Former House speaker Newt Gingrich appears to be running against the Constitution as much as against President Obama these days. Gingrich has been promising to round up judges who do not agree with him — statements that have even conservative figures like Michael Mukasey, former attorney general during the George W. Bush administration, denouncing him. Mukasey was the attorney general who blocked prosecutions into torture, but finds Gingrich truly scary. I am currently scheduled to be on Hardball tonight to discuss this latest attack on the judiciary.
On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Gingrich indicated that he would call judges who hand down controversial opinions to appear before Congress to answer for their transgressions and would send federal law enforcement to arrest judges failed to appear.
It is the latest attack on the judicial branch — attacks that led Mukasey to denounce his proposals as “dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle.”
Here is one of the exchanges:
SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you this and we’ll talk about enforcing it, because one of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, the congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before congress and hold a congressional hearing. Some people say that’s unconstitutional. But I’ll let that go for a minute.
I just want to ask you from a practical standpoint, how would you enforce that? Would you send the capital police down to arrest him?GINGRICH: If you had to.
SCHIEFFER: You would?
GINGRICH: Or you instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshal. Let’s take the case of Judge Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical. How could he say he’s going to jail the superintendent over the word “benediction” and “invocation”? Because before you could — because I would then encourage impeachment, but before you move to impeach him you’d like to know why he said it.
Now clearly since the congress has….SCHIEFFER: What if he didn’t come? What if he said no thank you I’m not coming?
GINGRICH: Well, that is what happens in impeachment cases. In an impeachment case, the House studies whether or not — the House brings them in, the House subpoenas them. As a general rule they show up.
It is the very definition of demagogy to dangle out the image of judges being clapped in irons to satisfy citizens angry over decisions by judges. Article III is designed to guarantee independence from people like Gingrich so that judges can rule in favor of the Constitution and, yes, at times take positions disliked by the majority.
Source: Washington Post
FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 31, 2011.
Do the Democrats not know they are setting the incumbent up for assassination with their current scenario….or is that the master plan? What better way to destroy America than to kill the first black president while in office and start another major civil war?
So? The unelectable Veep would then be Prezz. He is the “Establishment’s” man too.
“Every government just to be a governing institution has to share some of the characteristics of a fascist state.”
Yes, all governments MUST violate private property, must steal from innocent peaceful people, in order to exist. ALL government is fascist. There can be NO private property if there is government. Government is simply a thug in a uniform. We will not obey. Yes, the criminals may kill us, but they cannot make us obey. I will shoot. Don’t put your agents in my line of fire if you don’t want them hurt, if you don’t wan’t yo pay their medical, their funeral. Even if I am taken alive, which is very unlikely, then you get to pay for my medical, food, housing, plus I will radicalize the other prisons and teach them the wholes in the injustice system and launch new lawsuits against the state daily. I will kill any guard I can at any moment, and escape whenever possible. I will never submit. Don’t want to back off you tyranny? Prepare for war then. The US is the biggest, most evil, most unlimited tyrant in world history. Anyone who cooperates with it is evil, is a murdering psychopath.
Bron:
“Building permits and review? Definitely could do privately, zoning may need some government control.”
Two R’pubblikan candidates for county commissioner ran on a promise to abolish the building department. They were elected and promptly did just that, over the squalling of the third commissioner, a Demmyk-rat. What an uproar! With the closure of an entire department of the county, a complete audit had to be taken. All kinds of equipment, supplies and funding was … yeah, missing (and unaccounted for, of course). Some of the equipment was found in other departments but most was just gone.Of course the local fascist (! thought I’d see how it feels to call someone a “fascist”!) news media don’t mention that. It’s all about how bad it is for anyone to spit without a permit.
“You anarchists need to think about what you are proposing.”
If they did they wouldn’t propose it except to yank on other people’s chains.
From the few professing anarchists I have ever encountered, I get nothing but run-arounds or blasts of namecalling. Some are really nice people personally and some are not. But they all live within the framework of what some of them call a “fascist” society and others just call the “system.” None of us have ever experienced living in anarchy, so really have no idea how or if it could work. It looks to me that some of the self-styled anarchists just don’t want any constraints. Now that works for a 2 year old because he’s not big and strong enough to carry his anarchist ideas out. But the little barbarians get civilized in just a few years. Usually. For those who don’t we have sheriffs/police, courts and jails.
