Obama’s Push for Gun Prohibition

US President Obama pushes for a radical overhaul of gun laws.

From Bloomberg,

President Barack Obama unveiled the most ambitious gun-control agenda in decades today, announcing a $500 million package of legislative proposals and executive actions aimed at curbing firearms violence, from mass shootings to street crime.

The president, counting on a shift in public opinion since the shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school last month, challenged Congress to mandate background checks for all gun buyers, ban high-capacity ammunition clips, and reinstate a ban on sales of assault weapons

Obama signed 23 executive actions aimed at circumventing congressional opposition to new gun restrictions, including several designed to maximize prosecution of gun crimes and improve access to government data for background checks.

Couched in social morality, Obama’s proposal, which has been psychologically anchored on spur of the moment public impulse (availability heuristic), resonates of his predilection for the expansion of government, and importantly, for a spending $500 million blitz.

Again from the same article:

The administration also plans to address legal barriers that may prevent states from sharing relevant medical information, to review standards for gun locks, require federal authorities to trace firearms recovered in criminal investigations and direct the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes of gun violence.

The new spending would go mostly for training and data- collection programs. Obama wants $10 million for the CDC to conduct further research, “including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.”

Another $20 million would expand a reporting system to gather data when firearms are used in violent deaths, whether homicides or suicides. To encourage states to share criminal and mental health records for the federal background database, Obama proposes spending $20 million this year and $50 million next year.

School districts and police departments would get $150 million to hire school resource officers, psychologists and social workers and another $65 million for teacher training.

Obama again urged lawmakers to approve an existing request for $4 billion to help communities keep 15,000 police officers on duty.

So gun control looks like stimulus camouflaged mostly for the bureaucracy.

Yet like almost all prohibition laws once this gun control comes into effect the likelihood is to bring the assault weapon and sporting rifle ban into the underground (shadow economy).  And along with the other typical consequences: greater fraud, corruption, and higher risks of violence.

This reminds me of a quote attributed to Russian revolutionary and USSR Premier Vladimir I Lenin

A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.

Incidentally, Lenin’s Russian Civil War resulted to a death toll of 8 million people where only 2 million were from combat deaths according to eNotes.com.

Of course, Lenin introduced the infamous concentration camps or the Gulag

So like all aspiring tyrants, gun control has been the traditional recourse for assuming total social control.

Further, Obama’s thrust to use of “mental health” as checks on gun ownership represents the assumption that bureaucrats know better and have better moral standings than the citizenry have been premised on statolatry or the fiction of the puritanical or deifed state.

Additionally, the gun control regulation opens the portals of public censorship via "investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.” 

The psychiatric treatment approach through social policies has been used as a prominent tool to attain total social control—the therapeutic state

Writes Professor Thomas Szasz at the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International: (hat tip Bob Wenzel) [bold and italics original]

“Although we may not know it, we have, in our day, witnessed the birth of the Therapeutic State. This is perhaps the major implication of psychiatry as an institution of social control.”

“When I use the term therapeutic state, I use it ironically, it’s therapeutic for the people who are doing the locking up, who are doing the therapy, it’s not therapeutic for the victims, for the patients.”

“In the therapeutic state, treatment is contingent on, and justified by, the diagnosis of the patient’s illness and the physician’s prescription of the proper remedy for it… Today, the therapeutic state exercises authority and uses force in the name of health.” The Founding Fathers “could not have anticipated…that an alliance between medicine and the state would then threaten personal liberty and responsibility exactly as they had been threatened by an alliance between church and state.”

“Inasmuch as we have words to describe medicine as a healing art, but have none to describe it as a method of social control or political rule, we must first give it a name. I propose that we call it pharmacracy, from the Greek roots pharmakon, for ‘medicine’ or ‘drug,’ and kratein, for ‘to rule’ or ‘to control.’”

“Formerly, people rushed to embrace totalitarian states. Now they rush to embrace the therapeutic state. When they discover that the therapeutic state is about tyranny, not therapy, it will be too late.”

