Status Quo Changing

"The status quo has changed, son."
--Patrick Gates (National Treasure)

Interesting piece by Louis Gave on the possible impact of the Ukraine conflict and associated sanctions on the USD's reserve currency status. He suggests that, in an age of fiat currencies, military superiority strengthens a nation's currency and has gone a long way toward solidifying the dollar's reserve currency status.

However, cheap military technologies such as the drones that have been deployed en force in Ukraine are changing the game of warfare--to the extent that they might substantially reduce the impact of conventional weaponry that the US holds a lock on. Should this come to pass, then Big Defense loses value alongside the US dollar's status.

In addition to the impact of the war on the ground, Gave suggests that the weaponization of finance as reflected by the blitzkrieg of war-related sanctions is tutoring the world about the risks of depending on the USD. Developed country bonds have been getting pounded while developing country bonds have been strong--quite the turn from the lessons of the Asian Contagion in the late 1990s. Lesson: Why hold US/EU bonds in this environment?

Moreover, sanctions have demonstrated that the US and its allies can run roughshod over property rights at their discretion. If the wealth of Russian oligarchs can be confiscated so abruptly, then why not the assets of any entity deemed to be an adversary of the US? Lesson: Why depend so highly on a financial system controlled by the US?

The status quo may indeed be changing.

Burying Liberty...Again

"Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can."

--Benjamin Martin (The Patriot)

Judge Nap rails against the unconstitutional seizing of Russian property, the freezing of Russian bank accounts, and the barring of contractual trade with Russian partners--all done under the guise of sanctions imposed after the Ukraine invasion. These sanctions violate both the Fourth Amendment, which requires warrants specific to place and person before property can be detained, and the Fifth Amendment, which requires due process before property can be expropriated.

A common response to charges such as these is that the Constitution only protects US citizens and not foreigners. This is wrong. The wrongheadedness of this line of thought is revealed by considering the Constitution's conceptual basis.

The formation of the United States is grounded in natural law. Natural law posits that all men are created equal at birth, meaning that we all have equal rights to life, to the freedom to pursue our interests as long as we do not forcibly intrude on the pursuits of others, and to the property that our pursuits might generate.

These natural rights are granted to each of us by our creator and as a condition of our humanity. They are unalienable, meaning that we are free to exercise our natural rights unencumbered by government interference. This is the founding principle of liberty. 

Government's sole just purpose is to protect our natural rights. It can only interfere in an individual's pursuits when it is suspected that a person has forcibly compromised the natural rights of someone else. However, government must carefully follow just legal processes including those specified by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

If the natural law basis of the Constitution is to be upheld, then it makes no sense to limit its application citizens of the United States. Americans were not the only people born to the 'self-evident' truth that all men were created equal. All have been endowed with the same set of natural rights. When government tramples on the natural rights of any individual, it has done wrong.

As the Judge notes at the end of his column: "War is the health of the state and the graveyard of liberty." Actions of the US government taken under the auspices of the Ukraine conflict demonstrate once again America's lack of leadership in championing the very principles upon which our nation was founded.

War finds the United States burying liberty once again.

One for Two

I'm falling down a spiral
Destination unknown
Double crossed messenger
All alone
--Golden Earring

Yesterday the Supreme Court blocked the federal government's vaccine mandate for large employers while upholding the mandate for health care organizations receiving federal funding.

The judges were one for two.

Private employers, i.e., those with no strings attached to government, should be able to set the terms for using their property. If those terms include a requirement for employees to be vaccinated against a particular pathogen, then private employers are within their rights as property owners to do so. 

Stated differently, employers should be allowed to discriminate as to how their property is utilized. They can discriminate between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals--just as they should be able to peacefully discriminate on any other factor--including race and skin color. If this discrimination is ill-advised, then markets will punish their poor decision-making.

It is, of course, completely within worker rights to discriminate as well. Individuals can discriminate against producers with vaccine mandates by not seeking work with these employers, or by resigning when their employers pass distasteful policies. 

While private enterprises can establish their own internal health care mandates, the state has no standing to forcibly impose its own mandates or interfere with the rules governing private labor market transactions. 

Of course, it is questionable whether many 'private' enterprises are truly private anymore. When businesses receive resources from government (e.g., government contracts or subsidies), or are subject to favorable regulatory treatment, then they are by definition receiving government support or sponsorship. The more beholden organizations are to government, the more likely they are to do the bidding of government in exchange for political favor.  

