It is a simple matter of organizational science 101: continually rewarding undesirable behavior usually results in a continuation of the same behavior. That's right - the socialists in our midst will not soon let go of their grasp on our value-added risks, labors and rewards without appropriate consequences.
Yes, we will have to do more than try to appeal to the socialists' warped sense of equity and dignity. As Frank Chodorov noted in his 1952 work, One is a Crowd, "We are Americans geographically, not in the tradition. In the circumstances, a return to the Constitutional immunities must wait for a miracle."
So, how do we bring about the required miracle? We will have to forge it from the divine ingredients of determination and resiliency that already lie within us. Extreme patience, excellent cooperation, dogged work, along with brilliant innovation and severe risk are all required for success.
There is no mystery regarding the general process required to integrate our collective will and strength into an effective system. We must network to build our consensus as we prepare channels and forums to solidify our platform and strategy.
How, when and where we execute our vision should be readily adaptable with the changing environment. The key to our success is to gather our strength, marshal our resources, and plan as a decentralized and ultimately fluid, adaptive society.
Once we have gathered our numbers, we can established a more formalized network for planning, and coordinating our efforts. In the interim, we can debate the prospective architecture of our recalibrated nation. I submit to you, however, that our government's best design has previously been well-envisioned and extensively written of.
We would do well to draft and ratify a set of clarifications and inter-linking guidelines to the net spirit and intent of our nation's official seminal documents and the supportive essays from which they are derived. We would then possess a more sustainable, optimal road map for freedom.
As fodder for the series of debates that we must soon engage in, I would offer the following concerns and concepts for consideration:
*****************************************
Statement of Core National Values, and Role of Government
When government focuses on the establishment and security of open, equitable markets it follows that every other form of natural human equity will follow.
Think about it - free efficient markets cannot coexist with racial bias. You cannot exploit children and have equitable markets at the same time. You cannot appropriate common resources through hastened channels of oligarchy or cronyism while enjoying the benefits of open markets. Neither can you restrict access to common resources based upon poor science while successfully pretending to maintain the appearance of free, equitable markets.
Economic Tenants and Policies
There is no need for the sophisticated junk-science of command-control economic theories and practices. There is no need for symptomatic, tunnel-vision methods that attempt to 'smoothen' economic cycles through the countervailing practices of reactionary monetary and fiscal measures.
Ultimately, value is subjective and is dependent upon the net of incalculable geographic/cultural/political variables which influence the dynamics of short, mid, and long-term trade.
Are there certain central, standing economic policies appropriate for sustained freedom? Perhaps a rational argument could be made that our aggregate productivity should be hedged with a certain margin of agricultural and energy self-reliance.
Also, continuing freedom and subsequent opportunity require that real defrauders be zealously prosecuted - their heinous actions present as great a threat to honorable capitalism as do the purveyors of asymmetric socialism.
Structure of Currency & Trade Policy
Do we really need a fiat currency? Why not a shared-equity issue that is simply collateralized by the net market value of the nation's commonly held property, and underwritten by our industrial inertia and honor?
Perhaps it should be debated whether the official government currency should be secured by a 20% gold margin. Nonetheless, private entities should still be able to create their own security/de-facto currency issues. Such instruments would inevitably come to be evaluated according to naturally evolved market-based accounting concepts and methods through private entities.
The much debated issue concerning the threat of destructive influence exercised via foreign held dollars is one that relates to the fundamental differences between capitalists and protectionist-socialists. Yet, it cannot be denied that the very concept of pure trade begs for some realistic and prudent oversight. Just because we may believe in the spirit and benefits of unbounded trade, does not indicate that our trading partners are quite so pure. Yes, it must be acknowledged that ownership of our printed currency does indeed represent an equity stake in our wealth.
To what end can we hedge and perhaps provide controls against economic manipulation via foreign-held currency? First of all, we must establish that as honorable capitalists, we are not dearly concerned with the threat of arbitrage - the very concepts of trade/purchasing power disparity should be viewed as healthy differentials within the landscape of honorable trade.
What, then, about the possibility that certain foreign governments may suddenly reverse a longstanding purchasing trend, thus sending our exchange relationships into turmoil? Let us remember that such a phenomena can only occur if we have engaged in deep borrowing with foreign entities - otherwise, the effects of honest currency speculation are naturally intertwined with and offset by the net of our natural commerce. In such a case, the entity in question would need to have relatively vast economic depth and breadth to suffer the countervailing economic consequences of their actions. This pre-requisite narrows the field of concern for which entities may be potentially harmful actors.
Structure of Currency & Trade Policy
Do we really need a fiat currency? Why not a shared-equity issue that is simply collateralized by the net market value of the nation's commonly held property, and underwritten by our industrial inertia and honor?
