Posted by Tom Mullen on 05/19/09

It is generally accepted that one must wait several decades before looking back at an event or an era with sufficient "historical perspective."  Only from that vantage point can the significance and long-term effects of any piece of history be objectively observed, quantified, and analyzed.  However, there is a dilemma inherent in this long-standing tradition.  It is that there are always interested parties who wish to characterize significant events or eras in history in a way that suits their own agenda.  As a result, by the time sufficient time has passed to satisfy the need for "historical perspective," these interested parties have created an official story regarding the events in question and have had time to convince the majority of people that this official story is the truth.  By the time a generation has passed, the official story has become both accepted history for academia and "conventional wisdom" for average citizens.  Regardless of facts, reason, or any perspective whatsoever, the official story now is the truth.

Such has been the case countless time throughout American history.  It is universally accepted that America's Civil War started over slavery, and credits Abraham Lincoln with "freeing the slaves."  History and conventional also wisdom tells us that the quality of life of the working class in America declined during the industrial revolution, and credits the "progressive movement" for instituting needed reforms that saved the working class from capitalism.  Most relevant to our situation in America today, history blames the Great Depression of the 1930's on Herbert Hoover's "laissez faire capitalism" and "unregulated free markets," and credits FDR's New Deal with ending the Depression and restoring prosperity.

When presented in the textbooks of high school history or college survey courses, there is a certain logic and reasonableness to these versions of historical events that makes them very easy to understand and accept.  There is only one problem: none of them are true.

Americans are already familiar with the official story of our present crisis.  Too much laissez faire capitalism" has resulted in an unprecedented crisis caused by predatory lenders, irresponsible borrowers, speculators, and other market participants acting in an environment with too little regulation.  Without oversight, "unregulated free markets" naturally resulted in market players choosing short term profits over long-term prudence.  This process was fueled during the past decade by George W. Bush's "laissez faire policies."

There is only one problem with this story - none of it is true, either.  None of the problems we face today were caused by unregulated free markets and the policies of George W. Bush were in no way "laissez faire."  This is much more than an academic argument.  The premise that unregulated capitalism is to blame for our present economic crisis is the basis for every action that our government is taking right now.  If that premise is incorrect, then the results of action taken based upon it could be disastrous.

It is probably a good idea at this point to define some terms.  Assuming that "laissez faire capitalism" and "free markets" mean the same thing, what I mean when I use those terms is this: a market economy where all exchanges of property are made with the mutual, voluntary consent of all parties to those transactions.  While government's role is limited in such a system, it is nevertheless crucial: to ensure that all transactions are made with the mutual, voluntary consent of all parties.  To put it most succinctly, government's role in a free market is to protect the property rights of each individual.

Is this what George W. Bush did or at least attempted to do?  Let us examine the Bush economic policies and see for ourselves.

Bush campaigned on and did follow through upon a promise to cut taxes.  He did this by reducing the income tax on the highest income earners and by sending each American family a "refund" of several hundred dollars.  One might be tempted to argue that this was a move in the direction of free markets, as the returned money represented reductions of a government that had grown far beyond its role of defending life, liberty, and property.  Thus, the tax money collected for these illegitimate functions was a violation of the property rights government was supposed to protect and the tax cuts were a partial remedy for those violations.  This is what any self-respecting Republican would have you believe.

There is only one problem: there were no reductions in government.  In fact, Bush greatly increased the size of the government with military and new entitlement spending.  As a result, he ran huge deficits and doubled the national debt.  Looked at objectively, there was a tenuous relationship at best between the money taxpayers had previously paid in taxes and the checks sent out by the government after all of that tax money was already spent.  Furthermore, millions of Americans who hadn't even paid taxes received "refund" checks anyway.  Seen for what it was, this "tax refund" was merely a ploy to buy votes with other people's money dressed up in Republican rhetoric, as well as a way to perpetuate debt-fueled consumerism for the benefit of President Bush's friends in corporate America.  Handing out money to people to whom it doesn't belong has nothing to do with free markets, whether that money is borrowed from other nations or printed out of thin air.  It represents complete distortion of the markets by government, along with a fundamental violation of the property rights of present and future generations.

Amidst this confusion we seem to have forgotten one major contributor to the aforementioned deficits: the Medicare drug plan.  The Medicare drug plan was the Bush administration's program from start to finish, and it was rammed through the legislature despite its dubious administrative plan and complete lack of funding.  While it was rightly criticized for both of these faults, no media outlet seems to have recognized its complete antagonism toward free markets.  In addition to violating property rights by forcing one group of individuals to pay for the healthcare services of others, Medicare and other government health care programs completely distort the health care market, creating artificial demand that inflates prices and suspends market forces.  Here we have another major component of President Bush's policy that is the complete antithesis of laissez faire capitalism.

