by: Per Bylund

Or maybe it is the other way around, it is hard to tell. In any case, it is easy to see what federalism is about in both cases - and what happens when federalism exists side by side with nation-states (as in the EU). Whereas the US federal government is and has been running amok, the EU is running hyper-amok.

One reason for this is the ongoing tug of war between the national parliaments and the powers at the super-national level. I say powers for a reason, because there is an ongoing tug of war within the EU as well, mainly between the elected European Parliament and the national governments' representatives in the Council of Ministers.

One can easily understand that these conflicts are related.

On the one hand, there is the "democratic" view of "the people's voice" being represented by the national parliaments (keep the power "close" to the people) and the European Parliament (elected by the European peoples). On the other, there is the power motive and the aim by those currently in power to increase their influence - through overriding national parliaments as well as the European Parliament. (I don't take sides for either side in this, as both ultimately represent centralization of power on the European continent.)

What is interesting in comparing the US federal government with the European Union is the institutional difference and how that affects the political ruling class. In the US, they are formally restricted by the Constitution (even though it is a failed attempt to limit power) and the federal powers are separated. Furthermore, the federalism of the United States is for a number of states with basically the same culture.

In the European Union, there is no constitution and therefore no formal restriction to how much federalism may grow or in what ways. The only limit is due to the fact that the federal power is over numerous bodies with distinctly different cultures, languages, traditions, and history. This is of course an obstacle to the efficiency of Rule, but it also creates a situation where people are in the hands of their rulers. The reason for this is that rulers have a common goal: more and centralized power. The peoples of Europe have different aims and different views with respect to federal power. France, for instance, seems to aim for a federalized Europe to be able to force their socialist views on everybody and become a power great enough to replace the USA as the world's super power. The UK, on the other hand, is member but would rather not be: the Brits are against the common currency and basically any "harmonization" of policies. Whereas the peoples of France and UK cannot agree on what to do or even in what direction to go, the political elite in both countries aim for the same thing: increased power.

A recent example of how things work in the EU is the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty formerly known as the "Constitution" of the EU. This document specifies that the EU now has the right to relieve the national governments of whatever power the EU "needs" to address whatever problem. This document needed to be confirmed by all member nations, in some of which national law required decision by referendum. The people of Ireland and other countries voted No. So the EU power elite renamed the document to "treaty," bribed the peoples with subsidies and promises and had them go through another referendum. The treaty was accepted.

Currently, the so-called SWIFT debate is the focus of attention. This is originally a request from US authorities to gain access of all European banking data; to the European power elite, this is not a problem - it is an opportunity for increased control. So the non-elected government representatives in the Council of Ministers are all for it, whereas the European Parliament is not as happy about it (since they will, in theory, be held accountable in the general elections).

According to the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has a right to be heard on issues such as this. The SWIFT decision was made November 30, however, the day before the Lisbon Treaty came into effect. It should be no surprise that those in power are corrupt and that they take whatever chances they have to make the most of their power. But in this case the decision was made before there even was a proposal - there was only a draft of the new treaty (there is an old one that runs through January, so there is really no rush). The official reason for not involving the Parliament is that the draft of the new SWIFT treaty had not been translated to all languages, which is a prerequisite for bringing issues to the Parliament.

The obvious and real reason, of course, is something very different: the Council of Ministers could not afford waiting to let the Parliament have a say in this matter. Now the Spanish chairmanship of the EU has to work through the treaty and decide on exactly what it is to include. The decision, however, has already been made.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. But don't forget that it is equally true that the corrupted seek power. Institutions may slow down the progress of power, but it will not stop the general direction. As long as we have a power elite, they will work tirelessly to gain more power. Always at our expense, of course, since power is a win-lose, winner-takes-it-all kind of game.

by: Matt Welch

This weekend's Wall Street Journal, in the course of sketching out the fiscal contours of Stimulus II, makes that claim. Excerpt:

Remember how $200 billion in federal stimulus cash was supposed to save the states from fiscal calamity? Well, hold on to your paychecks, because a big story of 2010 will be how all that free money has set the states up for an even bigger mess this year and into the future.

The combined deficits of the states for 2010 and 2011 could hit $260 billion, according to a survey by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Ten states have a deficit, relative to the size of their expenditures, as bleak as that of near-bankrupt California. The Golden State starts the year another $6 billion in arrears despite a large income and sales tax hike last year. New York is literally down to its last dollar. Revenues are down, to be sure, but in several ways the stimulus has also made things worse.

How's that? Read on:

First, in most state capitals the stimulus enticed state lawmakers to spend on new programs rather than adjusting to lean times. They added health and welfare benefits and child care programs. Now they have to pay for those additions with their own state's money.