This brings us to the second part of yesterday's ruling. The high court declared that health care facilities that receive federal funding must comply with federal vaccine mandates. Health care organizations that receive federal funding are poster children for organizations that are beholden to the feds.

Because of their dependence on federal government resources, health care organizations are extensions of the federal government acting as de facto government agencies. 

The Bill of Rights gives such federal agencies far less leeway to discriminate compared to private entities. Whereas a private employer can justly create policies that favor particular groups, federal government entities cannot. Doing so would violate individual rights to religion, speech, assembly, association, privacy, et al--all of which are expressly protected from federal government interference under the Constitution.

Thus, a federal mandate that requires vaccination for employees of organizations beholden to the federal government is blatantly illegal and unjust, regardless of what six high court justices claim.

Bass Fishing

The trees are drawing me near
I need to find out why
Those gentle voices I hear
Explain it all with a sigh
--Moody Blues

Always interesting to hear what Kyle Bass has to say. Some points from this recent interview.

Fed monetization of debt will result in inflation. 

The 'official' numbers grossly understate the extent to which purchasing power is declining. He provides an example of the average car 30 yrs ago which cost $13,000 then marked at less than $15,000 in the inflation basket today--even though the average price of a new car is about $40,000. How can this be? The trick of hedonic adjustments. Even though a new car buyer's bank account goes down by $40K, the CPI number account for only a fraction of the actual price.

The Fed will be unable to taper much. Short rates higher than 1% would break the system. This means more monetization (inflation) pending in attempts to keep the wheels on the wagon.

The field position of government and central banks makes it unlikely that they will be able to intervene as Paul Volcker did in the late 70s/early 80s to 'break the back' of big inflation. Radically raising interest rates (and therefore borrowing costs) to curb inflation today would bankrupt the federal government (debt payments skyrocket) in addition to rendering leveraged entities across the globe insolvent.

He's not a Bitcoin/crypto fan.

Instead, he especially likes the prospects of rural real estate, particularly as populations migrate to states such as Texas, Tennessee, and Florida that are positioning themselves as business and consumer friendly with less regulatory burden. He likes land as a 'hard asset' play better than gold due to real estate's functionality.

Lots of discussion about China. Bass has been outspoken on what he feels is China's irresponsible, aggressive agenda. He believes that the country's move toward a national digital currency bodes poorly for global trading partners. He thinks the US should outlaw trading in it. He also believes that Taiwan faces imminent threat, and that markets have not seriously discounted the possible of Taiwan asset appropriation by the Chinese (e.g., TSM). Suggests strategic supply chain risk as well.

He thinks that the Chinese real estate problem will remain largely contained to the mainland, and that the PBOC will print yuan to keep the local economy afloat. He did NOT discuss what that money printing might mean to the global system.

Bass believes that fiduciaries should be fired if they buy Chinese stocks for their clients--due to their unaudited, manipulated nature.

Although he admits that he is a 'tree hugger' and believes in global warming, Bass thinks that under-investment in hydrocarbons over the past few years (due to widespread virtue signaling behavior) may take oil and gas prices to levels that we've never seen--particularly if we have a cold winter. The transition to cleaner energy will take decades and requires a far more measured approach than climate change zealots have been pushing. 

Stock may be the best tool for average investors trying to weather inflationary periods. Bass's work suggest stocks keep up with about 85% of general price increases. Investors will still lose, but stocks mitigate the losses.

position in gold

Voter ID

"Define irony."

--Garland Greene (Con Air)

Liberty-minded people are naturally wary of government-mandated ID requirements. Mandatory identification cards, tags, numbers, implants, retinal scans, fingerprints, etc. invite government tracking which threatens individuals' constitutional right to privacy. When it cannot identify and monitor behavior, the state loses much of its power for meddling in the affairs of the citizenry. 

It would seem that the lower the requirement for state-sponsored ID in a society, the greater the individual liberty in that society.

However, this proposition poses a dilemma when it comes to voting. Free societies are usually grounded in republican forms of government. In republican forms of government, representatives are commonly elected by the citizenry through some form of popular vote. 