The mass illusion about this president's policies doesn't stop there.  The American public also seems to think that major deregulation occurred under President Bush, but actually the exact opposite is true.  It was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (repealing the Glass-Steagall Act) that lead to the massive expansion of derivates in the stock and real estate markets that helped fuel the housing bubble.  However, this legislation was actually passed when President Clinton was still in office.  In fact, Bush's only significant effect on the regulatory structure was to increase regulation, not decrease it. 

Due to the political fallout from the accounting scandals during the early years of Bush's presidency, especially the Enron scandal, Bush championed new, completely unnecessary, and profoundly destructive regulations under the Sarbanes-Oxley act.  Despite the fact that the accounting scandals were clear cases of fraud, which was already illegal and which could be prosecuted without a single new regulation, President Bush had a political need to show that he was "doing something" about corporate crime.

So, again in complete opposition to "free markets," Bush signed Sarbanes-Oxley into law, saying as he did so that the bill represented "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt."[1]  Invoking FDR should have been enough on its own to erase any perception of Bush as a champion of free markets, but the hated "laissez faire" moniker seems to be a tough one to shake.  As we now know, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been terribly destructive to American markets and has contributed to a migration of new investment away from America and to more business-friendly countries.  Chalk up another victory for Bush against free markets.

Finally, there is Bush's role in the housing bubble, the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back regarding America's borrow and spend economy of the past several decades.  Here it should be noted that the lion's share of the blame for this debacle should go to the Federal Reserve System, which kept interest rates artificially low and expanded money and credit to counter what would have been two recessions in the late 1990's and early 2000's.  Remember, the private Federal Reserve System does not answer to any branch of the federal government.  One could certainly argue that both Clinton and Bush merely happened to be in office while the Federal Reserve blew up two massive bubbles during their presidencies (the NASDAQ bubble and the housing bubble).

However, it was not just low interest rates or the expansion of money and credit that caused the housing bubble to inflate.  There was also the role of government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which guaranteed mortgages that would not have been written in a free market.  Starting with Clinton and continuing with Bush, the executive branch played cheerleader to the "ownership" society whereby every American was entitled to own their own home, whether they could afford the mortgage that went with it or not.

The mortgage debacle is often cited as an example of the "unregulated free market" producing negative results.  Since both the "predatory lenders" and the "irresponsible borrowers" were acting voluntarily, the millions of subsequent defaults are characterized as the result of too little regulation on the market, allowing these freely-acting participants to eschew prudence for short-term profits.  However, this analysis omits one very important fact: there were not two parties to most of these mortgage transactions, but three.

The forgotten third party was, of course, the taxpayer.  It was the taxpayers' money that was put up as collateral for the loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the taxpayer was not acting freely.  The taxpayer was forced by government to back these loans without his consent and against his best interests.  Had the government not committed this crime against property rights to serve its goal of an "ownership society," none of the defaulting loans would have been made.  

In a truly free market, the desire for profit is balanced by the presence of risk.  When one is lending one's own money, the possibility that the borrower will default forces the lender to adhere to high lending standards to avoid making a bad loan.  This is not done out of some civic duty or professional integrity (not that many lenders don't possess both of these qualities), but out of recognized necessity for economic survival.  The balance between desire for profit and risk is a naturally occurring market force when all participants are acting voluntarily in their rational self interest.  However, by allowing lenders and borrowers to use other people's money as collateral, this natural market force was suspended.  To go on to call the resulting disaster the result of "unregulated free markets" is nonsense in the first degree.

Ironically, Clinton and Bush each pursued the exact same policy regarding the housing market for very different reasons.  Clinton pressured Fannie Mae to take more and more risk in order to play to his base: low-income Americans who would not qualify for a mortgage in a truly free market.  Bush went right on encouraging the process in order to appease his base: Wall Street investment houses that were making a killing securitizing mortgages.  Regardless of the motivation, what is important to realize is that this policy is completely antithetical to the concept of free markets or laissez faire capitalism.

Of course, once the crisis began, most people recognize that nothing President Bush did could be characterized as "laissez faire."  Bush himself admitted that he was abandoning free market principles because "the market is not functioning properly," a bizarre statement from one who supposedly believes in free markets in the first place.  His massive intervention into the economy and egregious redistribution of wealth are characterized by the media as a departure from his previous "laissez faire approach."  Yet, anyone can see that this "laissez faire approach" was complete fiction.  So why do all but a few contrarians keep saying it anyway?

There is an answer to that question.  Characterizing Bush's policies as "laissez faire" does serve a very useful purpose for politicians.  It provides them with justification to loot more property and seize more power.  The all-out war on free enterprise presently being waged by President Obama and his cohorts in Congress would not be possible if most Americans did not believe the official story that Bush's presidency was an era of "laissez faire capitalism" or "unregulated free markets" and that these policies caused the economic crisis.  Only the continued willingness by the majority of Americans to swallow this economic gibberish allows the destruction of our liberty to march forward. 