A few governors, such as Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Rick Perry of Texas, had the foresight to turn down their share of the $7 billion for unemployment insurance, realizing that once the federal funds run out, benefits would be unpayable. "One of the smartest decisions we made," says Mr. Daniels. Many governors now probably wish they had done the same.

Second, stimulus dollars came with strings attached that are now causing enormous budget headaches. Many environmental grants have matching requirements, so to get a federal dollar, states and cities had to spend a dollar even when they were facing huge deficits. The new construction projects built with federal funds also have federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements that raise state building costs to pay inflated union salaries.

Worst of all, at the behest of the public employee unions, Congress imposed "maintenance of effort" spending requirements on states. These federal laws prohibit state legislatures from cutting spending on 15 programs, from road building to welfare, if the state took even a dollar of stimulus cash for these purposes.

The upshot?

This is the opposite of what the White House and Congress claimed when they said the stimulus funds would prevent economically harmful state tax increases. In 2009, 10 states raised income or sales taxes, and another 15 introduced new fees on everything from beer to cellphone ringers to hunting and fishing. The states pocketed the federal money and raised taxes anyway.

Now, in an election year, Congress wants to pass another $100 billion aid package for ailing states to sustain the mess the first stimulus helped to create.

by Anthony Gucciardi

On any given day you can find a news story that focuses on the conflict between democrats and republicans, or Group A and Group B. These groups could be anything, but as long as they are toted as being the opposite of each other, they will clash. When one party supports a bill, the other tends to oppose it. This holds true for both sides, creating a never-ceasing battle over political parties, as opposed to policy.

The change in each party’s fundamental policies has been warped into an infinitesimally minute amount of distinction from one another. When one does not agree with the “Republican” stance, they generally lean towards a “Democratic” stance. The guise of the two parties creates a false sense of freedom and liberation from a structured ideal.

The Soviet Union’s single party system was a failure due to it’s inability to withstand a dissident attack. The United States two-party system is simply the post-beta form of the Soviet-style political spectrum, with the guise of liberty upon it’s aging fangs.

Holding Hands

The word paradigm (paradigma), compounded from it’s Greek root word “to show”, accurately describes the dimension between the left and right party. This paradigm requires a vice grip of social ideology held together for stability. A single party’s influence can break, without a backboard to cater towards any dissidence.

Two parties can stand up against one another to create both geometrically and intellectually a more powerful structure that can withstand intense dissidence from each party for one reason: the rebellion of the first party’s ideals are reciprocated by the second.

Real Issues

The war between left and right diminishes the focus on real issues. A frighteningly large number of people will make all their decisions based upon their party leaders. The debate turns into left verses right, instead of what is best for the country. The mainstream media loves to turn everything into a matter of “party wars”, instead of discussing the actual issue at it’s core.

Instead of thinking “left” or “right”, think about it from a human perspective. What will this do to our country? How will it affect me? How will it affect my neighbors?

Thinking for yourself

Imagine for a moment that your car has broken down. You go to a used car dealership and search around for a nice car. There are no price tags on the cars, but the place seems rather professional. You find a car you like, and it looks like it’s in pretty decent condition. You ask about the price, and the salesman says it will cost you $95,000.

In this case, most people would first investigate the true value of the car before purchasing it. While it seems completely logical to find the true value of the car, many do not take this metaphorical step when it comes down to left verses right. Placing blind trust in the leaders of a political party is just like trusting the used car salesman to give you the best price. Find out the truth for yourself, as it’s the only way to truly find out what’s going on.

Media Spins

The mainstream media loves to take legitimate topics and turn them into a battle between political parties. A perfect example is the Healthcare bill. Even though it has ridiculous policy changes, and a eugenics-based provision system, it is still turned into a left verses right issue by the media. Luckily people have begun to see through this false two party system, and are beginning to realize they are being played.

The mainstream media’s deception is wearing off quite rapidly, as the public begins to realize that they are being duped. The public is realizing that regardless of which party the current political figurehead (puppet) is affiliating himself with, he is still the same as the previous leader. It is a vicious cycle that continues to this day. The difference is that now the people are waking up to this cycle, and opposing it.

Ally yourself with humanity, not parties

You do not have time to waste on petty arguments that center around the false “party wars”. Use your time to get real information out, like the implications of the Healthcare bill, or the shocking dangers of vaccinations. True patriotism is to have thoughts that do not derive from the structured and targeting news media, or the most famous political puppet in your region.

by Russel D. Longcore, DumpDC

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

Jefferson wrote that the People had a duty to “throw off” a despotic government.

“Throw off.”

That sounds to me like a somewhat unfriendly separation. It doesn’t sound particularly cordial. It also makes me think that the throwee ain’t exactly thrilled about getting thrown off and might take exception to the decision of the throwers.

The quote above is only once sentence from the Declaration of Independence. But it is one of the most seminal thoughts and principles of the document. Let’s take it apart and consider its words, their meanings, and the consequences.

