The Anticulture

The Anticulture has Moved!

2010-07-07T06:52:00.001-07:00

New blog at http://againstthecult.blogspot.com

Anticultural Values

2009-05-16T08:32:00.000-07:00

1.) A counterculture is the rejection of the norms and values taught to one generation by the preceding generation.

2.) An Anticulture is the rejection of all social controls and the embracing of the individual. The Anticulture is true freedom from all social control, especially as represented in all socio-political & artistic mediums including, but not limited to: film, painting, writing, and music.

3.) The Anticulture shall shake off the binds of collectivism in all of its forms. with special attention on the artistic and social elements of life.

4.) The Anticulture promotes the individual by encouraging each person to develop their own sense of morality, such as "ego-based ethics" or the idea that the highest moral purpose in life is one's own individual happiness. The idea that no person has the right to initiate force--physical or otherwise--against another person, but may use any force necessary to defend one's one life, liberty, and property is essential to Anticultural ethics. This includes against government.

5.) Since authority exists solely to initiate force and bring individuals into the collective or exclude them from life, the Anticulture rejects all formal authority as a matter of principle.

6.) The Anticulture does not necessarily advocate violent overthrow of the government, but instead prefers ignoring it's dictates. When enforced, Anticulturalists will resist these dictates, as they have not given their consent to them.

7.) In respect of the spiritual inclinations of the human race, the Anticulture shall reject the harsh cruelties of organized religion in favor of a more personal, voluntary path.

8.) Anticulturalists are encouraged to hold discussions and debates in public areas and involve as many people as possible and freely and voluntarily exchange ideas. There is absolutely no cause to grow angry over differences of opinion, or discriminate against people--especially when forming relationships--over views they hold. Public discussions is essential to the Anticulture, and it is advisable that one finds regualar places to hold such meetigns, and it is essential that these meetings are kepy informal.

8.) Intellectual stimulation and pursuit is the purpose of education, and to this end resistence to the establishment--academic, political, intellectual, ect--is advised because of the self-evidence that society is filled with philistines who consider liberty to be chaos, difference of opinion insurrenction, and individuality a crime.

9.) Meaning and purpose are entirely attributed to life by human beings, and no source of authority can grant meaning or purpose except one's own self. Your personal meaning is the manifestation of your individual pursuit of happiness and self-interest.

10.) All forms of art come from within, not from conforming to the demands of a movement.

11.) Artistic merit is achieved through innovation, not through following a system of rules & edicts by any form of popular opinion, authority, or establishment.

let the revolution begin!

Libertarianism and The Anticulture

2009-05-07T13:21:00.000-07:00

To me, Libertarianism is not another word for "paleo-con", nor does it have anything to do with religion. It is a philosophy that regards liberty as the only true building-block of any social structure, such as community and government. Even the Founders were not entirely Libertarian, as evidenced by the powers of Congress in our Constitution. The Conservatives of the past were not Libertarian, although there are some similarities regarding Foreign Policy. Since the Ron Paul Revolution, it has been common to compare the Republican and Libertarian Parties and infer that the Republican Party was at one time the party of Liberty, Constitution, and the rule of law. This is not true, and when Ron Paul implied this he meant that the conservatives within the party were at one time philosophically "republican"--i.e. constitutionalists. They were the radical republicans of the old days. However, those days have been over since the progressive era, and they did not last long to begin with. Thsoe of you familiar with American Political History should trace the origins of the Republican Party, and you will find that it was the continuation of the Federalist Party, and kept the Hamiltonian Agenda up through the present day, with the Whig Party as the intermediary. Today, we call these people "neo-cons", but there's the same group. So yeah, there never was a "libertarian" republican party. They've always been big-government nationalists.
To me, Libertarianism extends into life and does not require politics to survive in my mind. Free Speech is one of the most precious, as is academic freedom and freedom of conscience, without these the other essential freedoms would not follow. One of the more controversial issues of my version of libertarianism is Free Love. Although I am not anti-marriage, I am against civil marriage because it is a violation of the sovereignty and independence of the individual. I believe that marriage is coercive, and should not be the norm in society. Personally, I would only settle down with one person if it suited both myself and my partner, and not because of arbitrary social restrictions. Love is a beautiful emotion that should not be controlled or restrained, but fully embraced and expressed at the pelasure of the individual.
I think we all agree on the legalization of drugs, so I will not go into that.
I believe freedom from the cycle of consumerism, or from the idea that I have to work and slave away for the priviledge of consuming things that I do not want/need, though this choice is up to the individual. If you want to conform to social estrictions then go for it, but all vagrancy and other laws which attempt to keep me locked into the consumerist cycle need to cease. By the way, this is not extreme socialism but rather extreme capitalism because I am talking about the individual controlling more of their wealth and property.
Cencorship needs to go the way of the dodo bird, and artists and writers need to do their part of fight the system of coercive force, as does the rest of society.

Be yourselves, be extreme individualists. Follow your desires, your interests, your passions, and your reason!

My ideas may seem reminiscent of the counter-culture of the 1960's, but there are some differences. First and foremost, all a counter-culture needs to dissipate is for it to become the mainstream. My vision works against this because it is an "Anticulture", or exists on its own with no influence from the mainstream, whereas the counter-culture exists to move against the mainstream until it becomes the mainstream. Furthermore, the Anticulture exists for the individual, and shares none of the collectivist ideologies of the countercultures of the past, which were largely inspired by collectivism. The Anticulture is strictly for the extreme individuals, their followers can be called "counter-culturalists" or "posers.

You are your own President, as am I. I, for one, am constantly using my veto power.

Catholicism? Veto. Consumerism? Veto. Christianity? Veto. Marriage? Veto. Suburbs? Veto. United States Forign Policy? Veto. National Currency? Veto. Procreation? Veto. Taxes? Veto. Veto. Veto. Veto. Reject. Reject. Reject.

What should I accept? It's all up to me.

Culture is all about getting groupings of individuals to think and act alike through clothing, food, music, literature, philosophy and art. Therefore, an "Anticulture" is the appropriate term for the "culture" of an extreme individual, a society of one. A generation of extreme individuals, regulating their own behavior and correcting no one.

The 9.5 Theses regarding reforms in the Liberty Movement

2009-04-16T08:53:00.000-07:00

Phil's 9.5 Theses:

.5) All our movement needs to suffer defeat is for the government to deny us their permission, because you will not stand up.

1.) There is no Civil Disobediance -- I define Civil Disobedience as a peaceful
"resistence", but the liberty-activists do not resist anything. The "We the People" Congress cancels protests when permits are denied. The rest of us similarly jump through hoops for the Police-State instead of opposing them.