To my fellow Americans, I say this:  No politician (save perhaps one) is going to come forward and tell you the truth.  Most of them don't know the truth, and those that do have figured out that this official nonsense serves their own ambitions, just as saying that the world was flat once served the ambitions of medieval rulers.  It is up to you to rub your eyes and look at the world as it really is.  Two plus two does not equal five and you know that.  Similarly, people voluntarily exchanging their own goods and services with one another can never cause anyone harm and deep down you must know that, too.  It is time to reject the idiotic history that is being written about our present difficulties and demand that the evil incursions into our liberty cease immediately.   You have enormous power when you know what to demand.  It all starts with recognizing the obvious despite the well-funded efforts of those who wish to deceive you.  As the good book saith, the truth shall set you free.[2]

Check out Tom Mullen's new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.  Right Here!

Home

[1] Bumiller, Elisabeth (2002-07-31). "Bush Signs Bill Aimed at Fraud in Corporations". The New York Times

[2] John 8:32

Posted 07/06/09 tsaray Wayzata, MN

TM: I've been reading your articles and i am learning more of the things that I already knew about and now i either know them better or can state my case better. I have written a couple of poems that talk to our errors in governing. "return liberty" and "Truth". They are at: www.mnartists.org/raymond_hartmann. My thinking is that you sometimes have to have a different approach to capture the attention of some folks. i am frustrated by the attitude of most of the people that i try to educate -- they either don't understand or they don't believe -- They are brain poisoned in the scholl, the press, and the politicos!!! 'Ramon the Poet'/Raymond Hartmann

Posted 08/20/10 Willij4lib Monroe, WA

Nice article Tom, This is the way it has looked to me as well, I agree with all the things that happened but I would include that it is the total intent of the Federal Reserve and the Banking industry on a global level to raise debt because this is their product and their claimed of fame, by having these fraudulent low interest rates they knew full well with the help of Government to aid people into homes that could not afford them would bring up the level of debt on to Federal Government i.e. the American tax payer. Not only here but globally the debt level across the board is the biggest product expanding across our world at enormous leaps and bounds. There is no way this can be excluded as it is the signs of our times in an attempt to empower themselves over Governments and tax paying people who by these actions have only built up slavery to a new level to defy any such thing as free markets. We don’t even need that much history to see it, we can see what has resulted from this in the last two years and if we go back even further we can see this same idealism has been used before and the results no different. Our window into the future of America is that of Greece so be watching closely to see exactly what our future will look like so we are prepared as best we can be. When you add the war to this effort do we fully realize how long we could be in for enslavement unless as you say we awaken and re-grab the reins, bypass our politicians and become defiant against banking and Corporate corruption. Yes we do know 4+4 does not equal 5 as well fully informing gets us educated in what is before us and we must become resistive to the evil intent stuffed upon us by both Corporate and Federal Government, one allows the other to afford such expansion.

Posted by Tom Mullen on 04/19/09
Last updated 04/20/09

"Americans are tired of partisan bickering. They are looking for their representatives in Washington to put partisanship aside and get to the work of the American people."

Statements like this have become a mantra over the past few decades. Like Democracy, "Bipartisanship" is now held up as an ideal and an end in and of itself. It would seem that no matter how ludicrous or destructive a policy might be, it must be just and beneficial if both major political parties agree that it should be law. Implicit also in this reasoning is that a truce between the two rival gangs in Washington, D.C. on any particular issue represents the consent of the governed for that policy - a fallacy that is becoming increasingly exposed as the American people begin to take to the streets.

The first question that comes to mind when hearing the bipartisan mantra is "who are these Americans that are tired of partisan bickering?" I haven't been able to find any of them. In my own experience, Americans seem to be divided into two groups. The first and largest has no idea what their representatives are doing or what they stand for (or even who they are in many cases). They have no interest in the political process and regard any broach of the subject as in slightly bad taste. The second, smaller group is rabidly partisan; they will back whichever side they associate themselves with no matter how wrong their side might be on a particular issue and attack the other side no matter how right it might be. They associate left or right with issues that largely do not affect them, like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, while entirely failing to evaluate either party on its core purpose: to secure their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

Reality aside (a prerequisite for politics in Washington), this mantra is repeated ad infinitum at every opportunity. Whenever the two parties reach some dubious consensus, as they currently have on Keynesian economics, we have to endure the typical gloating about how "Republicans and Democrats came together in a bipartisan manner" to "get the work of the American people done." There is the implication that these parasites somehow made some sacrifice in putting aside their differences to agree upon what usually amounts to another scheme to loot more of the American people's rightful property. In reality, the destruction of our republic that has occurred over the past century has been completely bipartisan.

While one can find examples of these two parties collaborating against us every single day, let us consider some of the more egregious milestones over the past century and what part both parties played in each.

The seminal moment was, of course, the bloodless coup of 1913. During the first year of the Wilson administration, the federal government established the income tax, the Federal Reserve System, and passed the 17th Amendment. All of these changes were indicative of the change of philosophy in Washington about the role of government. No longer was the government's purpose to secure individual rights, as the Declaration of Independence said it was. Instead, the role of government was now to achieve societal goals of social and economic equality and a world safe for democracy - all at the expense of individual rights.