“This phenomenon illustrates what I call the creeping therapeutic state. I see it as insidious, especially given the cooperation between the government and the media. This is allowed on television. But advertising Scotch, a legal drink, is not allowed. This subtly undermines the rule of law, the principle that if something is legal, then it’s legal, and if it’s illegal, then it’s illegal. A prescription drug is illegal; pharmacists cannot sell it to you unless you have a prescription. These are illegal drugs, but nobody calls them illegal drugs. So I see this as pernicious, as an example of what F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises talked about—that the opposite of freedom is not brutal tyranny but capriciousness.”

The US has been in a transition to the land of the UNfree or what I call as the Philippinization of the US, and the consequences that goes along with it.

As I previously noted,

F. A. Hayek once warned that Americans are headed towards the road to serfdom. His admonitions appear as becoming a reality with the deepening of America’s police state aside from snowballing political and economic fascism, signs of which the US could be in a slippery slope towards dictatorship.

Quote of the Day: Participatory Fascism

For thirty years or so, I have used the term “participatory fascism,” which I borrowed from my old friend and former Ph.D. student Charlotte Twight. This is a descriptively precise term in that it recognizes the fascistic organization of resource ownership and control in our system, despite the preservation of nominal private ownership, and the variety of ways in which the state employs political ceremonies, proceedings, and engagements—most important, voting—in which the general public participates. Such participation engenders the sense that somehow the people control the government. Even though this sense of control is for the most part an illusion, rather than a perception well founded in reality, it is important because it causes people to accept government regulations, taxes, and other insults against which they might rebel if they believed that such impositions had simply been forced on them by dictators or other leaders wholly beyond their influence.

For the rulers, participatory fascism is the perfect solution toward which they have been groping for generations, and virtually all of the world’s politico-economic orders are now gravitating toward this system. Outright socialism is a recipe for widespread poverty and for the ultimate dissolution of the economy and the disavowal of its political leadership. Socialism is the wave of the past; everywhere it has been tried seriously, it has failed miserably. Participatory fascism, in contrast, has two decisive advantages over socialism.

The first is that it allows the nominal private owners of resources and firms enough room for maneuver that they can still innovate, prosper, and hence propel the system toward higher levels of living for the masses. If the government’s intervention is pushed too far, this progress slows, and it may eventually cease or even turn into economic regress. However, when such untoward conditions occur, the rulers tend to rein in their plunder and intervention enough to allow a revitalization of the economy. Of course, such fettered economies cannot grow as fast as completely free economies can grow, but the latter system would preclude the plunder and control that the political leaders now enjoy in the fettered system, and hence they greatly prefer the slower-growing, great-plunder system to the faster-growing, no-plunder one.

Meanwhile, most people are placated by the economic progress that does occur and by their participation in political and legal proceedings that give them the illusion of control and fair treatment. Although the political system is rigged in countless ways to favor incumbent rulers and their key supporters, it is far from dictatorial in the way that Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany was dictatorial. People therefore continue to believe that they are free, notwithstanding the death of their liberties by a thousand cuts that continues day by day.

Participatory fascism’s second great advantage over socialism is that when serious economic problems do arise, as they have during the past five years, the rulers and their key supporters in the “private” sector can blame residual elements of the market system, and especially the richest people who operate in that system, for the perceived ills. No matter how much the problems arise from government intervention, it is always possible to lay the blame on actors and institutions in the remaining “free enterprises,” especially the biggest bankers and other apparent top dogs. Thus, fascistic rulers have build-in protection against popular reaction that the rulers in a socialist system lack. (Rulers under socialism tend to designate foreign governments and capitalists and domestic “wreckers” as the scapegoats for their mismanagement and inability to conduct economic affairs productively and fairly.)

(bold emphasis mine)

This is from Austrian economist Robert Higgs at the Independent Institute

Quote of the Day: The Ethics of Fascism

Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position.

This is from Mario Palmieri in The Philosophy of Fascism 1936 (Liberty Tree).  

A alter ego of fascism is nationalism. 

From Wikipedia: Fascism ( /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology

Quote of the Day: Criminals Write the Rules, Good People Go to Jail

Throughout it all, despite so many taxpayer bailouts and the damage that their fractional reserve system has caused to the global economy, the banking elite has still managed to maintain its wealth and status.

