal market signaling systems, creating more and more distortions leading to economic dislocations, the misallocation of resources and ultimate economic failures.
As such intervention increases, and it is a natural process of intervention to exponentially increase without much effort, the whole process eventually becomes an exercise in futility, an absolute absurdity. Of course, bureaucrats don’t understand that the entire free market system of private property and the enterprise to achieve wealth is absolutely the best method of bringing about a higher level of living standards far the greatest bulk of the population. The problem, in the eyes of bureaucrats is that they don’t understand that life is life, it is not fair, it is not an equal playing field, nor will it ever be, despite all the efforts of government intervention to transform the system into one where all people have the very same opportunity to achieve the same living standards. The idea of equal opportunity is itself a misapplication of an ideology that simply cannot exist in real life. The ideal that opportunity is a factor of life that can manage, controlled or transformed is fundamentally flawed in its conception, yet government bureaucrats are seeking to equalize something that cannot be equalized or managed.
Though the government assumes it has both the ability and the power to manage and manipulate markets through various types of intervention, it fails to understand that it is the market that creates civilization. Through the interventionist policies of government essentially the government is setting up its own demise. The government appears to believe, at least evidenced by its actions, that there is an alternative to the free market system, but there is none, there is only the alternative of market distortions created by such intervention. Government bureaucrats appear to believe that the markets are the product of human design, and while it is definitely true that the market is the product of human action, it is far beyond human design. Government intentions to manage and manipulate the market defies the fact that the market, just as money, emerged in history as a pure phenomenon of unintended consequences, all in the pursuit of the self-interest of human action throughout the course of mankind’s history. Money, like the market, has no artificial substitutes.
Carl Menger explored the subject of the emergence of money within markets, it emerged as a phenomenon of trade, as did the market itself. Money is simply the most tradable good, the most competitive commodity to emerge to suit the necessity as the most tradable good was gold and silver, history proclaims the success of gold as money through several thousands years of utility. There was no intention to make gold or silver into money, it was simply the competitive nature of the markets making the most useful and efficient choice.
The first and foremost weapon in the governments arsenal in pursuing market manipulation therefore, was real money, it had to be displaced before all other market principles could be manipulated and somewhat managed. Thus the demonetizing of gold and silver were a priority of government interventionists. Without such steps it would be virtually impossible for the government to implement the vastness of social controls, all the while expanding its own scope of power. The incremental revolution that has taken place over the decades is astounding when viewing it for what it really is and how it has progressed. With the advance of this interventionist system, there has been a growing and perhaps more pronounced hostility toward the free market in general and capitalism specifically, this hostility has been intentionally crafted, for without it the systems of control could not possibly continue to be implemented. It is easy to see this hostility around the world, yet it is obvious that such hostility is artificially constructed and is based on a total ignorance of market principles. All one need do is listen to the rhetoric within the public arena to see that it is based on ignorance, but it is exactly that ignorance that is useful to this government.
If you have noticed recently there have been many in the public arena that have heaped praise on the Chinese model of “capitalism” yet, for all the praise, they neglect the obvious and that is that the Chinese model is actually a failure that will be exposed soon enough. Yet, such praise is actually nothing more that ploys to further implement more bureaucratic controls and management over our own economy. These bureaucrats are delusional in their understanding and their faith in the power of their actions verses the power of the market to seek to correct the distortions they create. There are many within our government who actually believe that a mercantilist form of socialism actually represents advancement over the free market, that such a system is superior, at least ethically superior, to any market production that is based upon private profits. Unfortunately for those who hold such wayward beliefs, their system can never function to the degree that success would be sustainable for a long period of time, nor could it produce the necessary standard of living to maintain popular satisfaction. They seek to make their fantasy of a government induced free lunch possible while rejecting the only type of market that can provide a higher standard of living for the masses which is the free market unhindered by government interference and intervention.
Government bureaucrats cannot seem to grasp the grand nature of the free market, that it is essentially unplanned order in the highest degree; since they have no understanding of how something can be unplanned and yet ordered, they seek to place their particular brand of order upon it, but their alternative planned order only displaces market order and creates, in its wake, economic and social destruction. It is, without doubt therefore, these extremely irrational tendencies of government that pose one of the greatest threats to our civilization, in particular our liberty and freedom, as well as our well being. If there is any consolation it can be found in the fact that the system that they have created is rapidly falling into a state of total disrepair, the question will be for all of us, is what type of world will we choose to rebuild after the collapse of this artificial system of control?