2.) There is no sacrifice without non-cooperation/resistence/disobedience of some sort -- get off your ass and take back your liberty by not cooperating with tyrannical forces.

3.) American Revolution Paraphenalia -- You DARE compare yourselves to the Patriots of the American Revolution? Those people sacrificed everything they had for liberty, and you refuse to break any unjust law, or disobey the government in the least. For as long as you refuse to leave the comfort of your nice cushy lives and put everything on the line, stop pretending like you are Revolutionaries. You are not, because you are not moving against the current of your time as they did. You don't even hold coutnercultural values, many of you are conservatives. Don't fly the Gasden Flag unless you mean it.

4.) Amnesia -- You think there was a libertarian "glory age" when America was a libertarian's dream. This never happened. Even without slavery, there were christianity-inspired codes of moral conduct that limited people in many ways, the federalists had many laws that suspended constitutional rights, ect...libertarianism never took complete hold. If you say that it did philosophically, then you would be correct. Socially, not so much. Also, Jefferson was a big-government President, but as small-government philosopher. So instead of calling yourselves Jeffersonians, why not Madisonians? That'd be mroe prudent if you are in fact Constitutionalists.

5.) Hubris -- You all act like you are experts, and really you are just preaching to other libertarians the same basic facts that we all have heard a zillion times. Many of your websites are long explanations of the entire history of liberty as you understand it. However, many of these regergitated facts are over-simplified, extreme, and sometimes so far from the factual source that they cannot be deemed correct at all. You also act like everyone who disagrees with us is a moron, and adopt similar rhetoric which makes recruiting non-beleivers imporrible. this will make us into a fringe cult, not a real force for liberty. A true libertarian respects dissent, no matter how ridiculous someone's ideas might seem to us.

6.) Lack of Logic -- You do not logically verify your sources and fall into the trappings of "conspiracy theories". Even if some of them have a kernal of truth, you simply just beleive everything you hear that matches with your attitudes and inclinations. Just because we do not agree with central banking does not mean it is responsible for all the planet's ills, for exmaple. Correlation is not causation, Kennedy was not murdered because of an executive order to produce silver certificates.

7.) Appeal to Intellect -- Understand that most libertarians would be marxists or democrats or anything else if we did not reach them when we did. They "like us" and many people are drones with no mind of their won. Appeal to emotion is the only was to lure in the masses. Civil Disobedience helps with this. We need to convice people why they're being ripped off by statism.

8.) Cult Status -- We have become a personality cult of Ron Paul, with a strong hatred for our "devil" President Obama. I disagree with Obama, and I have a deep admiration for Ron Paul but he is not my god and obama is not my devil. We are falling into the trappings of the "Bush Haters", who made lots of noise and didn't maike the points that they could have in 2004 to get him out of office. There is nothing to HATE in Obama, but plenty to disagree with. Stick to the issues, do not fall into the trappings of mainstream politics. Mainstream politics are designed for the ignorant and confused, that includes you if you let it.

9.) Repetitive Strategy -- We are using a failed strategy of "chaning the system from within" and trying to get our people elected. It isn't working, try something else. With our numbers, we could hold the largest "illegal" protest in history. Imagine if 100,000 people marched in Washignton to protest the unconstitutional "permits". Again, live up to your heritage as libertarians.

Obama Becomes Bush-- News Article

2009-04-16T08:52:00.001-07:00

http://www.telegram.com/article/20090410/NEWS/904100376/1052/rss01&source=rss

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama asked Congress yesterday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.

Obama’s request, including money to send thousands of more troops to Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.

Obama also is requesting $350 million in new funding to upgrade security along the U.S.-Mexico border and to combat narco-terrorists, along with another $400 million in counterinsurgency aid to Pakistan.

“Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future — and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan,” Obama wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy P. Pelosi, D-Calif.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, acknowledged that Obama has been critical of Bush’s use of similar special legislation to pay for the wars. He said it was needed this time because the money will be required by summer, before Congress is likely to complete its normal appropriations process.

“This will be the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan. The process by which this has been funded over the course of the past many years, the president has discussed and will change,” Gibbs said.

Last June, Congress approved $66 billion in advance 2009 funding for military operations. All told, the Pentagon would receive $142 billion in war funding for the budget year ending Sept. 30.

The request is likely to win easy approval from the Democratic-controlled Congress, despite frustration among some liberals over the pace of troop withdrawals and Obama’s plans for a large residual force of up to 50,000 troops — about one-third of the force now there — who will train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and personnel and conduct anti-terrorism operations.

The official request was sent early last evening.

The request would fund an average force level in Iraq of 140,000 U.S. troops. It would also finance Obama’s initiative to boost troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from 39,000 now. And it would provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon’s plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, including a 547,400-person active-duty Army.

Some Democrats were not pleased.

“This funding will do two things — it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely,” said anti-war U.S. Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey, D-Calif.

House GOP leader John A. Boehner of Ohio said Republicans would overwhelmingly support the request, provided congressional Democrats don’t seek to “micromanage” the war by adding a timeline or other restrictions on the ability of the military to carry on the fight.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, said, “The reality is the alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places, and I don’t know anybody who thinks that’s a good idea.” He said, “The reality is it would put everything we have achieved in Iraq at tremendous risk, and I believe it would greatly endanger our troops.”

The Anticulture Counterculture

2009-04-16T08:50:00.000-07:00

There was once when people held ideals that challenged the establishment, traditional sources of authority, that sought to inhibit individual liberty. At this time, there was a very destructive war that forced many against thier will to join the military. Over 60,000 of these young men came back dead, and millions joined together to protest not just the war, but the draft that violated their rights and forced them to give up their liberty without the due process of the law. Others took objection to the consumerist "American Dream", where owning a house and a car and a white picket fence and having lots of children with a spouse and becoming a good "citizen" by following all social norms influenced many to give up their individual thoughts in order to blend in with the masses. Still, many more campaigned for the rights of certain disenfranchised and beaten-down groups such as women and racial minorities, while others went against anti-drug laws and experimented with psychedlics. In the 1950's the Beatniks opened up the literary world by writing what had previously been censored and inspiring generations to challenge social conventions and controls. In the 1960's and 70's, people like Bob Dylan and Jim Morrison expanded upon this social consciousness and wrote and sang songs that never would have been produced before, but would have been censored because of "family values" and "decency laws". An entire generation of individuals that we call Beatniks and Hippies chose individualism over collectivism and challenged the establishment of their times in so many ways...