Perhaps it should be debated whether the official government currency should be secured by a 20% gold margin. Nonetheless, private entities should still be able to create their own security/de-facto currency issues. Such instruments would inevitably come to be evaluated according to naturally evolved market-based accounting concepts and methods through private entities.
The much debated issue concerning the threat of destructive influence exercised via foreign held dollars is one that relates to the fundamental differences between capitalists and protectionist-socialists. Yet, it cannot be denied that the very concept of pure trade begs for some realistic and prudent oversight. Just because we may believe in the spirit and benefits of unbounded trade, does not indicate that our trading partners are quite so pure. Yes, it must be acknowledged that ownership of our printed currency does indeed represent an equity stake in our wealth.
To what end can we hedge and perhaps provide controls against economic manipulation via foreign-held currency? First of all, we must establish that as honorable capitalists, we are not dearly concerned with the threat of arbitrage - the very concepts of trade/purchasing power disparity should be viewed as healthy differentials within the landscape of honorable trade.
What, then, about the possibility that certain foreign governments may suddenly reverse a longstanding purchasing trend, thus sending our exchange relationships into turmoil? Let us remember that such a phenomena can only occur if we have engaged in deep borrowing with foreign entities - otherwise, the effects of honest currency speculation are naturally intertwined with and offset by the net of our natural commerce. In such a case, the entity in question would need to have relatively vast economic depth and breadth to suffer the countervailing economic consequences of their actions. This pre-requisite narrows the field of concern for which entities may be potentially harmful actors.
Would it nonetheless be prudent to watermark a certain percentage of our currency with a 'no-later-than repatriation investment date'? Again, there is a built in incentive for holders to divest of their currency according to the rhythms and differentials of the global trade/exchange dynamic. If our economic moment is such that M1, M2, or M3 are becoming relatively precious, that very condition creates its own incentive for trading in our dollars.
We must consider that our field of concern is further narrowed commensurate with the consistency of our foreign policy integrity and good faith. If we adhere to our honorable capitalist ethics then our natural enemies will be relatively few - but certainly we will have them.
What to do about possible dark alliances which may still try to harm our situation through sophisticated schemes of dumping, buying and dumping? For starters, such actions cannot likely be executed without suspicion. Secondly, such scheming alliances are rarely seamless - they tend to create their own set of casualties and intrigues.
There is an almost limitless array of similar economic counter measures that we can engage in. Alas, at some point on the curve of good faith / evil, such bullying tactics must be recognized as violence, and treated as such. If we make this tenant know to the world with firm resolve and with integrity in the history of our actions, then we will have little need of such gimmick controls as watermarking our currency with no-later-than repatriation dates, the affects of which will ultimately run counter to the optimal dynamics of open markets.
Tenants of Budgeting/Taxation
The sixteenth amendment was not ratified until 1913 - a powerful testament of our tax-averse heritage. Yet, we must ask ourselves, as the Hamiltonians did, whether it is feasible to maintain even an adequate defense budget as afforded by the limited revenues provided for in the original constitution.
The validity of an income tax warrants debate - but certainly no more than a flat tax, perhaps in conjunction with a mix of provisional, end-user tolls/taxes is warranted. Such an approach is based on the understanding that an increase in commercial activity benefits the common good.
The weighted benefits which fall to the proximal end-users of commonly provided infrastructure can be more equitably reflected in a toll/tax scheme which is scaled according to the magnitude/frequency of the end-user. Such schemes would apply to usage, but not necessarily for the development of such infrastructure. The development costs of most infrastructure networks should probably be evenly allocated per capita, as provided through the general flat tax.
It is critical to our fiscal health and integrity that a master budgeting process be strictly adhered to, through transparent, integrated, value based accounting methods. Every citizen ought to be able to log onto to a national budget database and query against any budget item. He or she should be able to trace the source transaction of any budget item, along with an analysis/reconciliation of the item's cost/benefit against the National Mission Statement. Such data should include dynamic opportunity cost and return-on-investment analyses. The impetus here is that such methods should not be limited to the status quo of linear accounting methods which lead to inefficient and even to corrupt spending practices.
How do you apply value based accounting methods against government activity which is based upon fuzzy end-products such as 'security'? The simple yet challenging answer is that each unit of government be required to set their respective budgets in terms of accountable end-products. For example, if the value-added product in a military unit is to provide lethal threat to the enemy, then all supporting decisions, transactions, labor and processes can ultimately be accounted for using modern activity based accounting concepts.