We associate these ideas and these changes with Woodrow Wilson, but the "progressive movement" certainly did not start with him. In fact, it was Republican Theodore Roosevelt that began the assault on free enterprise with his "trust-busting" and other incursions into the markets that set the stage for Wilson. Remember also that Wilson was only able to get into the White House with 42% of the popular vote because Roosevelt jumped into the 1912 election on the Progressive ticket. Why did he challenge his former protégé William Howard Taft? He did so because Taft turned out not to be progressive enough - especially in withholding support for a central bank. The bloodless coup of 1913 - which planted the seeds for the destruction of the American Republic - was a completely bipartisan effort.

Moving forward a few years, let us look at the next massive move away from liberty - the New Deal. Here again history grossly distorts reality in characterizing Democrat FDR's policies as diametrically opposed to those of his Republican predecessor, Herbert Hoover. Ironically, Roosevelt the Democrat actually ran on a platform criticizing Hoover's policies as fiscally irresponsible. However, just like the Obama bailout/interventionist policies of today, much of FDR's "New Deal" was merely an expansion of the policies of his Republican predecessor. By the time that FDR took office, Hoover had already worsened the depression with his own bailout program via the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, set up a Public Works Administration to
expand federal public works, created the Home Loan Bank discount system to reflate the deflated housing bubble, and perpetrated other crimes against free enterprise and property rights that FDR would merely expand upon. To be fair, FDR made much more fundamental changes in establishing Social Security and the vast regulatory system that continues to strangle our economy and violate our rights, but the underlying philosophy was shared by both Hoover and FDR. Therefore, score the Great Depression and the resulting destruction of liberty as another great victory of "bipartisanship."

Let us move on to the next fundamental shift - Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." It was during this administration that the other of the two entitlement giants that will eventually bankrupt America was born - government-provided healthcare under Medicare and Medicaid. Johnson actually pursued his "War on Poverty" and other "social reforms" at the same time as he tried to prosecute a permanent war in Viet Nam. This was the infamous "guns and butter" philosophy that led directly to the collapse of the U.S. dollar and the rampant stagflation of the 1970's.

Again, conventional wisdom or perhaps intentional spin characterizes these destructive policies with the "big government Democrat" Johnson, but he did not emerge out of a vacuum. History seems to have forgotten that it was the Republican Eisenhower that created the massive Department of Health, Education, and Welfare within the federal government, setting the stage for federal government involvement in healthcare. Similarly, the Republican Nixon ran on a platform to end the Viet Nam war, but managed to take almost six years to do so, while assaulting free enterprise himself with wage and price controls to address the inflation that he helped perpetuate with his own spending on top of Johnson's. In retrospect, it is clear that both the "Great Society" and the "guns and butter" disasters were completely bipartisan efforts.

This brings us to the present. Another depression is upon us, and the similarity of the Bush/Obama dynamic to that of Hoover/Roosevelt couldn't be more striking. Again, we have a Republican president that is criticized for being "too laissez faire," when in fact he was a massive interventionist both before and during the crisis. Just as in 1933, we have a new Democratic president that is merely continuing or expanding the interventionist policies of his Republican predecessor, yet is credited for bringing some ill-defined "change" to Washington. Like FDR, President Obama seems intent upon using the crisis to make even more fundamental changes to American society - among them universal government healthcare - that will further destroy our liberty and prosperity. However, whatever destruction Obama brings upon our Republic can only be seen as the result of a completely bipartisan effort. Clinton and then Bush created the crisis with their policies encouraging home ownership at the expense of responsibility and property rights (remember the loans were guaranteed with other people's money through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), and Bush and Obama responded to it with further violations of property rights that turned it from a recession to a depression. Score another "victory" for bipartisanship.

The fact that any substantive difference between the two parties is an illusion was never more apparent than during the last presidential campaign. It astounds me how anyone could have perceived any difference in the platforms of these two candidates. By the time he was nominated, Obama had completely abdicated his anti-war position, now campaigning that America is merely in "the wrong war," and that he would get us into the right one. For both candidates, the vast overseas military empire was going to grow. In addition, both candidates supported the bailouts, more intervention into the economy, more regulation on commerce, and even the idiotic idea that American young people are somehow obligated to do slave labor for their government (yes, McCain also supported a "national service" plan - a fact the right has conveniently forgotten).

The similarity of these positions is rooted in a similarity of philosophy shared by both parties. In contrast to the most important of our founding principles - that the rights of the individual are unalienable and cannot be taken away - not even by majority vote - both of our political parties believe that the state and the state's needs take precedence over the rights of the individual. After a weak appeal to traditional Republican rhetoric about individual liberty, John McCain went on to advocate a philosophy at least as collectivist as Obama's, continually appealing to Americans to sacrifice the pursuit of their own happiness for a cause "greater than themselves."