What has happened to us? It appears that people have become conformists again! Where are the individualists? We have allowed our world to be over-run by bald-headed, gray-bearded authoritarians who rape and pillage us for the "greater good". Wars, piracy, corruption...we allowed it to happen because we conformed instead of just being ourselves. I feel like I hold coutnercultural values, so where is everyone else of a similar mind?

What we need are artists, writers, and performers to inspire the rest of us to be ourselves and pursue only our happiness, and to stray far from the idea of a "greater good". Instead, we seem to be pushing responsibility away from ourselves and deciding that it is the job of those with power to make our lives better. All the while, we lose more and more liberty every day. I hope one day to find a rising coutnerculture within my country that reflects my coutnercultural values.

I envision a counterculture that draws upon influence from the Transcendentalists, Beatniks, Libertarians/Campaign for Liberty, while retaining its own individual character. This counterculture would promote radical individualism, dissent, discourse, and the intellect. Enough with the collectivism, with the idea that the group can solve all problems, or that that government can. Time to move forward to a society that is based exclusively on the individual, and individual rights.

Bogus Revelation, Part 1: Red UFO Hysteria

2009-02-21T11:11:00.000-08:00

The Fifties were a time of great change and prosperity for America. The country had bounced back from a world war, the economy was seeing continual growth, a rigid new system of social norms and repsression were established, and America was at war again. Yes, another war. We weren't attacked this time, and we weren't out to destroy another evil Empire bent on regional or world domination. No, our threat was ideological, our menace was communism. We all know the history, so another history lesson isn't required, only a new interpretation. What was our goal in this war? The answer to that can only be seen by the state of American foreign policy today: 130 nations in the world have a permenant American military presence. Moreover, the United States government is chief among those responsible for policing the world through military might, and the chief among the "nation-builders" of the world.
The Korean War started that trend, in its current form. As we all know, America has maintained a presence in South Korea for over fifty years and was responsible for the small democracy. However, this war was part of a larger strategy devised by both Presidents Roosevelt & Truman and carried out by every successive President, a strategy of policing the world to promote and establish democracy. Sounds good, but when you keep in mind that this required aggressive military intervention, your conclusions will lead you to thoughts of empire and colonialism. The American people would surely go against the very notion of an "American Empire", wouldn't they? Perhaps they would, if they took Eisenhower's warning about the effect of Arms Manufactuerers' lobbying on Foreign Policy & War seriously. They did not.
Drawing inspiration from the "War of the Worlds" disaster and realizing the American thirst for "bogus revelation", the government began to subtly promote the idea of "UFO" or "flying saucer" encounters. The first military man to give a press conference on the Roswell disaster mentioned alien spaceships and flying saurcers, and was superficially reassigned. Later on, as the UFO Hysteria builds and Builds, the government launched "secret" projects that everyone seems to hear rumors of: Project Bluebook to monitor the phenomena, the Majestic 12...ect. The more is was denied, the more people believed it. All of this to distract the American public from what is now to us in the New Millenium so apparent: a policy of near-global domination through an arms strategy of nation-building to promote puppet-states made to go along with the overall vision, despite minor differences. The vision: a global federation of democracies that "unite" towards common goals, united through a central financial system and various economic and strategic alliances.
The main angle was fear. Fear of the Soviets dropping "the bomb", fear of communist conspirators coming out of the woodwork only to declare our way of life was no longer lawful. While there was no war, those with the money and motivation helped facilitate one. First with the Russians--an enemy we did not much more than called names and play chess with--they devised a Cold War. They fed on that hysteria as well. The Hysteria of the communist threat to worldwide democracy, the threat of alien invaders snatching us from our homes, the threat of the archetypal colonialism every American has secretly feared in the depths of inner thought since that first first shot was echoed around the world.
See the results of bogus revelation?
All we recieved was a bigger government, less liberty, and an endless stream of war and reprisal.

Non-Cooperation, Part Four

2008-11-25T12:37:00.000-08:00

I have already spoken about the merits of Non-cooperation, but I do not believe I have made myself clear enough in certain areas. Non-Cooperation is not only a form of protest, but also a form of resistence. Too often today, we see empty protests for substantial causes. Just recently I attended the "End the Fed" Rally in Boston. There were many people there chanting, shouting, making noise and discussing their dissent for our government's financial system. As righteous as their cause was, they failed to grasp the purpose of a protest: it isn't just about expressing oneself and making noise--thats a demonstration--a PROTEST has to be a form of public resistence. I discussed this and they seemed to udnerstand this, yet how can they understand it when they applied for a permit and complied with every single police order? The government won't want to do away with such a huge money-making scheme as the Federal Reserve just because a bunch of people don't like it, they would only do away with it if business-as-usual was disrupted in such a way that they had no choice but to comply with the will of the people, and the Constitution--the supreme law of the United States.
Making noise and rasing awareness has been the goal of the Libertarian Movement for over forty years, and nothing has been gained from it. Libertarians have never truly "resisted" any infringment on constiutional liberty--at least not on any worthwhile scale. The result has been an increase in government, more and more morally atrocious wars & banking schemes, terrorist attacks, and an increase in domestic and foreign militarism on the part of the West. The "End the Fed" Movement would have worked if it had been enacted without permits nationwide, and not dispersed when asked by police. That is resistence, something the Civil Rights protestors knew and the Hippies lived their lives by. Yet now we see utter conformity in every aspect of life. Do you really think the government will give up all the tax revenues from the Income Tax--give up MONEY, the driving force of every war in history--if they aren't forced to? The system is too corupt to be changed from within. According to the Supreme Court, the income tax has to be apportioned, yet it isn't. Why? Because the Supreme Court has no power to enforce such a measure, and because nobody gives up money unless they are forced to. The system to too corrupt to change from within, so our actions must weaken the system so that those in charge will have to settle disputes with dissenters. In this case, violence will not work on the dissenting side. Rather, the dissenters should remain passive-resisters while the Establishment institues violence against them. In other words, protest without a permit and when the police come, let them harm you because in the end their violence will win the overall struggle for us. Non-violent RESISTENCE will help us achieve our goals, not vocal dissent under compliance.
Getting back to the "End the Fed" Protests, perhaps some other methods of protest may have been more effective. First of all, a sit-in may have been more newsworthy than a rally on a weekend when the Branch was closed. On the same note, a sit-in during operational hours would have disrupted bussiness-as-usual, especially if it was being done at all the Branches.
We need to peacefully resist in any and all ways we can. Activism was once a form of resistence, not recreation. We need to reaffirm our goals and our convictions, and we need to try to meet them. There has not been a single liberty movement that has succeeded until it disrupted business as usual.
During the Indian Indepdendence Movement, the followers of Gandhi and the Indian Congress were arrested, beaten, and even attacked by all-out military force. Their victory was the greatest blow to the British Empire since the American Revolution. The Civil Rights workers in America during the fifty, sixties, and seventies were arrested, beaten by police, had the fire-hoses turned onto them many times, and many were killed for their efforts. If the Libertarian Movement in America is to succeed, we must face these threats and challenges, because they signify a threat to the status quo.