Sure, the oddball Madoff or Rajaratnam case occasionally surfaces, but for the most part, not a single member of the banking elite has been charged with a crime.

You know who has been charged with a crime, though? Gary Harrington. In case you haven’t heard of this criminal mastermind, Mr. Harrington was recently sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $1,500 for a most heinous crime against humanity.

His transgression? NINE misdemeanor convictions of collecting rainwater on his private property. That’s right… this vile miscreant had the felonious intent to set up rainwater collection systems on his private property to capture water that falls freely from the sky… an obvious violation of Medford, Oregon’s 1925 law which awards ALL water to the government.

So Gary Harrington goes to jail for collecting rainwater. And every single banker who has been complicit in defrauding billions of people around the world walks freely on the streets. Or rather drives freely on the streets in their Maseratis.

There are countless other stories of what I call the ‘criminalization of existence’– people like Gary getting abused by the state for the most innocuous activities. There are so many laws, rules, policies, and regulations on the books, you can hardly breathe without violating one of them.

And yet, despite all of these rules and regulations, there’s not a single one that can be brought against those who lie, cheat, steal, and collude to defraud the entire world.

This is the nature of democracy today. It is the criminals who write the rules and the good people who go to jail.

This is from Simon Black at the Sovereign Man. Today’s justice system has been dictated by the political class and their cronies.

America’s Growing Informal Economy?

The US government’s deepening embrace of statism particularly economic and political fascism and the fast expanding unsustainable welfare state, financial repression and the burgeoning police state will likely not only fuel a diaspora for the wealthy but likewise drive the average Americans to operate on the informal or shadow economy.

Professor Gary North explains why, (bold emphasis added, hat tip Bob Wenzel)

Americans are learning how to beat the system, cheat the system, and outfox the system. As the bureaucrats tighten their many nooses, Americans are finding ways to slip the noose.

An article in Forbes offers examples. They are everywhere. Businesses are just ignoring the rules. They hire lawyers to help them avoid the law. They are fed up with the federal squid. They are not cooperating.

This is significant for the future. The heart of every legal system is legitimacy. If the government — family, church, or civil — is viewed as legitimate, people who are under its jurisdiction cooperate. They add self-government to external systems of sanctions. If they refuse to do this, the government’s enforcement system cannot force them to obey consistently. The system does not have enough resources to enforce compliance.

At some point, the government loses its ability to gain its goals. Collecting more taxes in Greece is not possible. The Greek government can promise austerity, but it can gain this only by reducing spending, not by collective more taxes. The same is true of Spain. The same is true of Italy.

If the people who live under the regime think the regime is corrupt, they cheat. They feel no guilt. If they think a law is immoral or stupid, they refuse to cooperate. The government can do little to change this outlook, other than shrink. No government does this voluntarily.

The federal government is now at the limit of enforcement. The bureaucrats write 83,000 pages of new rules every year, yet the country changes only slowly. The bureaucrats think they are in charge. They are not.

In reality, the informal sector is a manifestation of government failure. The more the arbitrary laws the lesser chances of enforcement, the susceptibility to corruption and of the gaming of the system by the politically connected all at the expense of society.

Yet if this dynamic should become a reality then this would signify as the Philippinization of the US.

Interesting signs of times.

Will French Politics Swing from Socialism to Fascism?

Far right Marine Le Pen’s strong showing at the recent Presidential runoff in France may have opened the door for politics of the extreme right.

Writes historian Eric Margolis at the Lewrockwell.com

Talk about déjà vu. Such a sweeping change would return France to its pre-war political landscape, when hard Left and hard Right were locked in bitter confrontation. Marine Le Pen could well emerge as the angry voice of many Europeans – a prospect that causes shudders across conservative-ruled Europe.

She could also prove the nemesis of the European Union. Le Pen has vowed to oppose austerity pacts, quit the Euro, restore the franc, and follow economic mercantilism. Her anti-EU, anti-free trade policies are attracting many people across Europe and even in Russia.

Fortunately, Francois Holland could prove a counter-balance to the ascendant Right. He is a moderate, cautious centrist politician given to pragmatism rather than ideology. His popularity and image of geniality and caring about people will help him withstand the forces of both Left and Right trying to pull him in different directions.