Likewise, Obama continually reminded Americans that they had a duty to "service and sacrifice." Like most of his platitudes, he never answered the most crucial questions. Sacrifice What? For Whom? Allow me to answer them now, on behalf of both Obama and McCain. "Sacrifice your individual rights, especially the hard-earned fruits of your labor, for the needs of your country - "country" and "government" being synonymous for both of them.

It should be abundantly clear that the left-right, Republican-Democrat dichotomy that we have been divided by over the past century has been one, vast Jedi mind trick. Over and over, the political ruling class has divided us with acrimony over meaningless, fringe issues while the two parties have consistently collaborated to loot our wealth, rob us of our liberty and dignity, and transform American society from one built upon self-reliance, personal responsibility, and the rule of just laws to one built upon dependence, fear, and legal plunder. It is past time for a third party movement. It is time for Americans to reject the paradigm of political party altogether. The answer to the problem of political gangs using the brute force of government to rob its people is not to form a rival gang and try to compete for or share in the plunder. The answer is to dissolve the two rival gangs and replace them with nothing.

As Americans, we have it in our power to do this in just eighteen short months. As Thomas Paine put it, "We have it in our power to begin the world over again."[1] What is imperative is that we do not allow ourselves to fall for the same trick that has been played upon us in the past. We cannot continue to vote one political party out and vote the other one in and expect any substantive change. Instead of succumbing to voting for the lesser of two evils, I would suggest a third alternative. We can select representatives from among ourselves, affiliated with no political party and committed in writing to what most Americans truly want - a government that protects their life, liberty, and property and otherwise stays out of their lives.

No special training is needed for this job. If there was any illusion that the members of the entrenched political class in Washington, D.C. possess some special skills that make them more qualified for the job than average Americans, their performance over the past year and a half should have dispelled that falsehood completely. Not only are they not qualified for leadership, but they are beholden to interests that conflict with the interests of their constituents. There is absolutely no way we can improve our lot while they remain in power.

Americans are waking up to this. The consistent message from the recent Tea Party protests, despite media spin in contradiction to observable reality, was that Americans are fed up with BOTH Republicans and Democrats. While these events were characterized by media outlets on the left as "right-wing extremist" rallies, one need only watch video of Republican Gresham Barrett's reception in Greenville, South Carolina, where attendees booed and even turned their backs upon him, to see that this couldn't be farther from the truth. I doubt that Mr. Barrett will be returning to Washington after the next election. One down, 534 to go.

Eighteen months. During that time, let us not forget the outrage that has driven us to the streets. Let us remember the BIPARTISAN destruction of our Republic over the past century. Let us remember that there is no way to restore our republic while these rival gangs remain in power. We do not need violence - our founders gave us an easier method. In eighteen months, let us demonstrate that we are no longer fooled by the left-right, Republican-Democrat illusion. In eighteen months, let us once and for all throw ALL of the bums out. Instead of a third party, let us replace them with representatives of the only legitimate special interest - We the People.

[1] Thomas Paine Common Sense (1776)

Check out Tom Mullen's new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!

Home

Posted 04/19/09 KathyLatshaw BeaReady Smithville, OH

"The answer is to dissolve the two rival gangs and replace them with nothing." That's a very tall order. When do we start? :D

Posted 04/19/09 libertyspirit Modesto, CA

And when we bring in these new representatives to Washington, can we implore/employ them to dismantle the unconstitutional stranglehold of a system their predecessors built? I sure hope so. Maybe our next rally cry should be "Tear IT Down! Yes WE Can!" And to those junior senators and representatives we say "Tear IT Down! Yes YOU Can!"

Posted 04/19/09 Justin DeWind Grand Rapids, MI

Impressive summary of recent history from a libertarian perspective. In regards to the sudden desire that congress be bi-partisan, in agreement, and compromise for the 'prosperity' or 'safety' of the American people is being pushed heavily [by the media]. My friend recently cited that a local NPR radio host was discussing the ridiculous bickering between our state representatives. The solution to this problem, according to him, is to remove term limits so that they can mature and come to compromising agreement on various policies. The smallest government bodies are generally a result of a split legislative branch that can agree on nothing. This is perfectly acceptable to me until we have representatives of principle. I'd rather they bicker pointlessly until then.

Posted by Tom Mullen on 03/30/09
Last updated 03/31/09

Check out Tom Mullen's new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America right here!

Posted by Tom Mullen on 03/05/09

There came a point between last year's criminal bailout of the financial sector and the latest theft of $30 billion more to throw on the AIG bonfire that further acts of armed robbery by this government against its people ceased to matter, at least for me.  It is not that I have thrown up my hands and given up.  Far from it.  Rather, I see the acceleration in both the frequency and the size of the bailouts for what they are - the death struggle of a drowning regime, flailing its arms as the water enters its lungs.  With each new bailout and subsequent addition to its mountain of debt, the regime loses a little more of the only oxygen it has left - its legitimacy in the eyes of its people.