The Election

2008-11-10T13:02:00.000-08:00

I will not be writing any fancy introduction. I am very disappointed in the incompetence of the Libertarian Party. Here they had the opportunity to run as many candidates as possible, using the peaking of the Ron Paul Movement & dissatisfaction with business-as-usual, i.e. the Republicans and Democrats. However, this band of bickering old men failed to even some close to winning a seat in Congress or any state legislature. Why, i ask myself, can the Vermont Progressive Party--a statewide Party--hold six seats in the legislature and get within arm's length of the Governor's Office, while the Third Largest National Party cannot even get close to one legislative position? The truth is, they do not want to win, and their nominee this election proves it. Bob Barr ran for one of the possible two reasons: revenge against the Republican Party for abandoning him, or just simply to have ran for President. This is indicative of the type of person in the Party, people like George Phillies: people who do not want to win, or come close to winning, and who say and do things to articulate this.
There's no reason to fear, however, for there is a new hope: The Campaign for Liberty, the organization spawned from the awakening that was the Ron Paul Revolution. This organization sought out and endorsed a number of "Ron Paul Republicans"--Libertarians with the Will to Suceed. Even though every single one of these candidates lost, they at least came closer than the Libertarian ones, who never seem to be able to recieve more than 10% except under ridiculous circumstances, such as merely being on the ballot with only one of the two major parties. Even so, they never win. Well I actually believe in Libertarianism and through my research i have discerned that it is the only thing that can get us out of our current troubles--all of them, and so I am not content with supporting a losing cause. The Campaign for Liberty will rebuild the Republican Party into a close enough relative of the Libertarian Party to make a huge difference in policy, which can only result in the Revolution promised by Ron Paul: a return to operation as a Constitutional Republic. Hopefully this will mean ratifying Ron Paul's Declaration of Independence that he proposed a number of years ago. Even if many of these goals cannot be met, with a major Party operating under Libertarian philosophy, the country will be better off. Naturally, there will always be disagreement, but right now many of the solutions to our problems are not even in the dialogue, even most of the problems in America today are not even discussed, such as the complete ignoring of the Constitution. The Campaign for Liberty will educate the people on the problems, and will hopefully make the Republican Party a more libertarian-minded group.
As for the lesser of two evils: the days seem to be perpetual to say the least. I thought with the Ron Paul base igniting, that the Duopoly would be dealt something resembling a wound. I had thought that someone, somewhere would be elected an independent or under a third party, somebody with some different ideas. Different, not "bipartisan": "bipartisan" is a term that assumes the only ideas that are acceptable or not "crazy" are the ones proposed by Democrats & Republicans, when in fact academic institutions such as the Cato and Von Mises Institutes base their decisions on fact. Lieberman is an independent due to the technicality that he did not run under a political banner, but he is "bipartisan", or a man of the Establishment as a whole. He represents the Single Party System known as the Duopoly. There is also a Senator and a Representative from Vermont, but they are Socialists that vote with the democrats, and have done nothing to make elections fair for fellow Independents and Third Parties. So really, elections have become pointless, because no matter what we never seem to elect anyone that can make any difference, because all the candidates that run are either incompetent and run just to educate people, or are thrust onto the shoulders of the masses because they are "independent" enough to run on their own, but give establishment-type answers to virtually every problem.
For those of you interested in Liberty, go to the website of the Campaign for Liberty, to make the Republican Party a Free-Loving, Constitution-Abiding Party.

Social Business: Libertarians Proven Right

2008-10-15T08:47:00.000-07:00

Some may not be aware of this, but the eradication of many of the world's worst poverty-related problems is now in its infancy stages. Finaly, the human race has determined a method of counteracting starvation, lack of drinking water, and low standards of living in the Middle East, Africa, and everywhere else through the art of financing. The method is called microfinancing, and the model is called "Social Business", the model that does what welfare and foreign aid never could. These social businesses have contributed more than just money to a problem, they have contributed the idea that will solve the underlying problem in these developing nations: lack of a suitable, sustainable economy. Social Business aims to give these regions sustainable economies, thus increasing their standard of living.
I recently heard of a Social Business on the radio, called Grameen Bank. For over an hour, I listened to the founder Muhammad Yunus discuss how Grameen works, and how it has helped people worldwide. First, they provided basic utilities to their home of Bangaladesh: running water, energy, industry, and telecommunications through either starting a non-profit company themselves or financing a startup through microcredit. These utilities were designed to be affordable to the average person in these developing areas, many of whom only make the equivalent of 75 Dollars per year. They also gave out loans for small businesses, which paid off. Now the area that they began in has a sustainable economy and a real future. Now, over 32 years later, Grameen has spread their ideas. The beauty of these programs is that if they can work in the Third World, they can work in Europe and America as well. Therefore, we can thank Grameen for giving us a blueprint for cheaper utilities and more efficient businesses as well--ideas which can help the poor in America and revitalize poor neighborhoods.

Thus the answer has been within our grasp, and most scarcely know it: Capitalism and Freedom are the Progressive Ideas, not Socialism and Government Hegemony.

A Brief Repreive--The History of Banking and Finances

2008-10-11T12:54:00.001-07:00

In light of the recent Financial Problems on Wall Street, I thought it would be nice to provide my readers with an obscure yet interesting topic: the origins of Banking and Financing, directly out of the Ancient World! Compare these early practices to the Federal Reserve, and the large lenders. The details are different: our institutions exahcnge currency while earlier banks stored commodities such as grain and livestock as well. However, the essentials are the same--lending as a business, investing as a form of high-risk money-making; uses credit notes (bills of credit--?fiat currency?) to avoid being robbed in transit. It's interesting to see where these things began.

http://viking.som.yale.edu/will/finciv/chapter1.htm#crash

Don't forget to read Non-cooperation, Part 3!