Even so, Marine Le Pen and her aggressive rightists are likely to become an ever-increasing threat to the French Republic as economic conditions worsen. It seems only a matter of time before fascism rears its head again in Spain, Italy, and Portugal. Greece is already on the way. Failure to implement austerity plans will bring economic convulsions and with them the bully boys in black

Mr. Francois Holland's victory has been negative enough for domestic entrepreneurs. Many of whom have reportedly been looking for refuge overseas from the prospects of punitive tax increases, if not from asset forfeitures, by the incoming socialist government, whom has openly declared war against the wealthy.

Yet if the prognosis of Mr. Margolis becomes a reality, then the rise of fascism (based on economic nationalism or mercantilism) elevates the risk of regional war.

As the great Ludwig von Mises once admonished,

What generates war is the economic philosophy almost universally espoused today by governments and political parties. As this philosophy sees it, there prevail within the unhampered market economy irreconcilable conflicts between the interests of various nations. Free trade harms a nation; it brings about impoverishment. It is the duty of government to prevent the evils of free trade by trade barriers. We may, for the sake of argument, disregard the fact that protectionism also hurts the interests of the nations which resort to it. But there can be no doubt that protectionism aims at damaging the interests of foreign peoples and really does damage them. It is an illusion to assume that those injured will tolerate other nations' protectionism if they believe that they are strong enough to brush it away by the use of arms. The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war. The wars of our age are not at variance with popular economic doctrines; they are, on the contrary, the inescapable result of a consistent application of these doctrines.

The current trend of French politics seems locked into a wretched choice between the proverbial devil and the deep blue sea. Beautiful France may not be as beautiful as she is today in the future.

Democracy, as the great libertarian H.L. Mencken said, is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

The Disadvantage of having an American Citizenship

The US government seems to be applying a pincer movement—or a military maneuver where the flanks of the opponent are attacked simultaneously in a pinching motion after the opponent has advanced towards the center of an army which is responding by moving its outside forces to the enemy's flanks, in order to surround it (Wikipedia.org)—to its own citizens, by imposing repressive tax laws that restricts capital movements outside the US.

Now even wealth management firms are advocating wealthy Americans to FLEE the US.

From Bloomberg,

Go away, American millionaires.

That’s what some of the world’s largest wealth-management firms are saying ahead of Washington’s implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, known as Fatca, which seeks to prevent tax evasion by Americans with offshore accounts. HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA), Deutsche Bank AG, Bank of Singapore Ltd. and DBS Group Holdings Ltd. (DBS) all say they have turned away business.

“I don’t open U.S. accounts, period,” said Su Shan Tan, head of private banking at Singapore-based DBS, Southeast Asia’s largest lender, who described regulatory attitudes toward U.S. clients as “Draconian.”

The 2010 law, to be phased in starting Jan. 1, 2013, requires financial institutions based outside the U.S. to obtain and report information about income and interest payments accrued to the accounts of American clients. It means additional compliance costs for banks and fewer investment options and advisers for all U.S. citizens living abroad, which could affect their ability to generate returns.

“In the long run, if Americans have less and less opportunities to invest overseas, it would be a disadvantage,” Marc Faber, the fund manager and publisher of the Gloom, Boom and Doom report, said last month in Singapore.

The almost 400 pages of proposed rules issued by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in February create “unnecessary burdens and costs,” the Institute of International Bankers and the European Banking Federation said in an April 30 letter to the IRS, one of more than 200 submitted to the agency. The IRS plans to hold a hearing May 15 and could amend how and when some aspects of the rules are implemented. It can’t rescind the law.

Obviously the Obama administration’s ploy has been to coercively capture resources of Americans through more policies of financial repression channeled through inflationism (negative real rates and QE), taxes, bank regulations, anti money laundering laws and capital controls

More from the same article…

“Bank accounts, investment accounts, mortgages and insurance policies are being refused to American clients, and those with accounts are seeing them closed or have been threatened with closure,” Marylouise Serrato, executive director of American Citizens Abroad, a Geneva-based organization, wrote in an e-mail.