It is critical to our fiscal health and integrity that a master budgeting process be strictly adhered to, through transparent, integrated, value based accounting methods. Every citizen ought to be able to log onto to a national budget database and query against any budget item. He or she should be able to trace the source transaction of any budget item, along with an analysis/reconciliation of the item's cost/benefit against the National Mission Statement. Such data should include dynamic opportunity cost and return-on-investment analyses. The impetus here is that such methods should not be limited to the status quo of linear accounting methods which lead to inefficient and even to corrupt spending practices.
How do you apply value based accounting methods against government activity which is based upon fuzzy end-products such as 'security'? The simple yet challenging answer is that each unit of government be required to set their respective budgets in terms of accountable end-products. For example, if the value-added product in a military unit is to provide lethal threat to the enemy, then all supporting decisions, transactions, labor and processes can ultimately be accounted for using modern activity based accounting concepts.
The bottom line is that a culture of honest, objective and transparent accounting will facilitate increased efficiency through more fluid cross-leveling of resources, and leaner, value-added activity.
The Relationship of Government and Monopoly
In general, it must be accepted as self evident that monopolies do not exist in an otherwise open market environment unless government has played an unbalanced or over-reaching hand. Perhaps there is no more relevant example than the current situation within our security and credit markets.
Had government not become so intrinsically involved within the flow of capital, especially as manifested within the lending entities, then at least a significant portion of the mass of unhinged credit would yet be relatively stable.
The Relationship of Government and Monopoly
In general, it must be accepted as self evident that monopolies do not exist in an otherwise open market environment unless government has played an unbalanced or over-reaching hand. Perhaps there is no more relevant example than the current situation within our security and credit markets.
Had government not become so intrinsically involved within the flow of capital, especially as manifested within the lending entities, then at least a significant portion of the mass of unhinged credit would yet be relatively stable.
As the federal government began to levy influence-by-fiat upon the lending market, an unprecedented reliance upon federal underwriting ensued. On balance, the government's net obligations incurred through such underwriting was less harmful than the impact of its centralized coercion upon the natural systems and balances of the credit markets.
When big brother plays the role of comptroller, the market tends not to encourage third-party improvisation and initiative. In other words, when command and control economics are married with the beautiful and otherwise self-leveling chaos of the market place, the resulting obfuscation and perturbations can be spectacular. The recent images of stakeholders standing around economic ground zero while pointing fingers at one another is almost too pathetic for mere words to describe.
When big brother plays the role of comptroller, the market tends not to encourage third-party improvisation and initiative. In other words, when command and control economics are married with the beautiful and otherwise self-leveling chaos of the market place, the resulting obfuscation and perturbations can be spectacular. The recent images of stakeholders standing around economic ground zero while pointing fingers at one another is almost too pathetic for mere words to describe.
Bottom line: whether discussing the hastened allocation of huge quantities of land titles to railroads during the 19th century, or the quasi-nationalization of huge lending institutions in the 1990s, such egregious examples of tribal control and the inevitable patronage that comes with it are anything but the fruits of open-markets.
Again, our traditional principles of chancery/equity, and good faith bargaining need to be zealously enforced in open market transactions - but that requires prudence, decentralization, fluid channels of information/analysis and follow through of punitive measures. It does not require the government to take ownership of, or to micro-manage entire sectors of the economy.
Management of Common Resources
We are reasonable people, and we therefore understand that a certain degree of governmental management of our commonly held and commonly communicated resources is prudent.
Indeed, we have a rich heritage of recognizing and developing elegant, equitable traditions for managing our resources under the most complex and contested environments.
We understand the complexities of water and mineral rights, access and shared control/distribution. We understand that our fisheries cannot withstand the unbridled hand of all-out, unregulated and competitive harvest. We understand that it is neither compliant with natural law, nor is it within the honorable capitalist tradition to deny your neighbors downstream of the use of the waters which commonly flow through your respective properties.
We understand, as our brilliant forefathers did, that we will yet discover unimaginable layers of commonly communicated resources. Thomas Jefferson may not have envisioned the breadth of the electromagnetic spectrum nor the most equitable methods to harness and allocate it - surely, though, he and his genius colleagues understood that a scalable set of principles, values and framework for such purposes would continue to serve us well.
We understand, as our brilliant forefathers did, that we will yet discover unimaginable layers of commonly communicated resources. Thomas Jefferson may not have envisioned the breadth of the electromagnetic spectrum nor the most equitable methods to harness and allocate it - surely, though, he and his genius colleagues understood that a scalable set of principles, values and framework for such purposes would continue to serve us well.
Nevertheless, it is imprudent to hold back the bulk of our vast natural wealth in seeming perpetuity within the bureaucratic confines of the BLM and other such entities.
It is extreme double jeopardy to so highly monetize the nation's currency while at the same time prevent the huge potential of physical production and resulting value that would come from a more realistic allocation of our God given national treasure.