Non-Cooperation, Part 3

2008-10-08T08:46:00.000-07:00

Our Goverments do not want us to speak out against their policies. They want us to only see their Democratic-Republican way of seeing the world. This is because any serious inquiry would lead to the realization that many of the institutions and traditions we hold dear are mere illusions, hoisted upon our shoulders for the benefit of those our politicians deem worthy. As we well know, the Democrats and the Republicans are essentially the same party, with no major philisophical distinction. Their arguements are minute and tidious, but because they never debate any Party besides one another, most people are ignorant as to the possabilities for real change. All the the laws regulating First Amendment Rights--such as protesting and demonstrating, election Debate regulations, Election coverage, Speech Laws...are all deseigned to create in the mind of the average American person, the small world-view under which a Democrat or a Republican are considered "correct". Therefore, we must not only lobby for our goals, but also go against the rules meant to keep us at bay.
On Constitution Day of this year, the We The People Congress were supposed to have had a large hunger-strike in Washignton D.C., in an attempt to recieve from the government a Redress of Grievences. However, they were denied a permit because--as the City claims--it is illegal to sleep in the park. The We the People Congress responded to this in the worst of ways: they cancelled their protest. In a proper Non-Cooperation Campaign, they should have carried on without permission. These are the movements that make changes. If reformers and liberty-activists in America had always acted this way, we would still have slavery, women would be treated like pets, and we would probably still be British Colonies. The We the People Congress failed us by following the hegemonic rules that they should be against, but where they failed we shall suceed. The only way to protest oppression is to not cooperate with the authority that institutes it. Next year, every Liberty- Acvtivist in the country should go to Washington D.C. on Constitution Day and sit in that park and have that hunger strike, without even applying for a permit. That would be the perfect protest, one that would make strides in restoring freedom to this country.
I have read that "sit-ins" are the perfect form of protest because they are non-violent, less "in your face", but they get the message across better than any other form of protest. Non-violence is key, for violent insurrectionists are often labelled, jailed, and discarded and their cause loses all gravity. If we follow the example of Gandhi and King, we shall overcome. If we can suffer the economic, social, and political crises our American governments have caused, we can suffer a little more mistreatment at the end of the long struggle for freedom. Sit-ins are a direct form of Non-Cooperation, and thus go against the rules put in place to stifle dissent; because of this, it is crucial that a sit-on demonstration not end when the protestors are asked to leave, but when they are moved by force. Leave the governments their monopoly on force and violence, we have no use for it in our revolution.
Another travesty is the requirement of permits for public protests. This is a severe violation of our rights, and can be changed. First, we must gather in the thousands and decide on a place of importance--Washington should work. Next, we gather and march in our numbers. They will send the police and perhaps the National Guard, due to the erroneous notion of the "illegality" of such a protest. Then, we will march on and be dispersed, but we must never give in to the temptation of violence, especially when we are attacked. A few marches like these, and we will see a decided change in Congress. Morever, picketing and waving signs outside of State Assembly Buildings, Local Federal Reserve Branches, and other important symbolic places will be useful in provoking change. Meanwhile, the unconstiutional laws surrounding protesting will be challenged, and perhaps overturned.
Such Campaigns must be organized. If it begins in one part of the country, other parts must follow suit. Protestors in Massachusetts should be met by equally provocative protestors in Texas, California, Arkansas, Florida, and Kentucky...The only viable way to organize such a Movement is through the Campaign for Liberty Organization. Their website is http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ membership is free, and this site is not only a great way to stay current and informed, but also to organize and network with other Sons and Daughters of Liberty. Unfortunately, the Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples of America are no longer in the business of promoting freedom. They are more worried about maintaining their tax-exempt status--and who can blame them? But without them, the Campaign for Liberty is our best Organizational tool.
Another step might possibly be to influence our religious organizations to take on this cause. This is a long-shot, and by no means should this be the primary method of achieving our liberty. However, if we can turn Churches and other religious organizations on to our cause, it will expediate the process and make our concerns, National Concerns.

We must send the message: we will not shut up, we will not go away, and we are not just blowing off steam; we are here to stay. Liberty is here to stay.