“…A long train of abuses and usurpations…” In 1776 that was the caprice of King George III as he and his Parliament created laws that affected the colonies in ways that did not affect any other Englishmen. Those laws included the Stamp Act, various taxes and tariffs, prohibitions on imports and exports, more and more taxes, Redcoats patrolling American streets, the suspension of habeas corpus, and requiring those charged with crimes to travel back to England for trial.

Today, Washington has ignored the strictures of the Constitution of the United States, and has done so for over a hundred years.

It violates the First Amendment. There are plenty of laws that abridge free speech, not the least of which is the Patriot Act.

It violates the Second Amendment by enacting laws and regulations infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, simultaneously destroying the militia and making citizens less safe and states less secure.

It violates the Fourth Amendment through internet surveillance, airport searches and warrantless searches.

It violates the Fifth Amendment by rendition of American citizens without due process and IRS double jeopardy prosecutions. You also are compelled to be a witness against yourself every time you sign your tax return.

It violates the Sixth Amendment as no one gets a speedy trial.

It violates the Seventh Amendment when it does not protect the right to jury trial, but allows judges or administrative bodies to adjudicate cases.

It violates the Eighth Amendment as excessive bails and fines are imposed regularly.

It violates the Ninth Amendment as it ignores certain rights retained by the People.

It violates the Tenth Amendment by accruing to itself powers not delegated to it, and others reserved to the States and the People.

Need I go on? There are seventeen more Amendments.

“…pursuing invariably the same object…” What was that object? The object was to milk the maximum revenue from the colonies as possible. England had won the Seven Years War from 1756 to 1763 and were heavily saddled with war debt. So the more taxes and tariffs that King George laid on the colonies, the more the colonists rebelled. Then, the King made still more laws to bring the rebels to heel.

Washington’s object today is much the same. It has a crushing war debt as well as a crushing domestic debt load. Then add the mind-boggling financial liabilities, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae and the total comprises nearly 1000% more than the entire Gross Domestic Product of the USA. Then consider the ramifications of laws like The Patriot Act.

“…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism…” To evince is to show clearly. Colonists could see clearly that King George’s taxes and laws, designed only for the colonies, were a design to reduce their rights as free Englishmen and confiscate their wealth without due process.

Today’s long train of abuses and usurpations coming from Washington evince a design to accomplish the same objects by turning the Constitution on its head. The Federal Government of the USA started with very limited roles and clear restrictions. Washington’s design has been to acknowledge no restrictions on its power and to accomplish anything it desires.

“…it is their right, it is their duty…” American citizens may have rights that they do not exercise. But that is different than duty. Many Americans consider that military service is a duty, and there is nothing in the Constitution that states anything of the sort. But find me a person who argues with the content of the Declaration of Independence. If you run into a person who is against secession, show them the Declaration and see what they do with fulfilling their duty.

“…to throw off such government…” The process of state nullification does not throw off government. It merely attempts to control the actions of the government, and to nullify its unconstitutional laws while staying a part of the whole. Throwing off such government can only mean secession, which is the act of withdrawing formally from the United States of America.

“…and to provide new guards for their future security.” To explain this, we return to the Declaration for another quote: “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

For the People to provide new guards for their future security can only mean to institute new government. That precludes and omits any continuing relationship with the old government.

That means secession.

State secession is the only reasonable, logical and pragmatic solution to overcome the absolute despotism and criminal tyranny pouring out of Washington, DC.

by: Kent McManigal

The Constitution has fatal flaws.  The "general welfare clause" and its equally twisted sibling: the "(interstate) commerce clause", have become the goose that lays the golden egg, for government at least.  But that egg gets cracked open while government keeps the gold shell and dumps the radioactive yolk on the denizens of America.

Most people have noticed that government uses those two "clauses" to get away with any new violation of individual rights that they dream up.  A favorite use is overriding more reasonable local "laws" that are not in line with the federal government's agenda.  Notice the uproar over medical marijuana laws and the firearms freedom acts recently in the news.

It has been argued that the way those clauses are misused is not in line with "original intent", so we shouldn't blame the founders or the Constitution.  Maybe, but does it matter anymore? 

If a burglar steals your bread knife and uses it to cut off the head of someone in the next house he invades, do you say that he can keep the knife but that he just needs to only use it to slice bread from now on?  No, you take the knife from him and shoot him if he resists.  So it is with the misused clauses.

These clauses have become like machine guns in the hands of drunk and angry teenagers with knowledge of where to steal all the ammo they could ever want, while the local population is disarmed, bound, and gagged by the teens' parents.  The difference is that these teens and their parents are worshiped by a large percentage of the population and these "tools" they wield have been misused, more so than any real gun has ever been, leaving a legacy of massive socialism and the resultant death, destruction, and economic ruin. 