Judicial Tenants, Architecture
Our judicial legacy was not intended to be a convolution of erudite terms and precedence. Our forefathers were heirs of an incredibly unique, robust, and equitable emerging legal system due to the convergence of several layers of influences and key concepts. Indeed, the American legal tradition evolved in the ideal environment for success.
The hybrid of Common law tradition, along with key attributes of Norman/Germanic equity concepts, and Roman/Napoleonic codes had afforded a uniquely resilient and scalable format for the growth of opportunity and equity in an emerging national culture that was founded upon honorable commerce.
Yet, we have since managed to obfuscate the original collective intent and operational processes of our wonderful system. We can do much to correct this condition. Does the current trend of convoluted tort rulings, and our reliance upon case law reconcile with the net intentions of our legal heritage? If not, then certain clarifying declarations/principles are required to bridge this ever-widening gap.
Yet, we have since managed to obfuscate the original collective intent and operational processes of our wonderful system. We can do much to correct this condition. Does the current trend of convoluted tort rulings, and our reliance upon case law reconcile with the net intentions of our legal heritage? If not, then certain clarifying declarations/principles are required to bridge this ever-widening gap.
Our government struggled in its fledgling years to reconcile whether certain roles of the judicial branch were prescribed or proscribed. The emergence of the landmark case of Marbury vs. Madison was a natural function of the loosely prescribed roles and relationships of the respective branches of government.
In the very least, we need to provide clarifying declarations to address the following issues:
- Is it appropriate for the courts to rule on issues that have not benefitted from prior legislative treatment?
- The concepts imbedded in our tort law traditions should be addressed and clarified.
- The current tide of precedence dealing with both equity and tort related issues reflects an alarming trend in our culture to award benefits, as opposed to protecting the rewards of honest risk and hard work.
- The protocols and terminology of the entire legal system need to be streamlined, and converted into logical, practical methods.
- The concept of 'legal reasoning' is ultimately reducible to sound logical principles in support of our traditional equity/chancery traditions - we could eliminate much of the need for case law citation, erudite terminology and trade lexicon.
The practice of law ought to be relatively intuitive for any well-rounded individual who is generally studied in the principles and methods of business, science and our more elegant legal heritage - it should not require two-three years of specialized training that focuses on the practice of law vs. its scope, structure and intent.
*****************************************************************************************
Our Culture Will Provide Our Victory
By the time that we, the traditionalists and classical liberals, have actually coalesced into 25% of our potential strength, we will have achieved the required inertia, and latent resources to tender the following proposal to our fellow countrymen: "Table, vote upon and endorse the spirit of our proposed measures, or we will require an appropriately apportioned autonomous region within which to carryout our harmless and bountiful traditions".
Ultimately, the values and resolve of our community's just cause will provide our destiny.
It will come to be understood that our community possesses the most resilient capacity for reconciliation. No group can match our tenacity and ingenuity for decentralized, protracted resistance against the parasitic forces of asymmetric socialism that have siphoned the fruits of our labors, risks and ingenuity for over 100 years.
If we are forced to protect ourselves from those who would continue to oppress our natural heritage of freedom and justice, then our collective skills, and energy must be structured and deployed for optimal flexibility, integrity and outcome.
We would do well to remain decentralized, yet seamlessly united. This can only be accomplished by unanimously endorsing our common principles, and by adhering to a lean, robust, yet flexible strategy employed through tactics which can be modified, delivered and sustained at elemental levels.
The required ingredients for victory are natural products of who we are. We already believe in and conduct our lives according to the same dynamics that will best provide for our freedom. We already understand and embrace the ways of decentralized, efficient production. The struggle ahead will merely be an extension of our true selves, and our unshakable desire for freedom.
Lean, readily supported, high yield methods employed by autonomous actors adhering to strict ethics of engagement should be the benchmark of our resistance. Only socialist decision makers and their committed combatants should be engaged. The day that a child, or an uncommitted adult falls victim to our efforts is the day that our cause loses a piece of its soul.
Should the need for kinetic resistance become imminent, the situation would beg for our early preparation. Counter-mobility actions would offer decentralized, scalable means of resistance within the restrictive environment that our violent oppressors will dominate in depth and breadth of every resource (except for the three most critical resources of justice, determination and resilience).
Our non-socialist brothers and sisters serving in uniform will have an historically profound choice to make - whether to preserve their jobs, pensions and immediate comfort, or to take a courageous and uncomfortable stand for the American way of life and for what is right.
We would need to begin networking early on in order to successfully cross-train, and support each other in the development of certain critical skills and decentralized infrastructure, to include: micro-farming; hunting; improvised/alternative communications techniques; ammunition re-loading; long range concealed marksmanship; improvised counter mobility techniques; close quarters combat; patrolling; short-term facility defense.
Bottom Line