Non-Cooperation, Part 2

2008-10-03T11:15:00.000-07:00

The truth of the matter is, the American people are getting ripped off. Poor and middle class communities are suffering from Government agencies controlling families, such as the various so-called Social "Services" which divide & dictate to many families; law enforcement agencies enforcing drug laws and unconstitutional social restrictions ruin lives daily; Taxes of all sorts, such as property, sales, excise, mandatory charges--such as driver's license fee's, and hidden taxes--such as bank fees (instituted by the Federal Reserve), and the worst: inflation. Inflation is the "invisible tax" because it cannot be measured in monetary amount, only buying power. These taxes--many of which are illegal, are harming our economy and our lives in a variety of ways. Inflation is primarily stealing from the middle class and the poor, since the rich aren't nearly as affected in their daily lives, because their wealth provides a shield against inflationary losses. Moreover, most of us have savings and retirement accounts. If we, the poor and middle class of America, have $100,000 dollars saved for retirement and there is an annual inflation of 2-3%, over time we could lose over 20%. In the short term, this harms buying power, and impacts savings. With 2% inflation, savings accounts are losing 2 dollars on every hundred. Meanwhile, the cost of living goes up because the currency is worth less, and wages stay the same. This causes strain on the poor and middle class families when they are attempting to keep their homes, put their children through any level of school, pay the legal taxes; this also makes buying food, clothing, fuel, and the other necessities of life all that much more difficult. This combined with all the other taxes is causing tremendous strain on the American economy, as seen by the Crisis in the Financial Markets, which was caused by inflation and government subsidies. We, the people, should no longer put up with such undemocratic policies, and fight this injustice. Many would say that it is foolish to resist the government, and in some ways it is. It would be foolish to do so violently--as some have attempted in the past--after all, America part of the problem is the militaristic tactics the Government is using. Further, violence solves nothing, as we have seen in the War on Drugs, Terror, and the War in Vietnam--where 60,000 American soldiers and many more Vietnamese lost their lives for a War in which Democracy lost. Since then, Vietnam has instituted reforms and we have solved in peace what could not be solved in over Twenty Years of war. And since every major Non-cooperation Campaign in the Western--and even Eastern--World seems to have suceeded to a large degree, it is evident that our current predicament is a problem which can only be solved by non-violent civil disobedience, and the namesake of this tract: Non-cooperation. A people so oppressed must end that oppression by ceasing all compliance with injustice.
This has been done before, both in America and abroad. The Civil Rights Movement, which is credited with beginning with the civil disobedience conducted by Rosa Parks, now a national icon, when she refused to comply with the laws regarding the Segregation of busses--this movement changed America forever, and for the better. Now we have black children and white children, Catholics and Protestants, and all variety of ethnicities and religious people coming to gether and become friends and allies regardless of these superficial differences. Moreover, this movement is a working example of how Non-cooperation can and ultimately will--if the cause is just--succeed. However, it is necessary first to look an earlier example, to illustrate how this can make changes on an even wider basis.
The Indian Independence Movement evolved when Gandhi brought his Non-cooperation Campaign to India, after his strides against apartheid in South Africa. Now in Champaran & Kheda in 1918 he led impoverished farmers, mired in social evils such as unhygienic conditions, domestic violence, discrimination, military oppression, oppression of women & untouchability. On top of their miseries, these people were forced to grow cash crops like indigo, tobacco and cotton, instead of food, by the government without compensation, thus causing starvation and numerous financial problems. In addition, they would have to pay taxes despite a famine. Due to Non-cooperation, the people in these regions won the largest victory against the British Empire since the American Revolution: the cessation of taxes during famines. This Non-cooperation movement consisted of people quitting government positions, boycotting government services and law enforcement, boycotting the courts, boycotting government goods. These measures led to major problems for the British when there was a communcation blackout when every telephone, telegraph, and radio operator ceased work. Meanwhile, the Salt march led to a major blow to the British Monopoly on Salt in India, a vital resource in many areas in the economy and life. The result: the eventual rise of an Indian Nation-State, the goal of the movement. All of this was accomplished with widespread Non-cooperation, begun at the local levels.
This too, must be our goal: to cease cooperation on the local level, which will lead to the rise of more such movements, and eventually a national one will emerge and reign victorious. The Indian Non-Cooperation Campaign did the equivalent of what Americans must do: break the two-party system, abolish the Federal Reserve & return to sound money, force the government to respect our civil & human rights, return to the Constitution, and cease the U.S. role in the militarization of diplomacy. More on statement of methodology in Part 3.
The civil rights movement grew in the local communities. The Movement can be traced back to the Radical Republicans in the 19th Century, but the modern movement began in 1955. One of the Movement's earliest Non-cooperation campaigns was the famous and glorious Bus Boycott, as mentioned previously. This Campaign grew out of local congregations, and met at the Church of Dr. Martin Luther King, whose actions in subsequent years made him a Nation hero. This local movement recieved Nation attention, resulting in a major victory: Alabama's racial segregation laws for busses were deemed unconstitutional. There was still work to do, but this was one early example of the power and success of Non-cooperation.
We too, must gather people at the local level through useful agents. Together we as a Nation can rise up in defiance of Government policies, uniting together through religious centers, town centers, and political action groups. however, we must be careful to remain decentralized; centralization will only lead to our movement becoming an easier target for attack, both violent and in a propaganda sense. The usefulness of a decentralized Non-cooperation is that it does not rely on central leadership. Therefore, if a prominent component of our Movement is somehow taken out of the picture, the other numerous groups can continue the struggle.

Non-Cooperation, Part 1

2008-09-29T12:37:00.000-07:00

Greetings to all those who may read this,

In times of great peril and tribulation, when the power that be have decided in favor of elite governance by the self-interested, it is required that those under this system of hedgemony learn of their oppression through any media which may grant the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and enslumbered to awaken. Through this hour of challenge from the Great Powers of all things, we must focus our vision to adequately turn away and shut out the hurricane of silence that entombs and imprisions us. It is in such an hour that the people, led by a self-sacrificing few, rising above the shackles of the status quo, and the indoctrination thereof, will overcome all obstacles and reign in an era of victory for all. This rhetoric is no mere complaint, but an organized declaration of necessity regarding a Non-Cooperation Campaign against a system designed to work without the people who are required by it to turn the wheels with the toil from their labors.
Every generation has it's share of injustice, and its taste of reprisal. Yet, when the injustices from one generation are thrusted upon the shoulders of another, all the way down the timestream, it is then evident that a change of a monumentous proportion is necessary if humanity is to further the progress that has been the objective of all the ancestors of all families, of all tribes, of all peoples. Our forefathers, and their constituents, fought for Seven Long Years to bestow a better opportunity for such progress than they themselves had, upon all posterity. And though there were sundry problems and injustices yet to be solved, on the day when the war-drums fell silent, every generation from the Founders until the present day, triumphed. Though abolition, equal protection, and universal suffrage were not yet enacted, they were now possible.
Yet with every good possibility, there is always many destructive ones. None could imagine that the Constitution would be ignored after so much had gone into it, that Centeal Banks and Government Departments would replaces the people's Representatives as the Lesiglators. While once the idea of a Monarch was a laughable occurence, we have seen many Presidents take upon the role, with the cheers of Congress behind them. We have seen two Major Parties become one, we have seen Private Ownership detested by those at the recieving end of it's generosity, and we have heard ideas trampled, overpower the voices of those that have oppressed it, to no avail.
But we must always remember that through the leaps in progress, we have seen former convicts become national heroes, we have heard speeches that break through all barriers and unite us in celebration and sorrow, and we have seen all that Disobedience can do for the world. Disobedience is the difference between a protest, and a Revolution; between a losing battle, and a victory. Disobedience stopped the draft in America; it toppled the British, French, Roman, Egyptian, as well as Three German and Two Russian Empires; it saw to the end of segregation and apartheid in the Twenitieth Century, and slavery in the Ninteenth; it made the Transcendentalists, Beats, and hippies respectable historical movements; and finally, it made sure one shot was heard around the world, for well over three hundred years.
The United States are the greastest Nations on the Earth. We heard about their greatness often, but never of they're mistakes. They have violated their own sacred Document in favor of an Anthology and a Manifesto; they have broken with their Republican Principles and invaded soveriegn Nations without due cause; and they have entered into alliances which have stripped them of all economic freedom. And finally, they have propped two indistiguishable Parties upon their shoudlers through various conspiring and dangerous Organizations, with the purpose of stripping the United States of their liberty and property. We may take comfort in the fact that a people long oppressed, cannot remain so forever.
Non-Cooperation is inevitable, when a people have had enough of life without liberty. One day, the masses will stop paying taxes, charging taxes, requesting permits to protest, electing Big-Government bureaucrats, supporting Central Banks, and being afraid to protest their government. In that day, liberty shall triumph.