U.S. citizens who live in countries that aren’t served by U.S. banks may find themselves unable to bank at all, and implementation of the law in its current form could cause collateral damage to American businesses abroad, she said.

“Americans either will not be allowed to enter into international partnerships or live and work overseas, and will be replaced by foreign nationals who do not have these limitations,” Serrato wrote. “The extensive reporting requirements of Fatca will be destructive to those who wish to do business internationally as well as to those Americans who are legitimately living and working overseas.”…

While that may be easy for Americans in Singapore, those who live elsewhere face obstacles. Before Fatca, U.S. citizens in Bangkok or Manila could find investment opportunities through non-U.S. banks such as HSBC. Now their only option is to fly to cities where U.S. firms operate.

Limited Choices

If Americans choose to bank with a non-U.S. firm such as HSBC, their investment choices are limited. At the HSBC branch in the bank’s Asia regional headquarters in Hong Kong, Americans can hold only savings deposits. They’re prohibited from opening accounts to trade local stocks or buy products available to non- U.S. customers, including 45 equity funds investing in China or other geographies and industries. There’s only one comparable emerging-markets equity option available on HSBC’s U.S.-based investors’ website.

Financial institutions that choose not to accept American customers still must determine whether new or existing clients are so-called U.S. persons in order to comply with Fatca, according to Michael Brevetta, director of U.S. tax consulting at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in Singapore.

The definition includes citizens, green-card holders and non-Americans deemed U.S. residents by being present in the country for at least 183 days over a three-year period, which makes them subject to U.S. tax on their worldwide income, according to the IRS.

Compliance Costs

The compliance costs for banks, asset managers and insurance companies “could stretch into the billions of dollars,” Brevetta said. Private-banking firms in Hong Kong and Singapore already have operating costs between 88 percent and 90 percent of their revenue, compared with 70 percent at Swiss banks, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated in a September report.

Penalties for not complying will be stiff. Non-U.S. firms that don’t make required disclosures will be subject to 30 percent withholding of certain dividends, interest or proceeds from the sale of assets they or their customers receive from U.S. sources, according to Baker & McKenzie’s Weisman, who has conducted workshops and seminars on the proposed rules for current and potential clients in Hong Kong and Singapore.

Wow. The above essentially signifies as the proverbial “writing on the wall” of the growing desperation by the US government over her unwieldy state of finances due to a bloated and unsustainable welfare-warfare economy.

Not only will US citizens be restricted access to foreign financial institutions, such tax laws are subtle manifestation of protectionism as overseas investments from US investors will be severely limited. [As one would note, foreign banks have been in retaliation to the encroaching protectionist US tax laws by denying Americans access]

President Obama’s nationalist-protectionist rhetoric over BPOs is apparently being realized via arbitrary tax laws. Yet protectionism will only compound to the nation's fragile economic conditions.

F. A. Hayek once warned that Americans are headed towards the road to serfdom. His admonitions appear as becoming a reality with the deepening of America’s police state aside from snowballing political and economic fascism, signs of which the US could be in a slippery slope towards dictatorship.

Yet such laws will have adverse consequences. This should incentivize, not only more tax avoidance measures, but also prompt wealthy Americans to consider giving up on their citizenship.

True, US government has made the exit option a burden. There have been reported incidences where the US government has denied applications by Americans wishing to renounce their citizenship (Sovereign Man).

Limiting people's actions increases political destabilization. Again all these seem to square with record gun sales, polls where gold seen as the best investment option, ballooning sales of home safe and even a report where the US government has been preparing for a “civil war”.

Political risks has certainly been mounting in the US as political and economic repression suggest that the US has been increasingly at war with their citizens.

I recall that after college graduation, a relative who is a resident of the US encouraged me to emigrate to the US and apply for American citizenship. Now I realize that this decision of mine to say NO may have seemed worthwhile or the right decision.

Poor and Middle Income Countries are ‘Happier’?