A few rules are typically imposed on the voters. They must be of a minimum age. They can cast only one ballot. They cannot vote in proxy for someone else. Finally, they must be recognized citizens of the geographic domain for which votes are to be cast. 

It follows, then, that there needs to be a process for verifying that voters have adhered to the rules. It is also difficult to see how such a process does not include a reliable form of voter identification. Information on the ID enables verification of a prospective voter's eligibility and that voters have been true to the 'one person, one vote' requirement.

Wouldn't mandatory voter ID increase risk of government mischief? Oh yeah. The classic precedent is the Social Security number. When the Social Security program was enacted in the late 1930s, the number was said to be simple mechanism for tracking accounts in the Social Security system. Since then, of course, the SSN has become a principal identifier for individuals within the US.

But perhaps the risk can be intelligently managed. After all, absent voter ID, election integrity seems impossible to verify. Corruption is encouraged. Individual voting franchises are degraded. Electors are illegitimate. (Sound familiar?)

Consequently, governments may be installed that threaten the very liberty that free people seek to protect by remaining anonymous and untrackable. 

Quite the irony.

Hypothetical Threats

Professor Groeteschele: Do you believe that Communism is NOT our mortal enemy?
Brigadier General Warren A. Black: You're justifying murder.
Professor Groeteschele: Yes, to keep from being murdered.
--Fail Safe

A common argument among the pro vax mandate crowd goes like this. If you are not vaccinated, then you might infect others with the CV19 virus. Therefore you must get vaccinated to mitigate the threat that you pose.

Let's set aside the scientific issue of vaccine effectiveness for now--an issue that calls into question individual capacity to convey the virus regardless of vaccination status, and the extent to which vaccination protects individuals from infection.

Instead, let's focus on the legal issues. The argument proposes a hypothetical threat: that an individual could be carrying a virus that might be conveyed to others in a manner that could lead their infection. This of course, is purely speculation and conjecture. Accusations of wrongdoing framed in this manner would be quickly dismissed in courts of law.

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals and their property against unreasonable search and seizure by government. Any search and seizure must be preceded by a warrant, affirmed by a judge, that articulates the rationale (i.e., 'probable cause') that justifies government invasion, specifies the particulars of the invasion--e.g, the place to be searched, or the individuals or items to be seized.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections from the federal down to the state level.

It should be clear that a hypothetical threat, where someone wants to forcibly interfere with the pursuits of another individual out of speculation that the individual might harm them is not a legitimate reason for government intervention. Any forcible interference that does take place under such circumstances must be deemed as a criminal act of aggression.

The forced vaccination argument therefore proceeds along similar lines as the forced quarantine argument.

The pro vax crowd want to preempt a hypothetical threat by imposing forced vaccinations on individuals--with no probable cause nor due process. Similar to preemptive military strikes, such action is characteristic of aggression rather than of self-defense.

Pandemic Tyranny II

"Knights, the gift of freedom is yours by right!"
--Arthur Castus (King Arthur)

As evidenced by events over the past 18 months, rule of law has been supplanted by discretionary rule. Discretionary rule amounts to governing factions seeking to get away with doing whatever they can. In the public health arena, officials set rules by edict. In last fall's election, officials broke myriad election laws assuming that they wouldn't get caught. Even if they did, they figured that they would not be punished.

Judge Nap previews a new round of discretionary rule unfolding in the name of pandemic fighting. Once again, these discretionary rules aim to restrict personal freedoms protected by the Constitution. Most of the limitations that the Constitution places on federal government w,r,t. personal freedoms are written into the Bill of Rights. Since the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, these same limitations apply to state and local jurisdictions as well.

The rights to thought (1st), speech (1st), press (1st), assembly (1st), worship (1st), self-defense (2nd), privacy (4th), travel (4th), property ownership (3rd, 4th, 5th), commercial activities (5th), association (5th), and fair treatment from government (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th) are plainly articulated or rationally inferred from the first eight amendments. The Ninth Amendment declares that all other individual rights not enumerated in the first eight amendments shall not be disparaged by government. The Tenth Amendment declares that powers not delegated to the federal government and not prohibited by law are reserved for the states, or to the people. 

These rights are considered to be natural--each individual is born with them. They are not granted by worldly rule. No president, king, governor, mayor, legislative body, judge, et al. has legitimate power to confer them.