Legitimacy is the recognition by its people that their government is their rightful government, that the power it yields is legitimate power.  In a free society, our Declaration of Independence tells us that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed.  As I've discussed before, the philosophy that inspired the founding of our nation asserts that such consent is given by a free people for only one reason: protection of their property.  Thus, the legitimacy of the government of a free people only endures as long as that government continues to protect the property of its citizens.  Once it ceases to protect property - or begins to attack and plunder property - it ceases to exercise legitimate power, for it no longer has the consent of the governed.

For those who understand these simple principles of liberty, the government of the United States lost its legitimacy decades ago.  While there are many convincing arguments for an even earlier date, certainly after 1913 the matter was settled conclusively.  It was in 1913 that the United States ceased to be a republic with a government whose purpose was to protect the property of the individual and became a social democracy with a government whose purpose was to plunder the property of the individual for "the good of society," or "the general will," if you prefer the language of the statist Rousseau.  The good of society was, of course, defined by the state - the plunderer - eliminating any possibility that some inadvertent benefit might befall the governed.  The good of society was defined as the twin statist pillars of tyranny that still dominate our society today: to achieve economic equality at home and to make the world safe for democracy abroad.  These remain the two goals of the America democratic empire, espoused by both major political parties.

In order to achieve these ends, individual liberty - the only liberty- must be sacrificed.  Why?  Because in order to attempt to achieve the two pillars the state must attack the means and the tangible stuff of liberty - property.  That is why in 1913, along with the new philosophy, came the insidious Income Tax, the Federal Reserve, and the 17^th Amendment.  These were the tools with which the new social democracy plundered the property of the individual in order to achieve its goals.  Once the individual lost the right to the fruits of his labor, he lost his liberty, for there cannot be one without the other.

Certainly, the free enterprise juggernaut that was created by the former republic continued to thunder forward.  However, it was now progressing under the weight of the coercive power of the state, which constantly attacked it, rather than under the rightful protection of the state, which had previously acted only in defense of property.  The drag on free enterprise was light at first, but relentless in its growth.  While America enjoyed good decades and bad after 1913, the seeds of systemic failure were sown, and the end to which we have now come inevitable.

This argument certainly begs the question of why the 1913 coup was a bloodless one.  Why would a nation "conceived in liberty" quietly allow the very core of their liberty to be taken from them?  The answer is that it was not taken from them, but given away.  One must remember that the power in a democracy lies in the majority.  This is where the significance of the 17^th Amendment comes into play.  This was the masterstroke of the new social democracy.  By giving more "power to the people," and eliminating the key check on federal power that the state legislatures possessed when they chose U.S. senators instead of popular vote, it was then a simple matter for the federal government to buy the liberty of the people.  They deftly picked the pocket of an unsuspecting public by relieving them of their property (and therefore their liberty) by promising them other people's property.  This was the deal with the devil that was offered to the American people, and they took it.  For those who objected, the two pillars were there to be thrown in their faces, with a hundred million voters to shout them down.  As the Star Wars III character so eloquently put it, "So this is how liberty dies - to thunderous applause."

So, at that point, the link between legitimacy and property rights was broken.  Legitimacy remained dependent upon the consent of the governed, but after 1913 the American public no longer consented to government for protection of their property.  Increasingly over the ensuing decades, that consent was given in return for the promise of other people's property.  Inevitably, "progress" for society became defined as the extent to which property could be stolen from one group and redistributed to another - at home through social programs, regulation, and other "economic policy" and abroad through military adventurism and empire-building.  It should be obvious to the reader that this type of "progress" can only lead to the prospect that we may soon face ourselves: no property, and thus no liberty, at all.

One might be tempted to despair that a thousand years of tyranny awaits us.  However, there is one flaw in the social democracy's model: it is unsustainable.  It has lived off of the productive capacity of the former republic for almost 100 years, but in that time the parasite has killed off the host.  There are now a few in the minority that argue that government shouldn't destroy the property rights of the individual in pursuit of the two pillars.  What will become obvious very soon is that government cannot achieve its goals in this way.  The model depends upon a productive element in society supplying the property needed for plunder, but without liberty there is eventually no productivity either.  This is why empires fall, and for no other reason.

Thus, since the government's legitimacy is now based upon its ability to provide its citizens with other people's property, and because it will soon no longer be able to do so, it will obviously soon lose its legitimacy.  Without legitimacy, regimes fall.  If the surrealism of a government spending staggering sums of money in its last death throes has not hit home to the average American, the first medical claim unpaid for lack of funds under one of its socialist medical programs, the first Social Security check that bounces, or the first time a local welfare department closes its doors will spur this epiphany.  If nothing so dramatic occurs (we do, in the end, have a printing press), then there will come a day - and that day is months or years away, not decades - that tens of millions of unemployed Americans are going to wake up and realize that the government's promise of security via other people's property was false.  Then, the regime will fall.