Based on self-reported happiness, poor to middle income countries have reportedly been happier than their rich counterparts

So says the Economist,

DESPITE the economic gloom, the world is happier than it was before the financial crisis set in (according to a recent poll from Ipsos which surveyed 19,000 adults in 24 countries). 77% of respondents describe themselves as "happy", three percentage points higher than in 2007. Those countries who report themselves as being the happiest tend to be in poor and middle-income countries, while the gloomiest are in rich countries (the figures for Italy and Spain were 13% and 11%).

Reasons? Again from the Economist,

Two conclusions emerge. Large, fast-growing emerging markets do not share rich industrialised countries’ pessimism. The already large “very happy” cohort rose 16 points in Turkey, ten points in Mexico and five points in India. Even rich-country pessimism is uneven. The share of “very happy” people rose six points in—of all places—Japan, defying tsunami and nuclear accidents. But growth amid global misery does not explain everything: the biggest falls in happiness also occurred in large emerging markets, in Indonesia, Brazil and—a perennial misery guts—Russia.

The second conclusion challenges the received notions of mankind’s moods. A tenet of political science is that happiness levels rise with wealth and then plateau, usually when a country’s national income per head reaches around $25,000 a year. “The richer a country gets,” argued Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in “The Spirit Level”, an influential book of 2009, “the less getting still richer adds to the population’s happiness.” Many on the left have concluded that pursuing further economic growth is pointless. Even right-wing politicians such as Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, have set up projects to study “gross national happiness”.

I am tempted to say that polls like this seem to justify the political economy of fascism—since people are happier by being poor, then maintain their happiness by continued immersion to poverty. This by handing over economic opportunities to politicians and their cronies through “special interest group captured” political institutions.

Happiness is subjective or signifies an individual's state of mind or represent personal value scales expressed through expectations.

If the above account has some grain of truth in it, then I’d say that reference point matters: Poorer nations may have relatively lower expectations than those of rich economies. And trajectories of economic growth have been changing the underlying dynamics of expectations

With globalization (measured by trade volume and Industrial Production) at record highs (chart from Professor Mark Perry) economic opportunities have been brightening up for emerging markets compared to debt plagued developed economies.

In other words, optimism, for people who have been jaded or inured to poverty, have likely been derivative from increasing trade opportunities (through liberalization or more economic freedom) that has rewarded their drudgery.

Economic growth favors emerging markets; chart from another 2009 Economist article

Whereas people used or conditioned to living lavish lifestyles funded by intractable debt will have to face the realities of rebalancing their finances. So again, changes in expectations from base points seem to be shaped by the economic developments

There is another aspect: the welfare state. People in rich countries, many of whom are dependent on the welfare state may have seen a reduction in the essence of personal values; particularly family, responsibility, and value of work.

As economist Vedran Vuk writes at the Mises.org,

The agenda of the state is to break up the family. The more you depend on the state, the more you justify its existence, and the larger it grows. The idea that people can provide things for themselves either individually or through the family frightens the state. It delegitimizes its role. The role of the family is dangerous to its survival.

In contrast, the rewards in economic growth have not only been benefiting one’s material welfare, but importantly are magnified through personal values (again family, responsibility and work ethics) in lesser welfare dependent economies.

The US as Human Rights Violator

US President Obama recently dissed on China’s human rights record.

However, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts exposes on this charade,

Washington is now in the second decade of murdering Muslim men, women, and children in six countries. Washington is so concerned with human rights that it drops bombs on schools, hospitals, weddings and funerals, all in order to uphold the human rights of Muslim people. You see, bombing liberates Muslim women from having to wear the burka and from male domination.

One hundred thousand, or one million, dead Iraqis, four million displaced Iraqis, a country with destroyed infrastructure, and entire cities, such as Fallujah, bombed and burnt with white phosphorus into cinders is the proper way to show concern for human rights.

Ditto for Afghanistan. And Libya.

In Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia Washington’s drones bring human rights to the people.

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and secret CIA prison sites are other places to which Washington brings human rights. Obama, who has the power to murder American citizens without due process of law, is too powerless to close Guantanamo Prison.

He is powerless to prevent himself from supplying Israel with weapons with which to murder Palestinians and Lebanese citizens to whom Obama brings human rights by vetoing every UN resolution passed against Israel for its crimes against humanity.