The gist of natural law is that individuals are free to pursue their personal interests unencumbered by government intervention (a.k.a. 'liberty) so long as their pursuits due not forcibly invade the pursuits of others. This principle is sometimes referred to as the non-aggression principle.

Similar to previous rounds of pandemic-inspired interventions, new government mandates promise to interfere with rights protected by the Bill of Rights. Travel, assembly, exercise of religious beliefs, commercial activities, and how we dress (face masks) are among those threatened. The threats come from state and local officials who claim to have the power to unilaterally interfere with individual rights.

Their claims raise several constitutional issues.

1) Do state and local officials have the power to regulate behavior in the face of what they claim to be 'emergencies?' Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to each state (a.k.a. the Guarantee Clause). This means that government powers must be separated into legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and that one branch cannot assimilate responsibilities of the others. 

Because only representative legislatures can write laws that carry criminal penalties and incur the use of force, mayors, governors, and other officials cannot validly make unilateral declarations and call them law. There are no exceptions to this law in the event of self-proclaimed emergencies.

2) Can state legislatures delegate their lawmaking powers to governors during times of emergency? No. Again, drawing from the Guarantee Clause, republican forms of government require separation of powers, and one branch cannot abdicate its responsibilities in deference to another branch. Doing so would not longer constitute a republican form of government. If states abdicate their responsibility to provide a republican form of government then, by the Constitution, it is the federal government's responsibility to act in manners that fulfill the constitutional guarantee to the state's people.

3) Can state legislatures enact laws the governors desire to limit personal liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights and to coerce compliance? No. Government at all levels in the United States is subordinate to the natural rights articulated in the Bill of Rights.

Given the straight 'no' answers to the above, the essential issue that the Judge doesn't address, unfortunately, is why these illegal mandates are not under full-fledged legal assault by people around the country seeking relief from tyranny. My growing fear is that if courts do not provide legal relief, then the pressures of institutional failure grow to the point where they will be relieved using other means.

Property Protection

"They are going to take you."
--Bryan Mills (Taken)

The Contracts Clause appears in Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution:

"No State shall...any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts."

This clause prohibits states from interfering with lawful contracts such as leases and employment agreements.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states the following:

"No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

This clause states that states cannot interfere with life, liberty, or property without a trial at which the state must prove fault.

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment reads as follows:

 "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This clause states that, when the state meaningfully interferes with an owner's chosen lawful use of property, the owner must be justly compensated."

Together, these clauses reveal significant Constitutional protections for private property. Currently these protections are being abjectly perpetrated.

Shout out to Judge Nap for the lesson.

Government Sponsored Corporations

Say that you'll never, never, never need it

One headline, why believe it?

Everybody wants to rule the world
--Tears for Fears

Donald Trump is suing several social media companies over their efforts to censor him. Critics argue that the suit can't possibly win because companies like Twitter and Facebook are privately owned.

The issue is not ownership, however. The issue is whether an entity is open to government influence. If, for example, Twitter gets resource grants from the government, or if it receives favorable regulatory treatment, then the company is susceptible to influence and a potential tool for government-sponsored action.

A plaintiff should not even have to prove that Twitter has acted on behalf of government. It merely needs to demonstrate that the company has received favorable government treatment and is therefore 'available' to the government.

If Twitter has received favorable government treatment, and there can be little doubt that is has, then it is essentially a 'government sponsored corporation.' A GSC must abide by the same rules that apply to any government agency--including those that govern free speech as specified by the First Amendment.

Tocqueville's Warnings

"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
--Morpheus (The Matrix)

GMU's Dan Klein discusses some important points from Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. In 1831 Tocqueville and a colleague were sent by the French government to study America's prison system. For the better part of a year, they toured the US and some parts of Canada. 

After returning home and reporting their findings, Tocqueville continued on, writing a two volume set with the first volume published in 1835 and the second in 1840. Although titled Democracy in America, Tocqueville's work was really a treatise on democracy in general, a phenomenon that in his view had been in motion for centuries.

Klein focuses primarily on Tocqueville's conclusions, or warnings, many which appear near the end of volume two in a chapter entitled, "What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear." It turns out that Tocqueville had been worried about the ultimate outcomes of democracy for some time, and his whirlwind tour of the US did not quell his fears. According to Klein, Tocqueville feared two scenarios in particular.