Lest one assume that there is no work to be done by the majority of Americans, let us not create new illusions to replace the old ones.  History shows that a corrupted people that throws off the tyranny of an oppressive government can only create something worse in its place.  We must face the fact that the American people are corrupted - not because they drink too much liquor, have too much sex, or don't go to church - but because they have lost all recognition of the rights of their fellow human beings to the fruits of their labor.  The French Revolution should serve as a perfect example to Americans at this point in history.  While the French rightly threw off the tyranny of a government that plundered their property, they merely transferred the privilege of plunder to themselves, all for the misguided cause of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity."  The result, as we know, was a bloody reign of terror.

We will achieve similar results with our own revolution without a change of ideology.  We must reject entirely the notion that we have any right whatsoever to the property of others, and restore our founding principles as the organizing principles of our society.  Should we again base our government on its original purpose of protecting property, we will once more secure the blessings of liberty and resume the pursuit of happiness.  The true "time for choosing" is coming soon.

Check out Tom Mullen's new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.  Right Here!

Home

Posted by Tom Mullen on 02/04/09
Last updated 04/15/09

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.  If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

 - John Adams (1787)^[1]

It is starting to become apparent to even the most disinterested observer that something much bigger than even a worldwide recession is happening.  The seeds of revolution have taken root.  Iceland led the way by taking to the streets to force regime change through peaceful demonstration.  The French are currently protesting en masse against their government's bailout of the banking system.  One would be naïve to think that these are isolated incidents.  It is apparent that these are just early warning signs of a worldwide cauldron that is about to boil over, catalyzed by the financial and economic cataclysm that will plunge untold millions into poverty and desperation.

While I applaud the peaceful demonstrations going on in France and Iceland, I also recognize that they are premature.  As did Americans in the last election cycle, these Europeans are demanding "change."  However, also like Americans in the last election cycle, they have failed to first answer the crucial questions, "From what?  To what?"  They have not looked within to assess who they are, what their society is, and what they want it to be.  Therefore, they run the risk of simply replacing one oppressive tyranny for another.

Likewise, we will never regain our freedom in America until we address the fundamental problem in our society.  I say "the problem," because at the root of all of what we perceive as a myriad of problems, including the police state, the welfare state, the warfare state, the military industrial complex, the Wall Street oligopoly, the high cost of healthcare and education - everything - there is one philosophical problem that ultimately leads to them all: the repudiation of property rights.

It is likely difficult for most 21^st century Americans to absorb this statement, based upon the fact that they have been told now for generations that property is about greed, that accumulating property is oppression, or even that "property is theft."  However, let us look back at the philosophers who inspired our founders and see what they have to say about property.  Of course, as I have written here, the primary philosophical basis for the American Revolution came from Locke.  What did Locke have to say about the purpose of government?

""The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property."[2]

Certainly this statement must be startling to most 21^st century Americans, who believe that they are supposed to look to their government to fight unemployment, manage the economy, ensure access to healthcare, promote democracy abroad, and pursue a myriad of other ends outside of protecting property.  Surely, Locke has over-emphasized property rights here, has he not?  Certainly he is alone in his simplistic assessment of the role of government, is he not?

He is not.  In seeking guidance on how to construct our government, the American founders also looked to the ancients, particularly the Roman Republic.  There, we find Cicero writing,

"For the chief purpose in the establishment of constitutional state and municipal governments was that individual property rights might be secured. For, although it was by Nature's guidance that men were drawn together into communities, it was in the hope of safeguarding their possessions that they sought the protection of cities."[3] [emphasis added]

The conditioned response of Americans today is to view these ideas as a defense of one class of people at the expense of another.  We have been trained to associate "property" as a concern of the "property class," or in more common American terms, "the haves," as opposed to the "have nots."  This is a great deception that has lead directly to our ruin.  In fact, it is the poor and those of modest means for whom property rights are most important.  It is they who, not possessing significant material wealth, must all the more jealously guard the property that they do have.  In the end, however, we are all property owners when one considers the most fundamental, most important property of all: our labor itself.

We learn from Locke that all property has its roots in labor.  In order to survive, man must work to produce the means of his survival.  This is true for people no matter what their financial circumstances.  The doctor, the lawyer, the construction worker, the janitor - yes, even the Wall Street financier - must sell his efforts to his fellow man in order to acquire the means of his survival.  Therefore, whoever has control over the individual's labor has control over the individual's life, and control over the individual's future.  If I steal all of your possessions, you can acquire more.  However, if I appropriate your labor, I own all of the property you can ever or will ever acquire.  This is an undeniable reality that we have lost sight of, to our peril.

America was founded upon the idea that each individual had an unqualified right to the fruits of his labor.[4]  This more than anything was what the founders meant when they spoke the word "liberty."  It was the extent to which this right was respected that made America different than every other society in history, before or since.  This was the great secret that made America the engine of prosperity and innovation that it was.  This is what made America the land of opportunity to change one's lot in life.  It was this right that gave birth to the American dream.