Unfortunately with the rise in feminism and “women’s rights,” the women’s sky-high unrealistic expectations of men, or one selected man, result in serious disappointment in the whole male-female deal. This, along with easy divorce, leaves millions of children growing up with no father in the household. So, the criminal justice growth industry is fueled by more barbarians.
Over simplistic like even long, burdensome posts are but still too short to give any real coverage or to stimulate in-depth thought.
All great arguments for abolishing government. Nothing can control government. It will grow, once created, and become ever more oppressive. A piece of paper cannot stop it. Once they can steal, control and murder legally, they will do ever more of it. The only law I will obey is the non-aggression principle and I will defend myself from you fascists. It is extortion to take money from people under the threat of force, even if you offer some “services” in return. If I can’t go mow someone’s lawn without permission and then demand payment, government can’t do it either, without being criminal. All services and commodities can be, have been, and are currently offered privately, to the extent the evil government allows private property (only the pretense). Until my money is not coerced, I will continue to take these government “services” which are under monopoly control at the point of a gun, for free. The criminals, the government, can kill me, but they cannot enslave me. And, killing me will likely be costly. I am extremely heavily armed at all times.
“… killing me will likely be costly.”
Yeah, like one bullet.
“I am extremely heavily armed at all times.”
Ah! Just what they like to hear! They sometimes have trouble with what to do with people who are totally nonresistant. But this is right in the area of their specialty: Robbing, enslaving and murdering/killing, whichever, you’re dead.
People who resort to namecalling as “fascist” when they don’t even seem to know what it means have no argument to present. Every government just to be a governing institution has to share some of the characteristics of a fascist state.
The main reason to know what is fascism is toward avoiding its rise.
Avoiding Fascism
A. Maintain Order
Ensure that the people are secure in possession of their lives, liberty, and property. (!) Locke had this one right. And as Jefferson observed, a government that does not ensure these things should be overthrown. Until a government can ensure a high degree of public order it has no business doing anything else. Pursuit of other objectives, however worthy, while public order is lacking will bring the government into contempt and require the people to seek security from vigilante and squadrist organizations. [Some of that “private law, eh?”] At that point the government is seen as a useless hindrance and fascism is imminent.
The major impediment to maintaining public order in the United States at this time (2008) is the judiciary, which has introduced so much procedural due process that bringing simple cases to trial can take months or years. [Trying to make sure they are needed in perpetuity, or at least until (s)he retires.] A re-assessment of these archaic and inefficient procedures would be beneficial, and needs to be undertaken before a crisis exposes their weakness.
B. Compromise
Gandhi said that in his law practice he “strained every nerve to bring about a compromise,” and that “The true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder.” (Mohandas Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, ch. 14). Gandhi saw compromise as a spiritual necessity.
The role of maximalism in the rise of fascism has been noted previously. The failure of left, right, and center to compromise and form coalitions weakened the governments of Italy, Germany, Austria, and other countries, promoting the rise of fascism.
Compromise requires intellectual honesty, a faculty often lacking on the right and left. It is necessary for the wise to broker compromises and “strain every nerve” to achieve them.
C. Remember that Law is Violence, and Use it Sparingly
Amateur commentators on fascism (Wolf, Britt, Eco et al.) fail to see that fascists did most of their work using the state’s monopoly on “legitimate” violence with nearly universal popular approbation. This included passing laws that controlled the most trivial aspects of human behavior, backed up by the traditional apparatus of police, courts, and prisons. In many cases considerable procedural due process existed, most notably in Italy, where the judicial machinery was largely untouched. But of course procedural due process used to enforce an unjust law does not yield justice.
The point here is this: if you think you are better than a fascist because you are passing laws to control people’s behavior in trivial and oppressive ways, instead of beating people up, well, you are wrong. The fascists did exactly the same thing. In fact, you are worse than a fascist, because you are too cowardly to do the dirty work yourself, and want to leave it to the police and the courts.