The Constitution and the Judeo-Christian Tradition

2008-09-11T06:31:00.000-07:00

Today in class, a fellow student of mine stated that "The framers built our Constitution around the Judeo-Christian Tradition". I stated that I have read both the Constitution and the Bible, and there is no relation to the two aside from the invocation of a Deity at the end, which bears no legal weight and has no effect on the running of government.
He replied that "The founders were very religious..." and I am still in the dark. As far as I can tell, if the Founders had built our Republic around the Judeo-Christian Tradition, they would have established a monarchy controlled by an eccelestical class. Britain could be said to be founded on Christian Principles, as they have a State Church and a Church-Ordained King. My colleague was forgetting the first Amendment, which prohibits a State Religion, or State Church. I grow weary of this argument, as it is always stated and can never be backed up. The very fact that he could not describe the relationship between the Judeo-Christian Tradition and the Government of the United States demonstrates the fallacy of this argument. No matter your religious beliefs, I think most well-read thinkers on the subject would agree that while it might be nice from the religious perspective to have everything that's "right" or "good" in the world have a relationship to your beliefs, it just simply isn't always true. The Christian Churches and the Christian People of the World have done many wonderful things to make our world a better place, but the Constitution of the United States of America is not one of them. It is a secular document, and has no relationship to the Bible, another good document of a different nature.

I challenge all who share this belief to convince me that the Constitution is based on Christian Principles.

To Complement my Subsequent Post

2008-04-28T20:57:00.000-07:00

http://www.revolutionmarch.com/Pamphleteer

I will follow up this brief post with a more detailed and well-thought out post on my revolutioary ideals and politics, and how they apply to the Ron Paul rally.

Inkblot

2008-01-05T08:27:00.000-08:00

The tea bag that I grew up steeping
Holds my soul
Beneath a lake of fire
Where the mole
Can nourish of its ire

Spark the power
Of its mighty limbs&
Make me forget
Heaven is devoid the an ivory tower

Or perhaps that tea
Will be to me
As a leaf to a tree
Once there, now gone
But it won’t be long
Before something new
Will stop me from singing
Its song.

I Was There!

2007-11-26T08:07:00.000-08:00

I recently saw the new Bob Dylan film, "I'm Not There". I've heard many complaints about the film, chief among them that it made no sense and was a complete absurdity. This is not true. Though I agree that this film wasn't a biopic, but more of a surreal odyssey which sought to explore Dylan the man and legend, it was not absurd. This movie did what so many of Dylan's songs do: using heavy metaphor to create images and express ideas. Dylan was the greatest surrealist songwriter in American, perhaps even international, history. Only a movie such as this could truly capture Dylan.
For those of you who do not know alot about Dylan, here is a suggested study guide before watching the film:

songs: (reading lyrics helps)
desolation row
it's all over now, baby blue
like a rolling stone
One More Cup of Coffee
mr. tambourine man
the times they are-a changing
visions of johanna
love is just a four-letter word(baez performs, lyrics by Dylan)

books:
Tarantula(reading just one or two poems from this would be sufficient for the time being if you're in a rush)
*Bonus* Chronicles Volume One(not super-necessary, but will help alot)

films:
Don't Look Back(1967)
Dylan Speaks!

Transformers

2007-07-07T11:15:00.000-07:00

Quite possibly the most entertaining movie I have seen in many years. That's all I got, sorry.

Nonsense

2007-06-27T15:18:00.000-07:00

Philip Marrone
A Treatise of reason
6/27/07

Nonsense?