One was despotism from a "tyranny of the majority." Tocqueville was not the first to envision such an outcome, as similar concerns appear in the writings of our founding ancestors. Tyranny of the majority is bad not only because it rules by shallow, group-inflicted dogma (rather than by rule of law), but because of its constant expansion of government and its dominance in social affairs. Even if citizens do not regard it as tyranny, Tocqueville argues that it is because it is not in each citizen's interest. It "monopolizes movement and existence" even though "it does not ride roughshod over humanity."

Tocqueville's point is that tyranny of the majority can subtle, gradual, and perhaps even enticing enough for citizen subjects to demand it.

This leads to a worse scenario. Citizens "renounce the use of their wills" and lose "little by little the faculty of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves." They outsource their faculties to rulers believed to make decisions in their interest--often under the guise of equality of condition.

Such a belief is delusional. Tocqueville writes that a small group inevitably assumes control of the machinery of government for its own interests. Tyranny of the majority becomes tyranny by minority rule. The power proceed to destroy or modify institutions and customs. 

Ironically, people come to prefer "equality in servitude to inequality in freedom." Wow. Well said.

A citizen enjoys "goods as a tenant, without spirit of ownership." A "miserable person" can understand "robbing the public treasury or selling favors of the state for money...and can flatter himself with doing as much in his turn."

At the time of his writing, Tocqueville opined that "the majority...still lacks the most perfect instruments of tyranny...If ever freedom is lost in America, one will have to blame the omnipotence of the majority"

It is difficult not to spot manifestations of Tocqueville's warnings in current affairs.

Immigrants and Economic Resources

How soft your fields of green
Can whisper tales of gore
Of how we calmed the tides of war
We are your overlords
--Led Zeppelin

When people immigrate, where do they immigrate to? Do they go to Afghanistan, Venezuela, or other economic wastelands?

No. They go to where the economic resources are. Those resources are either directly consumable or they can be used in production to improve standard of living.

People immigrate to where the resources are for two primary reasons. They either seek to work in resource-laden environments in pursuit of more prosperity. 

Or they seek to forcibly take those resources from others. They might do this directly by point of gun or knife. On the other hand, they may be able to recruit the strong arm of government to do it for them.

Because people prefer to economize effort, when governments of resource-rich countries signal that they are agents for hire--willing to pilfer the property of others in exchange for votes--then we should expect large waves of immigrants ready and willing to be principals of violence.

Conceived in Liberty

So speak and act as people who will be judged by the law of freedom.
--James 2:12

Two hundred and forty five years ago today, the document that changed the world was ratified. It declared that all people were endowed by their Creator with rights to life, liberty, and property that could not be justly rescinded by earthly authority. When government failed to secure those rights, its authors argued, the people are justified in throwing off that government in favor of a better design.

The original argument and its effect has not changed since the ink dried on the underwriters' signatures. Authoritarians fear and despise these ideas, and will do everything in their power to wipe them away.

Thus, a nation conceived in liberty still fights a revolution to preserve ideals that remain truly radical. 

1933 Double Eagle

Crapgame: Then make a deal.
Big Joe: What kind of a deal?
Crapgame: A DEAL deal!
--Kelly's Heroes

Yesterday the only 1933 double eagle decreed to be 'legal tender' by the US government sold at a small numbers Sotheby's auction for a record $18.9 million (listing here). It had previously been owned by shoe designer Stuart Weitzman, who bought it in 2002 for a then record $7.6 million.

Although the coin has not been 'slabbed' by PCGS, company experts examined it in-hand and formally assigned a grade of MS65 with a corresponding cert. Similarly, CAC has conferred a virtual 'green bean' on the coin.

In 1933, FDR issued Executive Order 6102 which essentially outlawed private ownership of gold. The mint had already struck nearly 500,000 $20 gold pieces (also known as 'double eagles' or 'Saints' after the coin's designer Augustus Saint-Gaudens) for that year, but none had left storage yet. In concordance with the president's order, issuance of 1933 double eagles was banned and the entire inventory was subsequently melted.

Well, almost the entire inventory. 