So unless you would be willing personally to use physical violence to enforce a law, knowing that you might be severely injured or killed while doing so, you have no business making such a law, and will only bring contempt upon yourself and the legislature if you do so. This of course is one reason the U.S. House and Senate are held in such low esteem – they are seen, with some accuracy, as a collection of ignorant, cowardly windbags hiding behind the state’s monopoly on violence. (This may seem harsh, but no reasonable person viewing the Congress of the United States in 2009 could possibly disagree with it.) — Chuck Anesi
[This last gets off into silliness. There is a sort of point to it, but the reason we (with some exceptions) are as willing as we are to pay taxes is precisely to hire people to do the dirty work who are willing, trained and organized to handle it. As an individual I have nothing in between letting someone get away with depredations on me and killing, or at least baseball-batting him. I have no jail, no intermediate ways of dealing with bandits. Kill them or do nothing.
[As to the ignorance, cowardice and windiness of congressmen and senators, well, some of them have been front-line action in war. Some of those won honors for bravery (which in hindsight is usually stupidity). Joe Kennedy was killed testing a cruise missile (he piloted it before the guidance system was ready) JFK was a torpedo boat skipper (nearly got killed) RFK was assassinated while atty. genl. Bob Dole was badly wounded, nearly lost an arm which was paralyzed. Even the crappy president Bush I was shot down in WWII. Many of them are not cowards at all though their are vile, evil, wicked tyrants as much as they can get away with it. Bravery is just that. Hitler was an exemplary runner in WWI; he won an Iron Cross. He was nearly killed several times for his cause. He was brave; risked his life for his cause. Thousands of Communists were brave and lost their lives for their cause. Just because a man is brave doesn’t mean he is moral. I was shot while coming to the defense of a woman who was about to be raped out in front of my home. Doesn’t make me good or bad just because I happened to be doing the right thing at the moment.]
[What is “trivial” and “oppressive” to one is of vital importance to another. If someone rapes my daughter, but in the process does her no real harm, transmits no disease to her, does nothing that a husband would not do, only lacking her consent, she has not been harmed in any objective sense. He has used her organ for what it is made for. If he knocks her up, well, one brat is as good as the next. Why, he points out that the Bible suggests that all he needs to do is pay me fifty silver shekels and offer to marry her. Fat chance of that, so he gets off with about $700 at today’s spot. He thinks that the loss of her virginity and her psychological trauma is “trivial” that I would like to beat him to a pulp or rip his prong out by the root is “oppressive.” The $700 is oppressive enough in his opinion.]
I think its really important you fascists understand our viewpoint, us anarcho-capitalists and allied ideologies (there are millions of us in the US and far more around the world). Not because I require your understanding or approval. I do not. But, its important so you understand the consequences that will result from fucking with us. We will not obey. We will not submit to theft, even if you call it taxes. We will not submit to kidnapping, torture and murder for non-violent things you tyrants don’t like. We view your government as simply a criminal, a gang, with colors, uniforms and badges to make you feel justified in your crime. But, we don’t want to hurt anyone. We are minding our own business. We are not out there attacking the government. We are on defense. So, don’t send your agents to fuck with else. They will be shot, and then you will pay for their medical, their funeral. Don’t tread on us. We are ready to resist.
I don’t care what the indoctrination system insists is the meaning of government. Its distinguishing characteristic is as I described. Certainly there are many different definitions of government out there and I can quote many philosophers to support the one I am using. Again, simply asserting people have to submit to legalized crime to be safe from crime doesn’t make it so. Government is the negation of private property. Ownership means you have ultimate control over usage and disposal. Government maintains ownership of everything and merely allows you to rent. You don’t own shit. Government takes whatever it wants. I’m going nowhere. I pay not taxes. I don’t have a driver’s license. I don’t have a tag. I don’t obey. Why would I leave? If you fascists don’t like me condemning your authoritarianism, you leave.
We don’t have to leave. Our ancestors stole the place fair and square. First one was a slave imported in 1665. No one came in after 1700.
Some of the ancestors married into the aborigines so we have an even stronger claim going however far back their ancestors were here.
Eastern American abos were part Gaelic and Norsk from earlier visiting and settlement.
So my family has been here for over a thousand years. I don’t have to leave.
Not your blog, either.
I went 17 years with no DL and no state tag. And drove a motor vehicle, automobile, motor car, whatever, from Florida to New York, Washington state, California, Arizona. Finally gave it up due to gunmen threatening to murder my wife and children over no tag & DL.
Never done a Confession Form 1040. Wouldn’t know how. Too difficult for Einstein, so I’m sure not even going to try.