In our present age, we have at our disposal a plethora of utilities which have increased the comfort and convenience of our lives since the antebellum age. Industrialization coupled with advancement in medical technology has allowed health to become a primary component in our lives; no longer do common ailments, such as strep throat, end our lives. Geostationary satellites have allowed for instant global communications, an advancement met with a decrease in large-scale wars between nations. Likewise, the internet has provided humanity with its latest, and possibly final, completely free forum for discussion. Socially, equal rights movements for women and ethnic minorities have at last made the words of Thomas Jefferson true: all men are now not only created equal, but treated as such. Likewise, there hasn’t been a war between Europe and the United States for over Sixty years; nor have there been any wars within Europe. Yet the antebellum times had something which we do not: an accurate view of human rights, and the role which government should take in presiding over a free society.
In modern America, we live under a strong central government; this government, once purported to be dedicated to freedom, justice, and preservation of inalienable human rights, has gone against the very purpose of its creation. This government places restrictions on the most basic of rights, except that of speech, all in the name of the security of the people whom it serves. In today’s America, a permit from the government is required to protest; again, in the name of the security of the people. It also places restrictions on businesses, such as banning smoking in private establishments, which have a less than salutary effect upon the businesses involved. These restrictions have just as detrimental an effect upon the general freedom of the people; this too, is said to be in the name of public safety, in this case from harmful chemicals. The list of government intrusions in the everyday lives of almost every American citizen to too long to list completely. Yet can such a government truly be dedicated to the freedom of its citizens?
During revolutionary times, the general concept of freedom was far different from the one which is prevalent today. Thomas Paine, the first great American thinker, embodied the Revolution-Era concept of liberty within his work: “Rights of Man.” Within this document, he lists and briefly details the basic nature and rights of the entire human race. For the first of the listed rights, Mr. Paine writes: “Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect to their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on public utility” (Paine, 217). In other words, all human beings are born free and equal, and the only distinctions which can be made by a government are purely for the good of the public. The last portion was most likely added to account for criminals, for surely they must be punished for society to function.
This quote shows how the people of that time regarded and defined freedom, much in contrast with the people of today. For the most part, the current government has followed this principle, but with a few unforgivable exceptions. The right to marry is being limited to a select group by the government. Thus, two groups are being oppressed by the government regulation and restriction of marriage: homosexuals and polygamists. Neither group causes harm to society, nor do they victimize anybody. Yet they are denied the right to marriage by the government. In the case of polygamists, imprisonment is the penalty for their practices. So it can be concluded that our current government only protects “orthodox” practices which the majority of the public support, and not the rights inherent within the human race itself as Thomas Paine and the people of his day believed it should.
The next item on the list details the major categories of the basic, inalienable human rights. On the second item, Mr. Paine states: “…and these rights are Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistance of oppression.” These rights, and the liberties which support them, were considered untouchable by all government authority in Revolution-Era times, except if a crime has been committed and a sentence layed. Yet today, there are many restrictions placed upon these natural rights by the very government which claims to ensure them.
The most important of all items on Mr. Paine’s list was the fourth, which clearly defined the limits of a person’s liberty, as well as liberty itself. Mr. Paine states boldly in this article: “…Liberty consists in the power of doing whatever does not injure another…has no limits except to ensure every other man the free exercise of the same rights…”(Paine, 217-18). Thus, according to Mr. Paine and the ideas of liberty prevalent in his time, a person had the right to do anything which did not harm another or prevent anyone else from exercising their own rights. According to this principle, modern government restrictions regarding private consumption of drugs and alcohol, marriage, sexual orientation (unless it produces victims), militia formation and the ownership of firearms are an over-extension of government authority and contrary to the innate freedoms of the people.
The rights which Thomas Paine proposed were highly revolutionary for their time and inspired the fledgling nation of the United States not only to sever political ties with Britain and govern itself, but to dedicate this new government to protecting human rights. Previously, any rights the citizens had were seen as “given” by the state, while in antebellum America, thanks to great thinkers like Thomas Paine, rights were seen as inborn, and thus only protected by the government. The observance of these fundamental rights is important in the development of the human race, and allows for all people who stay within their rights to pursue their happiness as they see fit, which in turn aids the individual and society in self-growth. Also, the observance of these inalienable human rights should also, in theory, protect against persecution. For instance, when a government does not honor these rights, individuals and groups which are deemed unacceptable for either their views or practices, are subject to legal reprisals. Our current government operates under the modern philosophy that only certain freedoms, such as unrestricted speech, are to be honored while all others they disapprove of are to be outlawed(as evidenced in gun control, marriage, and drug laws); this sentiment shows exactly how much more enlightened the people of Thomas Paine’s time were than our present society.
Between the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and before the ratification of the current Constitution, there was a political group in the United States known as the “Anti-Federalists”. The Anti-Federalists believed in limited central government, a concept which proved far too advanced for their times. They believed that a strong central government with nearly unlimited power, such as the one created by the current U.S. constitution, would threaten the liberties which had been so recently won from England (Ketcham, Cover). Today, neither of the big political parties in power in the United States seems to have any concern about the power of the federal government. On the contrary, both parties seem to wish to extend federal authority to fulfill their respective agendas. The Democrats seek to use federal authority to dictate their various socialist policies while Republicans seem to wish to use it to dictate national morals. Alas, neither side seems to show any regard for the Revolution-Era ideals that the Anti-Federalists believed in. Among these ideals were the principles of limited central government, no direct federal taxation, a temporary army, and the Confederation as the ideal republican form for a free society.
Centuries ahead of their time, the Anti-Federalists believed in a limit on Congressional legislative power. On this subject, the great Anti-federalist writer Brutus wrote that: “The powers of the general legislature extend to every case…It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, liberty, and property of every man in the United States…”(Ketcham, 272). The danger is that without a check on this power, Congress will inevitably pass laws restricting the liberty that was won when England was defeated in the Revolution. Likewise, all federal laws, such as revenue laws, which Congress passes fall under the jurisdiction of federal courts, a policy which completely circumvents the states, which directly govern the people (Ketcham, 282). A logical check on this power would be to allow the courts of the state in which the federal crime was committed to try the alleged perpetrator. If then the law is deemed unjust or contrary to individual liberty, then the necessary changes could be made according to the ruling of the court. In modern America, there is still no limit to the laws that Congress can pass, except certain things outlined in the Constitution, such as the Bill of Rights. They otherwise have free reign to produce legislation concerning anything, even things which should be up to the states or even the individuals themselves. Without more limits, this Congress is open to corruption, and freedom will always be at the mercy of the politicians.
Similarly, the Anti-Federalists believed that one large republic could not justly govern a large country, but that several small republics under one larger, limited central government were necessary to maintain freedom (Ketcham, 275). Brutus, in his first essay on Anti-Federalism, stated about large republics: “The Grecian republics were of small extent...[as they]extended their conquests…their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world”(Ketcham, 276). Therefore, the Anti-Federalists believed, if one unlimited central government governed the entire United States as the principle government, and then there would be no checks on the central government’s power, which would allow for corruption (Ketcham, 276). Giving the states more power, as they had under the Articles of Confederation, would prove as a natural check on federal corruption. This argument ended up being true; because the states weren’t given as much power under the current constitution, the citizens of the United States have almost completely lost their voice in government because the institutions which directly govern them have no say in policy-making. Or, as Brutus wrote: “…Nor can any constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of any power given…there is no limitation to this power” (Ketcham, 272).
To go along with the prospect of a system of checks against overextension of federal power, the Anti-Federalists believed in a more consensual (consented, in the language of the day) system of taxation, contrary to the one proposed by the current constitution. According to our current constitution, Congress has the power to impose any taxation without state approval, and attach any penalty to their revenue laws that they see fit. Also, federal courts will have sole jurisdiction over tax-related cases (Ketcham, 281-2). To the Anti-Federalists, this was no different than a dictatorship. On this matter, Brutus concluded: “There is no way, therefore, to avoid the destruction of state governments, whenever Congress please to do it, unless the people rise up…” (Ketcham, 282). One of the primary reasons for the Revolution was England’s unfair taxation of the thirteen colonies, which justifies the Anti-Federalist’s passionate views on taxation. In present day America, people are written off as being cheap if they complain about government taxation.
Another advanced concept which set the Anti-Federalists apart from the people of today was their belief that there should be no standing army, or permanent army of professional soldiers. As Brutus most adequately stated:
“The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power…but there is great hazard that an army may subvert the forms of government…and establish one at the pleasure of their leader,”(Ketcham, 287).
Brutus was also weary of the Federal Government’s control over both the army and the militias (private militias were the only military allowed in peacetime under the Articles of Confederation), as this power was seen by many as a threat to liberty (Ketcham, 273). The abuse of this power is evident in the institution of the draft, the haste with which certain wars have been engaged throughout United States history, as well as the sundry human rights abuses against Native Americans by the United States Army during the westward expansion.
Though all our scientific, social, and diplomatic advancements are impressive, we have lost something far more valuable since Revolution-Era America: freedom. Both the Anti-Federalists and Thomas Paine believed in certain inalienable human rights, and a government which would only protect these rights and not vouchsafe the ones it deems reasonable, as the two major parties within the Untied States at present seem to do when in power. With the ratification of our current constitution, we gained unchecked federal authority over the nation and lost the perfect form of freedom-loving government: the Confederate Republic. In the centuries that followed the ratification of the current Constitution, the federal government has amassed more and more power, as thinkers like Thomas Paine hoped to prevent, and as the Anti-Federalists feared. Couldn’t we all, especially our politicians, learn something from the writings of the Anti-Federalists and Thomas Paine?

Works Cited Page

Ketcham, Ralph. The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates. New York, New York: Signet Classic, 2003. "Brutus", "Centinel", "Cato", "Federal Farmer"

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense, Rights of Man, and other essential writings of Thomas Paine. New York, New York: Signet Classics, 1989, 2003.