A few 1933 Saints snuck out the door. Despite tireless efforts of the 'gold police' to recover the rogue twenties, a few remained at large. One wound up in hands of King Farouk of Egypt, who repeatedly rebuked attempts by federal agents to confiscate the coin. As the mainstream media likes to tell it, after decades of due diligence (and who knows how many million$ in US taxpayer resources), the federal government finally seized the coin in what is sometimes referred to as a 'secret service sting operation.' 

In reality, the feds struck a deal with a British coin dealer with whom the coin surfaced. Rather than melting it down, the feds subsequently accepted a face value payment of $20 from private parties in exchange for a 'certificate of monetization' (above) declaring that the coin was legal tender for public trade and ownership. That ceremonial transaction directly preceded the 2002 auction. 

Did I fail to mention that the federal government and dealer shared the auction proceeds?

A few other 1933 Saints are known to exist. A couple reside at the Smithsonian Institution. About 15 years ago, ten examples were found in a Philadelphia attic and dutifully submitted to the feds by the finder. I'm sure that federal bureaucrats were more than happy to trade ten crisp $20 Federal Reserve Notes for the coins. 

Legal battles involving the the Philly hoard of ten (which, not surprisingly, has not been melted) are certain to intensify now that the market has priced the stakes in the hundreds of million$.

As for any 1933 Saints that have retained their freedom, perhaps yesterday's sale will motivate a few rogues to trade on a market where their freedom is not questioned--the black market.

Homesteading

"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land, doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world worth working for. Worth fighting for. Worth dying for. Because it's the only thing that lasts."
--Gerald O'Hara (Gone With the Wind)

Today, if you want to own some land, then you generally have to buy it from someone who already owns it. But how did it work back in the day when land was not yet owned? Could you be like Christopher Columbus and just claim it? Finders, keepers?

That's often how it starts--claiming ownership of large tracts of land in your own name or in the name of someone else if you're that someone else's agent.

But claiming ownership by fiat is difficult to sustain for long periods of time. You have to defend the land against intruders. You have to maintain it. Most importantly, you'll likely want to elevate your standard of living by production on that land. 

You'll need guards, workers. You'll need tools and other resources. How to fund it? You'll probably have to peel off property to fund your interests. Those who receive land in payment have similar goals and needs. They undertake a similar process.

It may take a bit of time, buy hopefully you see where this leads. Gradually, apportionment of land approximates the ability to use it productively. Owners with too much unproductive land have to surrender some until they reach a scale that they can manage efficiently. The allures of specialization and trade drives even finer apportionment.

This early process is called homesteading. Land is apportioned according to productive capacity of the owners.

After the primary markets of homesteading wane, land begins to trade in secondary markets (like today).

However, in unhampered markets, the relationship between productivity and land ownership remains. The amount of real estate owned tends to be proportional to the owner's productivity.

Jabbing is Stabbing

This wouldn't be the first time
Things have gone astray
Now you've thrown it all away
--Bryan Adams

If life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are truly inalienable rights, then by definition they cannot legitimately be taken away from peaceful people. Doing so would constitute an act of aggression. In a truly free society that respects natural rights, any form of aggression is unjust. 

This includes aggression done in the name of safety of any kind, including public safety.

Jabbing people with needles against their will is no less an act of aggression than stabbing them with knives. 

Those doing the jabbing, and those who condone it, are committing crimes against humanity.

Doublethink

"His brain has not only been washed, it has been dry cleaned."
--Dr Yen Lo (The Manchurian Candidate)

For anyone who has read George Orwell's 1984, it is difficult to avoid a sense of life imitating fiction as current events unfold. Increasingly, it seems, the totalitarian novel is being used as a playbook by governments worldwide.

As Larry Arnn recounts, the Orwellian concept of doublethink particularly resonates today. Doublethink is a way of thinking that defies reasoning. Reasoning is grounded in the law of contradiction. The law says that X and Y cannot be true at the same time if they are mutually exclusive. For example, if A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then C cannot be greater than A. By applying the law of contradiction, we make sense of the world and progress toward the truth.

Doublethink seeks to eradicate the law of contradiction. C can be greater than A. War can be peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. 

Applied to our time, church gatherings are too dangerous to allow in a CV19 world, but mass protest marches aren't. A man can declare himself a woman. Protecting voters' rights is a racist act.