“The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.” — Albert Einstein, theoretical physicist
“Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” — Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court Justice
B.S. Taxes are what people pay for not being able to avoid them.
“No government can exist without taxation. This money must necessarily be levied on the people; and the grand art consists of levying so as not to oppress.” — Frederick the Great, 18th Century Prussian king
All taxes oppress someone. The “someones” are called “taxpayers.”
“The difference between death and taxes is that death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets.” – Will Rogers
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
“Income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf.” — Will Rogers, humorist
So the income tax is a tax on honesty. Not only the poor but the honest should be punished. This is a strong indication that the government wants people to be liars and crooks. That way they are all criminals and the prisons can be kept full.
Income tax is a tax on ignorance much as the state lottery is a tax on the stupid.
“Taxation with representation ain’t so hot either.” — Gerald Barzan, humorist
Slaves were taxed only about 10% of what they produced. Serfs were taxed about 25%. The free man is taxed over 70% in all.
In the USA slaves were represented at 3/5 rate. The North didn’t want them counted at all. The South wanted them counted as full citizens. So the 3/5 compromise was enacted. Slaves couldn’t vote, but neither could women and children, and they were citizens nonetheless. Permanent reswidents, noncitizens, are not counted as citizens at all. So in effect out of every 5 slaves 3 were citizens.
Tax quotes from irs.gov.
In 1913 the standard deduction for a married couple was $4,000.
Adjusted for inflation today’s standard deduction would be over $87,100.
The actual 2010 deduction for a married couple is $19,500.
In 1913, only 1 percent of Americans paid any income tax. The tax rate increased from 1 percent to 2 percent at $20,000, and so on, up to a top rate of 7 percent at $500,000 – which would be the 2008 equivalent of $10.9 million.
Few had any income at all.
“Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.
“Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible.
“Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.”
Learned Hand, Gregory v. Helvering 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff’d, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935)
All he is saying is that no one owes more tax than the law requires.
100 years ago our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world and Mom stayed home to raise the kids. – B.S. Poor women had to get out and work. Wives of drunks had to get out and work.
Maybe not in his neighborhood.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax – tax on commercial use of the people’s roads
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes) – people were fined but not taxed on top of the fine
Dog License Tax
Estate Tax – federal has estate tax only no inheritance tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax – promoted by fishermen and their associations
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax – promoted by hunters and their associations
Inheritance Tax Interest expense(tax on the money) – some states not federal
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax – not true always a federal alcoholic beverage tax; ever hear of the “Whiskey Rebellion?”
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax – don’t need license to marry: private agreement
Medicare Tax
Property Tax – B.S. – had ’em all the way back
Real Estate Tax – B.S. – had ’em all the way back
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers) – commercial use of the people’s roads
Sales Taxes – first Mississippi during Great Depression
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes – many toll roads (“turnpikes”) way back
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes – had toll bridges since way back before 1776
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation) – had ’em since before 1776
Trailer registration tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Those definitions are flawed. Government is the agency with monopoly on the right to commit aggression, coercion and fraud within the area they have conquered. No other agency can legally steal, order people around at the point of a gun, imprison peaceful people, and murder people. This is the distinctive nature of government. It matters no how big it is, except the bigger it gets the more dangerous it is, the more people it commits crime against. You are wrong on the historical record. There were completely anarchist colonies operating under salutary neglect. No government at all. No taxation. For years. Anarcho-capitalism is an individualistic society, not a tribal society. Your system doesn’t work. Once you legalize crime, one you have government. Nothing can stop it from growing and committing ever more crime except its destruction. Amerika is the perfect example, the most limited according to the propaganda, yet the biggest, most powerful, most tyrannical bullying government in the history of the world. The cjob, that stupid piece of paper saying people can steal from others, is of no consequence. They don’t care what it says and violate it any time its convenient. In fact, it simply justifies ever more crime as being “constitutional.” It is pure evil. There is absolutely no reason we need legalized crime. A system of 100% private property and free trade by contract can handle crime in a far superior fashion. Just repeating the 3rd grade indoctrination system’s propaganda doesn’t make it so. Go fucking read.
Well, those are the meanings people attach to the set of syllables: gov-ern-ment or guv-mint. If you mean something else, perhaps it would help you to be understood, if you give a care, to use a word or phrase that more succinctly expresses whatever it is that you want to express. I know it’s a chore to repeat an entire paragraph each time you want to express a meaning if there is no single word or short phrase that carries. Maybe you can introduce a new word to the language?