Instead of following Washington’s human rights lead, the evil Chinese invest in other countries, buy things from them, and sell them goods.

For US politicians, moral standards seem to fall into “might makes right”—where there is one set of morality for political opponents and another set for the self-instituted policeman of the world.

The numerous atrocities committed by the US, as part of their imperial foreign policy, serves as further evidence that in Asia (particularly on the US military's proposed expansion due to the Spratly’s issue) the China threat has mostly been a contrived issue which exemplifies H.L. Mencken’s series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. Such is borne out of the continuing promotion of war policies meant to uphold the interests of the political class and their welfare-warfare clients/cronies.

Of course, infractions on human rights issues does not extend only to foreigners but to the Americans themselves, in their homeland.

Again Mr. Roberts,

Washington’s concern with human rights does not extend as far as airport security where little girls and grandmothers are sexually groped. Antiwar activists have their homes invaded, their personal possessions carried off, and a grand jury is summoned to frame them up on some terrorist charge. US soldier Bradley Manning is held for two years in violation of the US Constitution while the human rights government concocts fabricated charges to punish him for revealing a US war crime. WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange is harassed endlessly with the goal of bringing him into the human rights clutches of Washington. Critics of Washington’s inhumane policies are monitored and spied upon.

More signs that the US appears to be moving away from the embodiment of the “Land of the Free”.

Socialist Amerika?

16 signs or statistics suggesting that the United States has been transforming into a socialist nation. The Land of the Free no more?

From the Economic Collapse Blog

#1 According to the Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that gets direct monetary benefits from the federal government. Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government.

#2 The amount of money that the federal government gives directly to Americans has increased by 32 percent since Barack Obama entered the White House.

#3 The number of Americans receiving Social Security disability benefits has increased by 10 percent since Barack Obama first took office.

#4 Back in 1990, the federal government accounted for 32 percent of all health care spending in America. Today, that figure is up to 45 percent and it is projected to surpass 50 percent very shortly.

#5 The number of Americans on food stamps recently hit a new all-time high. It has increased by 3 million since this time last year and by more than 14 million since Barack Obama first entered the White House.

#6 Today, one out of every seven Americans is on food stamps and one out of every four American children is on food stamps. This is unprecedented in American history.

#7 In 2010, 42 percent of all single mothers in the United States were on food stamps.

#8 Back in 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. In 2010, government transfer payments accounted for 18.4% of all income, which was a new all-time high.

#9 By the end of 2011, approximately 55 million Americans received a total of approximately 727 billion dollars in Social Security benefits. As theretirement crisis becomes much worse, that dollar figure is projected to absolutely skyrocket.

#10 According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Social Security systempaid out more in benefits than it received in payroll taxes in 2010. That was not supposed to happen until at least 2016.

#11 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid, and things are about to get a whole lot worse. It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

#12 The U.S. government now says that the Medicare trust fund will run outfive years faster than previously anticipated.

#13 The total cost of just three federal government programs - the Department of Defense, Social Security and Medicare - exceeded the total amount of taxes brought in during fiscal 2010 by 10 billion dollars.

#14 It is being projected that entitlement spending by the federal governmentwill nearly double by the year 2050.

#15 Right now, spending by the federal government accounts for about 24 percent of GDP. Back in 2001, it accounted for just 18 percent.

#16 When you total it all up, American households are now receiving more money directly from the federal government than they are paying to the government in taxes.

The growth trend of US entitlement spending from Heritage Foundation

All of which has been playing right into the prediction of Professor Ludwig von Mises.

Professor Murray Rothbard wrote,

Indeed, the American economy has virtually reached the point where the crippling taxation; the continuing inflation; the grave inefficiencies and breakdowns in such areas as urban life, transportation, education, telephone and postal service; the restrictions and shattering strikes of labor unions; and the accelerating growth of welfare dependency, all have brought about the full-scale crisis of interventionism that Mises has long foreseen.

The instability of the interventionist welfare-state system is now making fully clear the fundamental choice that confronts us between socialism on the one hand and capitalism on the other.

Is the US Still the “Land of the Free”?