In 1984, doublethink is advanced by the Thought Police, an organization that monitors the media and people's actions through overt and covert means. Those people suspected of challenging doublethink conventions are detained, and subject to interrogation, 're-education,' or worse. The Thought Police report to the Ministry of Truth. It is easy to draw parallels to their real life counterparts today.

The ultimate goal of doublethink? To legitimize any act of government, no matter how counterintuitive or morally repulsive. When government takes life, liberty, or property, citizens who have been mesmerized by doublethink don't think twice about it. 

Doublethink seeks to dry clean the brain.

Give God Everything

Balian of Ibelin: How much is Jerusalem worth?

Saladin: Nothing...everything!
--Kingdom of Heaven

In today's gospel (Matthew 22:15-21), Jesus is once again confronted by the Pharisees seeking to trick Him. Like today's intellectuals, the Pharisees sought to trap people in their words.

Approaching Jesus with Roman representatives in tow, the Pharisees asked Jesus opinion about the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar.

Jesus reprimanded them for being the hypocrites that they were, and then asked to see a Roman coin. "Whose image is this?" Christ asked. "Caesar's," they said.

"Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."

Today many people, modern day Pharisees assuredly, hold up this passage as proof that Jesus condoned taxation and statism.

No way. Christ understood the sticky situation that he was in and that he needed to choose his words carefully.

To His followers, Christs words are easily construed to mean this: Give nothing to the state that it does not rightfully own (which is very little, if anything). Give everything that you own to God.

Vine and Whine

"Sure don't look none too prosperous."
--Tom Joad (The Grapes of Wrath)

When Christ speaks in parables, God's wisdom is revealed as if a brilliant light had just been switched on. He tells the story and, click, we suddenly see.

We have recounted several parables previously, including the Parable of the Talents, the Lost and Found Parables, and the Parable of the Rich Fool. In today's gospel, we are treated to the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16).

Jesus tells us that the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who goes out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the workers on the wage to be paid at day's end, the landowner sets them to work in the fields.

Several times during the day, the landowner finds groups of people standing around town and not being productive. He tells them to go to his vineyard and work, and that at the end of the day he will pay them what is just.

At the end of the day, the landowner told the foreman to pay the laborers in reverse order starting with those workers who had arrived latest in the day. To their surprise, the late arrivers were paid a full day's wage. When they saw this, those who started working at the beginning of the day anticipated a bonus because they had arrived first and had worked more hours than the late arrivers. 

To their disappointment, however, they were also paid a full day's wage like the others. They complained to the landowner, whining that, although they had worked longer and harder than the late arrivers, they were paid the same daily wage. The landowner then replies,

"My friends, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?" [emphasis mine]

Christ concludes, "Thus, the last will be first, and the first shall be last."

What do you see when the light switches on? I see God's message of helping idle people become productive late in life, the divine nature of contracts and property rights, the danger of envy and covetousness, and the chasm between earthly and heavenly notions of 'fairness.'

Conceived in Liberty

"So, here's to the men who did what was considered WRONG, in order to do what they knew was right...what they KNEW was right."
--Benjamin Franklin Gates (National Treasure)

Two hundred and forty four years ago today the document that changed the world was ratified. It declared that all people were endowed from birth with rights to life, liberty, and property that could not be justly rescinded by worldly government. When governments failed to secure those rights, then the people are justified in throwing off that government in favor of better designs.

The effect the declaration had then is the same effect that it has today. Authoritarians and those longing to be ruled by others fear these ideas and will do everything in their power to destroy them.

Thus, a nation conceived in liberty fights an ongoing revolution to hold onto an idea that remains radical.

CHAZ

When the truth is found to be lies
And all the joy within you dies
--Jefferson Airplane

A noteworthy phenomenon in the recent round of protests and riots is the attempt to construct so called 'autonomous zones' in many cities. Thus far, only one has been able to stick, that being CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone) in Seattle. After city officials closed a downtown police station in early June, rioters rushed to commandeer a six block neighborhood in the area.

While mainstream media spins it as a spontaneous, peaceful protest, CHAZ is neither. It is being managed by several leftist groups and it is gaining socialist sponsorship. The camp itself was founded on principles of theft and is managed by strong-armed discretionary force.

In 1967 tens of thousands gathered in Haight-Ashbury for the Summer of Love. Fifty three years later tens of thousands are gathering up the coast to spend portions of their summer in anarchy.