There is no such thing as private property without a governmental structure. That is, unless you live alone on a desert isle. If you stake out a piece of ground that someone else takes a liking to, you either have a sheriff to call upon or you are the sheriff, the baron, the landgrave (English = earl), the duke, whatever, of your little reeve, barony, landgravure, dukedom. You hire enough mercenaries to fend off bandits, rival barons, and other challengers, and you set up a system of maintaining order. A little government of your domain.
Nomadic peoples did not have fixed boundaries to their territories but they sure would try to run off anyone else who came around to take “their” land, bag “their” deer, rape or kidnap their womenfolk, and take their stuff.
The lack of fixed boundaries was not due to people being all nice guys but that there just weren’t enough of them to necessitate boundaries. Different tribes didn’t run into one another very often. Few people and a lot of land and game.
You can’t even own your own labor without some government to uphold your claim. If you are unattached to a society anyone can overpower you and make you into his slave. Slavery is the theft of one’s labor. Cannibalism goes further. The one who overpowers you kills you and eats your carcass, makes shoes out of your hide. If you are female, you master/owner gets to use you as a semen dump. If you think you can defend yourself from this, you have to go to sleep sometime, or severl of them can subdue you. A set of collar, manacles and leg irons does wonders at subduing an unruly spirit. I haven’t been literally collared but I can testify to the effects of a set of cuffs, waist chain and shackles.
Slavery is just what you complain of. Government, the aggregate power of everyone else in the community, takes of your labor either directly (military service, road work like used to be done) or indirectly (taxes, eminent domain). Don’t like it? Then don’t pay or work. Go find your idealized desert isle. Maybe a “man (or better yet, a girl) Friday” will wash up on the shore. Ha! A slave! Be nice to your slave and maybe he/she will submit to your rule without violence. Or maybe you to his/hers?
If it’s a she and starts popping brats out, you are started on a tribe of your own. The dark cloud of government looms. Maybe should have tossed her back in the ocean.
Bill:
“… the Dread Scott decision. How much suffering could have been avoided if the people had way to nullify such an UN-constitutional Supreme Court ruling?”
What is unconstitutional about the Dred Scott decision? According to Shepard’s it has been cited as precedent many times.
The Anti-Slavery Amendment had to be ratified to overcome the objectionable points in Dred Scott. Those points are now unconstitutional but they weren’t in 1857. At least I don’t think so.
A court ruling doesn’t have to be moral, wise or expedient to be constitutional.
If you have any valid points to substantiate your statement, please share them. I realize that it is “common wisdom” that D.S. v. Sandford was unconstitutional.
I got in on this on 12/21 and have read your posts before that. I didn’t see the answer to the question I pose herein. If I missed it, please refer me to the appropriate post.
A-C, those societies all had government. Whether under chiefs, tribal councils, whatever, man is a social creature and government is an integral part of society. Government doesn’t have to be massive and tyrannical to be a governing system. Perhaps you and I have a differing understanding of what is meant by “government.”
Noun:
1.The governing body of a nation, state, or community.
2.The system by which a nation, state, or community is governed.
1. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society. (example of the use of the word)
2. the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government.
3. the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration.
4. a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole: a dam built by the government.
5. (in some parliamentary systems, as that of the United Kingdom)
a. the particular group of persons forming the cabinet at any given time: The Prime Minister has formed a new government.
b. the parliament along with the cabinet: The government has fallen.
I don’t see any problem with the above two sources’ definitions.
In a tribal society the chief is the head enforcer of the law. Absent written statutes, such as on the stele of Hammurabi, societies function according to the common law, the aggregate of their traditions, customs, “how it’s done heres.” From time immemorial societies have had a legislative, executive and judicial system. In a family Big Daddy might be all three rolled up into one. Yet if he went too strongly against tradition (standing legislation) he might wake up dead one morning or ignored as senile. In a tribe a ruling council is the usual rather than an absolute monarch. There may be no formal legislation. It may just be the accumulated customs of their forebears. They have a system of government: laws (customs, traditions), an executive, those who uphold the laws, and a judicial function if the offense was not committed before the “court.” One person accuses another; the other denies. Someone else decides who is truth and who is lie. Then the executive, who may be the aggrieved party, applies the penalty as decided. Or maybe everyone gets around and stones the offender. Or he is banished, which in a primitive situation is the death penalty.