However, we no longer hold this right up above all others.  Instead, we have become a society that is based upon competing groups seeking to plunder each other via the force of government.  The rich plunder their neighbors with corporate bailouts, subsidies, and regulatory fascism.  The middle class plunder their neighbors with Social Security, Medicare, and criminal unions.  The poor are forced to accept legal plunder that they do not want and which provides them with the most miserable quality of life, when the stolen capital that underwrites it could employ them all if it weren't seized from its rightful owners.  Of course, these examples are only the tip of the iceberg; there is much, much more.  Virtually every political movement in America is based upon a promise to provide its followers with other people's property.

 This scenario is neither unprecedented nor has it been unrecognized by the great lights of liberty.  Bastiat wrote,

"Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter - by peaceful or revolutionary means - into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it."[5]

This vision of Bastiat's has become reality in America.  However, it cannot go on forever.  Fortunately for humanity, a society based upon legal plunder is ultimately unsustainable.  Just as respect for property rights provides the means to prosperity, violation of them leads to poverty and want.  As force replaces voluntary exchange, productivity decreases, and subsequently more force is required to plunder even more.  This cycle repeats until society is reduced to an authoritarian nightmare, the first signs of which are becoming apparent in the former "land of the free."  If the people wake up, the nightmare can end.  If they continue to slumber, the nightmare can get much, much worse.

This is the great truth that we must rediscover before any revolution can be successful.  Before we commit to "change," we must answer the questions, "From what? To What?"  The answers to those questions must be "from a nation of looters to a nation of free individuals who acquire property in the only civilized manner: via voluntary exchange."  We must reject the use of force as the means to pursue our happiness, and renew our faith in freedom.  Once this great work has been accomplished, let the revolution begin.

Home

Check out Tom Mullen's new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.  Right Here!

[1] Adams, John A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787)

[2] Locke Second Treatise Ch. IX, Sec. 124

[3]Cicero, Marcus Tullius De Officiis Book II Chapter XXI

[4] "Individuals" who were included in the system.  Of course, the founders recognized but did not remedy the obvious contradiction to this inherent in slavery.

[5] Bastiat, Frederic, The Law

Posted 02/05/09 Daniel Gerke clinton, MO

Well you have me hooked now, I guess I have another book to buy

Posted 02/05/09 libertyspirit Modesto, CA

I enjoyed your post. You are well-spoken with the "pen". I also checked out your website. Great articles. It's funny how, not three days ago I was speaking to someone about property rights (he was not convinced since Jesus said if someone asks for your coat, give him your cloak also), and I began to explain my limited understanding of this issue. I started by talking about defending my body as my property in the case of an attack. Proceeding from there, I talked about my responsibility to feed it, using my hands and feet to produce and retaining the fruit of my labor. Somehow I mentioned Locke, but honestly I did not really know why I mentioned him. Your article was so timely and providential. I needed this info but I might have put off researching it more if this post had not come up. Thanks so much, and I look forward to more well written insights from your "pen".

Posted 02/06/09 Viceologist Sacramento, CA

Great post...you were very thorough in your analysis of property rights. I think a lot of the battle we face relies on taking the sugar coating off of the legal looting that is taking place.

Posted 02/07/09 Tom Mullen Apollo Beach, FL

THanks for the comments, everyone. To libertyspirit: Those who mistake government wealth redistribution as "Christian," remind them that Jesus asked his followers to "give" to the poor - "giving" means you have a choice. In contrast, Simon of Cyrene, who gave aid and comfort with the point of the sword at his back, it NOT characterized as heroic in any way. Jesus' parables, like that of the master of the vineyard whose workers try to steal his land, without exception promote property rights.

Posted 02/08/09 libertyspirit Modesto, CA

Thank you for those examples. They lend credibility in a discussion and they clarify biblical economics for me. (Yes, I am aware of the book by that name. I just need to finish the several books I have started!) Economics, for me so far has been a one year autodidatic study. Most of my thinking has been formed by easy to understand sources like Richard Maybury's 11 books, and Economics In One Lesson. I lack understanding in biblical principles for economics and specific examples. I attended a small forum with a woman, Katherine Dang, recently and she said "stop teaching your children to share." (I home educate my daughter). "Sharing is socialism. Teach them to give. Giving is Christian." I had not thought of this perspective before. So your point again, is timely, as I have been pondering her statement and putting it to the test. Yes, "giving" is voluntary and done with freedom of conscience. And we know that conscience is the most sacred of all property. BTW, keep writing and keep posting on C4L.

Posted 04/19/09 Charlemagne Howell, MI

This article makes an excellent point that I verily agree with, but I am troubled how conservatives always go back to Locke, Rousseau and Enlightenment era philosophers. Those philosophers are the reason we are in this mess - our ideal ought not to be the godless and arrogant Enlightenment, but the Middle Ages prior to the Protestant Reformation. Locke is a moral relatavist who thinks all moral impulses in man are the result of conditioning, and he only wrote his treatise on government as a justification for the unlawful 1688 Revolution in England in which King James II was dethroned for no other reason than that he dared to be Catholic in a Protestant country. So let's stop acting like Locke, Rousseau and all these Enlightenment era losers have the solutions when really they are the problem.