These clauses need to be taken away now, permanently, and restitution from the pockets of individual government employees should be made to all injured parties.

by: Ilya Shapiro

That’s the title of a Wall Street Journal article detailing the latest idiocy to come out of our immigration system.  It seems that if you’re a musician trying to get a visa to perform in the United States, you have to prove to some bureaucrat’s satisfaction that your music either is “culturally unique” or has “achieved international recognition and acclaim.”  (Query: Does the Department of Homeland Security now require immigration caseworkers to have degrees in musicology or fine arts?)

The article chronicles the various travails of performers who are either so innovative — perish the thought! — as to not fit into an easily defined cultural category or haven’t yet reached U2-like levels of popularity. 

Reads one denial: “The evidence repeatedly suggests the group performs a hybrid or fusion style of music … [which] cannot be considered culturally unique to one particular country, nation, society, class, ethnicity, religion, tribe or other group of persons.”

Reads another: “Being internationally acclaimed is not equivalent to performing on stages overseas.”

You can’t make this stuff up!  It reminds me of my own immigration plight – which ended happily earlier this year — whereby I shot myself in the foot by, among other ridiculous things, getting my education in the United States instead of acquiring legal expertise abroad (at lesser institutions, making myself less valuable to the U.S. legal market).

I’ve heard some talk that Congress will take up immigration reform after it finishes with health care, though I can’t imagine that happening in an election year.  In any event, I’ve long believed that our immigration non-policy is the worst part of the U.S. government (which should say something, coming from someone at Cato).

by: Trevor Bothwell

Only the government can give people back their own money and then claim that truthfully they do not deserve to keep all of it. And only a brainwashed people who has been taught that taxation is not theft would allow the government to get away with this. Thanks to an accounting "error", many taxpayers who received a tax credit last spring will have to repay the money.

More than 15 million taxpayers may owe the government $250 or more because of how the IRS last spring set up President Barack Obama's tax break that was designed to help consumers spend the U.S. economy out of recession.

Individuals with more than one job and married couples in which both spouses work may have to repay the government $400, either through a smaller tax refund or a larger tax bill, according to a report released Monday by the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration. Social Security recipients who also earn taxable wages may have to repay $250.

Perhaps this is why our government likes tax credits rather than flat tax cuts. An individual has a much higher chance of incorrectly filing a tax return given the red tape involved to claim a tax credit than a simply seeing a lower rate of tribute to extract from his earnings. Moreover, the red tape involved in creating a tax credit permits "errors" of this sort which then benefit the State.

by: Garry Reed

Immortality is just around the corner, right up the street, behind the Curb Your Dog sign. Or maybe it's a mere 20 years away. So says American scientist Ray Kurzweil in a Telegraph.co.uk article.

Advances under Kurzweil's "Law of Accelerating Returns" in such areas as genetic engineering and computer sciences and nanotechnologies will not only help our biological bits function longer but will make it possible to replace our vital organs. It seems that life-extending goodies like artificial pancreases and neural implants are already available.

"So we can look forward to a world where humans become cyborgs, with artificial limbs and organs," Kurzweail is quoted as saying.  Unless, of course, the Evangelical Right grabs the reins of government and forcibly puts an end to this blatantly evil science on the basis that immortality will prevent the Apocalypse and the Second Coming and the establishment of the Kingdom of God, which means that unrighteous evildoers must be Left Behind for the good of God's Plan (and for the good of people who call themselves True Believers who will certainly not kill themselves off.)

Unless, of course, the Green Left grabs the reins of government and forcibly puts an end to this blatantly evil science on the basis that immortality will create a population explosion and prevent environmental sustainability, which means that evil earth-destroying humans must be killed off for the good of Gaia (and for the good of people who call themselves Green who will certainly not kill themselves off.)

Unless, of course, some other arrogant self-appointed rabble of world-savers grabs the reins of government with the intention of saving the world by destroying it.

Libertarians, being non-authoritarian, being live-and-let-live, being voluntaryists, being believers in free will and individual liberty and personal responsibility and life-oriented and positive and rational (at least those descended from Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism) will mostly embrace and welcome the prospect of living forever.

But libertarians won't be grasping after the reins of government. That would be counterproductive seeing as how all governments are premised on coercion and therefore fundamentally destructive. Government doesn't enhance life, it demeans life.

Libertarians understand that free people freely exchanging ideas in a free market will discover and implement the actions necessary to overcome the problems of the evangelicals and the environmentalists and all the other authoritarian ideologues.

And then, if free people equipped with brainbots and biosynthetic colons and Rearden Steel hamstrings and micro-organo elastopolymer erectile extensions can figure out how to make a non-coercive non-government institution that does nothing but protect individual's rights and property, we can all re-elect Ron Paul for non-president in 2112.

Wanna live forever? Join the optimists. Join the libertarians.