A law professor at the Washington Times enumerates incisively 10 reasons why the US has been losing its freedom. The law professor points out that despite such dynamics, paradoxically Americans still want to be seen as “the land of the free”.

Writes Jonathan Turley, which I quote in the entirety (bold emphasis mine; hat tip Bill Bonner)

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.

Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?

While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.

These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.

The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.

1. Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

2. Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)

3. Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

4. Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

5. Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

6. War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

7. Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

8. Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

9. Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

10. Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.

These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.

Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an interview last spring without objection that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, terrorism will never “surrender” and end this particular “war.”

Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: “That is a decision which we leave where it belongs — in the executive branch.”

And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat.

An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.

The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.

The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.

Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.

I would add that the increasing politicization of the lives of the average Americans and the curtailment of their civil liberties also covers much of commerce and the financial system where political concessions, bailouts, and inflationists policies seems to have become an imperative.

In short, the US has gradually been transitioning into a fascist state where repressive and arbitrary laws have been substituting the rule of law.

As the great Friedrich August von Hayek admonished in the classic "The Road to Serfdom"

It is one of the saddest spectacles of our time to see a great democratic movement support a policy which must lead to the destruction of democracy and which meanwhile can benefit only a minority of the masses who support it. Yet it is this support from the Left of the tendencies toward monopoly which make them so irresistible and the prospects of the future so dark.

Quote of the Day: Ludwig von Mises on Fascism

Fascism, as defined by dictionary.com, is a government system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc…, and emphasizing on aggressive nationalism and often racism

In today’s political environment, here and abroad, almost all aspects of civil and economic liberties have been under assault from the gradualist expansion of implicit fascism; think bailouts, QEs, manipulated interest rates, war on commodities, bans on short sales, smoking, anti-smoke belching and etc…

Nevertheless, this prescient block quote from the great Ludwig von Mises written in 1927 runs valid today [Liberalism, The Argument of Fascism, Chapter 1 Section 10]

What distinguishes liberal from Fascist political tactics is not a difference of opinion in regard to the necessity of using armed force to resist armed attackers, but a difference in the fundamental estimation of the role of violence in a struggle for power. The great danger threatening domestic policy from the side of Fascism lies in its complete faith in the decisive power of violence. In order to assure success, one must be imbued with the will to victory and always proceed violently. This is its highest principle. What happens, however, when one's opponent, similarly animated by the will to be victorious, acts just as violently? The result must be a battle, a civil war. The ultimate victor to emerge from such conflicts will be the faction strongest in number. In the long run, a minority -- even if it is composed of the most capable and energetic -- cannot succeed in resisting the majority. The decisive question, therefore, always remains: How does one obtain a majority for one's own party? This, however, is a purely intellectual matter. It is a victory that can be won only with the weapons of the intellect, never by force. The suppression of all opposition by sheer violence is a most unsuitable way to win adherents to one's cause. Resort to naked force -- that is, without justification in terms of intellectual arguments accepted by public opinion -- merely gains new friends for those whom one is thereby trying to combat. In a battle between force and an idea, the latter always prevails.

Fascism can triumph today because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. But when the fresh impression of the crimes of the Bolsheviks has paled, the socialist program will once again exercise its power of attraction on the masses. For Fascism does nothing to combat it except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them. If it wanted really to combat socialism, it would have to oppose it with ideas. There is, however, only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism.

It has often been said that nothing furthers a cause more than creating, martyrs for it. This is only approximately correct. What strengthens the cause of the persecuted faction is not the martyrdom of its adherents, but the fact that they are being attacked by force, and not by intellectual weapons. Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect -- better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall. The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property. The next episode will be the victory of Communism. The ultimate outcome of the struggle, however, will not be decided by arms, but by ideas. It is ideas that group men into fighting factions, that press the weapons into their hands, and that determine against whom and for whom the weapons shall be used. It is they alone, and not arms, that, in the last analysis, turn the scales.

So much for the domestic policy of Fascism. That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one's own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone.

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

Intellect versus force, that’s the essence of classical liberalism.

"Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito", this favorite quote of Prof von Mises comes from Vigil which means "do not give into evil but proceed ever more boldly against it".

Hat tip: Cato’s Jason Kuznicki