Its authoritarians that are stupid, since they will never be happy with it even if they achieved all their fantasies of control.
Mises was a jerk, but his followers far stupider.
You are an ignorant moron with no idea what you are talking about. Mises did not reject the scientific method. He rejected using empiricism in economics. Individualism have free will. Mathematics can only, at best, give a snapshot in time. Even then, the data chosen to be included is subjectively chosen and incomplete. The data has to be interpreted via theory. Mises did not reject empiricism in the natural sciences. Economics cannot properly function based only on math, hence the continued collapse of the Keynesian model which is unable to even explain in theory the events of the day, claimed they would eliminate the boom and bust cycle decades ago and have only make the cycles bigger, claimed gold would go down from $35 an ounce. lmao. But, of course, you, as a fanatical fascist tyrant wannabe, hate anyone who speaks against authoritarianism. This is just typical, and quite boring.
von Mises was ignorant of human nature . . . much like anyone stupid enough to think any form of anarchy will result in anything other than tyranny. Also, von Mises did indeed reject the scientific method. The Austrian School is built on axiomatic suppositions, not mathematics. His reliance on verbal logic was simply a means to hide the deficiencies of the verbal logic. Economics cannot properly function without mathematics. The Austrian School isn’t proper economics, but rather a school of political thought that is bereft of proper critical analysis.
You are an ignorant clown. Mises rejected studying human beings, experimenting on them by force, like you do with atoms. Yes. Empiricism is improper for the study of economics, where free will impacts all individual decisions. He did not reject the scientific method, moron. He certainly didn’t defend corporatism. Its you who embrace the current corporatist system though you don’t like some features of it. Mises opposes any government involvement, which works both ways. As long as government mixes with business, business will bribe, intimidate and even murder them to get what they want. But, yes, Rothbard properly took the theory further to forbid limited liability entirely. Rothbard > Mises. And, he didn’t even say demand cannot be calculated without price. He said there can be no economic calculation in a system of government ownership of all means of production, and no economist has ever come close to successfully refuting it. In fact, the Marxians gave up entirely on the issue, hence the lack of ideological movement toward socialism in the intellectuals and the complete sweeping victory for fascists, like you.
Otteray Scribe wrote last month:
“… the Marshal Service would refuse to obey such an illegal order–at least I hope they would.”
The federal Marshals are the federal corollary to the county sheriff. When they are given an order – a warrant – to go bring this guy before the court, they don’t determine the validity of the proceeding leading up to the issuance of the warrant.
I was once arrested by the Marshals, hauled across the continent in chains, and held for 2½ months in a effort to get me to testify against myself. The reason behind the procedure was illegal, but the court and the Marshals didn’t know that until it came out in court. Then the district judge court ordered me released.
Arresting judges and legislators for not kowtowing to a president or military officer has been done before. Lincoln ordered Taney arrested for ruling his war an unconstitutional exercise of power. He ordered the governor and secession party of the legislature of Maryland arrested. He had already acknowledged that such was unconstitutional, but, hey, doncha know there’s a war on?
Major General, later president, Jackson had federal judges arrested. He had a state legislator arrested. All after he had knowledge that the war was over and had been for weeks. More details are in a recent posting.
Generally, executive department officers will do what they are told and let the court sort it out later. Only rarely is an order so egregious as to warrant refusal to obey it. One example is the assassination order given to the FBI in the Naples, Idaho incident. All but one refused on constitutional grounds. Still, the others did nothing to restrain one officer from assassinating a mother standing at the door of her home holding her baby, and attempting to assassinate two others. These incidents are quite rare considering this nation has a population of 300 million plus.
von Mises.
The guy who rejected scientific method, defended corporatism, and was too stupid to realize that – yes – demand can be calculated without price.
Yeah.
You’ll get a lot of traction with that bullshit around here.
http://mises.org/books/conceived4.pdf
I already gave some great links above on private aggression-coercion fraud insurance, private rating agencies, a true free press, private arbitration and private security in the thread. Start reading; stop attacking strawman arguments.
http://mises.org/books/conceived2.pdf
http://mises.org/books/conceived3.pdf
Continues for one more link…