The Evil 1%
Friday, October 21, 2011 – by Lew Rockwell
Lew RockwellThe “occupy” protest movement is thriving off the claim that the 99% are being exploited by the 1%, and there is truth in what they say. But they have the identities of the groups wrong. They imagine that it is the 1% of highest wealth holders who are the problem. In fact, that 1% includes some of the smartest, most innovative people in the country – the people who invent, market, and distribute material blessings to the whole population. They also own the capital that sustains productivity and growth.
But there is another 1% out there, those who do live parasitically off the population and exploit the 99%. Moreover, there is a long intellectual tradition, dating back to the late middle ages that draws attention to the strange reality that a tiny minority lives off the productive labor of the overwhelming majority.
I’m speaking of the State, which even today is made up of a tiny sliver of the population, but is the direct cause of all the impoverishing wars, inflation, taxes, regimentation, and social conflict. This 1% is the direct cause of the violence, the censorship, the unemployment, and vast amounts of poverty, too.
Look at the numbers, rounding from latest data. The U.S. population is 307 million. There are about 20 million government employees at all levels, which makes 6.5%. But 6.2 million of these people are public school teachers, whom I think we can say are not really the ruling elite. That takes us down to 4.4%.
We can knock of another half million who work for the post office, and probably the same who work for various service department bureaus. Probably another million do not work in any enforcement arm of the State, and there’s also the amazing labor-pool fluff that comes with any government work. Local governments do not cause nation-wide problems (usually), and the same might be said of the 50 states. The real problem is at the federal level (8.5 million), from which we can subtract fluff, drones, and service workers.
In the end, we end up with about 3 million people who constitute what is commonly called the State. For short, we can just call these people the 1%.
The 1% do not generate any wealth of their own. Everything they have they get by taking from others under the cover of law. They live at our expense. Without us, the State as an institution would die.
Here we come to the core of the issue. What is the State and what does it do? There is vast confusion about this issue, insofar as it is talked about at all. For hundreds of years, people have imagined that the State might be an organic institution that develops naturally out of some social contract. Or perhaps the State is our benefactor because it provides services we could not otherwise provide for ourselves.
In classrooms and in political discussions, there is very little if any honest talk about what the State is and what it does. But in the libertarian tradition, matters are much clearer. From Bastiat to Rothbard, the answer has been before our eyes. The State is the only institution in society that is permitted by law to use aggressive force against person and property.
Let’s understand through a simple example. Let’s say you go into a restaurant and hate the wallpaper. You can complain and try to persuade the owner to change it. If he doesn’t change it, you can decide not to go back. But if you break in, take money out of the cash register, buy paint, and cover the wallpaper yourself, you will be charged with criminal wrongdoing and perhaps go to jail. Everyone in society agrees that you did the wrong thing.
But the State is different. If it doesn’t like the wallpaper, it can pass a law (or maybe even not that) and send a memo. It can mandate a change. It doesn’t have to do the repainting. The State can make you repaint the place. If you refuse, you are guilty of criminal wrongdoing.
Same goals, different means, two very different sets of criminals. The State is the institution that essentially redefines criminal wrongdoing to make itself exempt from the law that governs everyone else.
It is the same with every tax, every regulation, every mandate, and every single word of the federal code. It all represents coercion. Even in the area of money and banking, it is the State that created and sustains the Fed and the dollar because it forcibly limits competition in money and banking, preventing people from making gold or silver money, or innovating in other ways. And in some ways, this is the most dreadful intervention of all, because it allows the State to destroy our money on a whim.
The State is everybody’s enemy. Why don’t the protesters get this? Because they are victims of propaganda by the State, doled out in public school, that attempts to blame all human suffering on private parties and free enterprise. They do not comprehend that the real enemy is the institution that brainwashes them to think they way they do.
They are right that society is rife with conflicts, and that the contest is wildly lopsided. It is indeed the 99% vs. the 1%. They’re just wrong about the identity of the enemy.
YOU TRY TAKING THEM HILLARY…
The Proposed UN Small Arms Treaty; Pushed by Hillary Clinton
Thursday, August 25, 2011 – by Adrian Krieg
Dr. Adrian KriegThe greatest gun grab in world history is in the midst of debate in the UN and is being pushed by Obama, Holder, Clinton, and all of Obama’s Czars. Citizens of the United States, in fact citizens around the world, deserve to know what this treaty, if ratified by the Senate, would mean to Americans. Here is a brief synopsis:
• If ratified by the Senate the treaty would void the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
• The Treaty would violate the Tenth Amendment transferring and federalizing gun ownership, regulation and licensing nationally.
• Require the establishment of a national data bank (federal) of all gun owners.
• Ban the sale, transportation and trade of all semi-automatic guns that have been in use since the 1890s.
• Confiscate all “UNAUTHORIZED” (a word not defined in the document) civilian firearms.
• Require a federal license for the purchase and ownership of any gun.
The fact is that were this treaty to be ratified it would fundamentally change America, giving it the appearance of Australia and England where gun ownership is restricted and crime statistically has risen drastically since their gun bans. England has clearly demonstrated the failure of this during the recent riots in which merchants were unable to defend their property, which the police were unable to do.
The argument by proponents of this treaty is to stop the unauthorized sales of guns across international boundaries that they claim are arming criminals and terrorists and leading to gun violence. In order to bolster that argument, Eric Holder and the US Department of Justice engaged the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) to set up operation FAST & FURIOUS in which thousands of small arms were sold across the Mexican border, supplying the Mexican drug cartels with weapons. This was done with strong opposition by FFL licensees (gun dealers) who were in some instances told that their licenses would be reviewed if they did not cooperate with Fast and Furious. Over a dozen murders and the deaths of two federal agents are directly linked to Fast & Furious, which is now under review by congress.
The largest volume of small arms flooding the world markets are produced in China, the old Soviet republics, Israel, France and the United States. Since governments make all these sales, the treaty, which only regulates small arm sales to the private sector and to individual owners, will have no effect at all in the international arms bazaar. This treaty represents the elites’ final move to disable people’s resistance to the New World Order, something that they have been setting up for many decades.
For eons the global elite have had their eyes on everything that they desire to control. There appears to be nothing off the table. From arms for self-protection, to the seabed, the air, the climate, everything must be controlled by the power hungry elites. After all, we are far too stupid to fend for ourselves. Well, with what they have accomplished in the realm of education, bringing America from fourth in the world to 34th in just 30 years, you can gain understanding of their position. The nanny-state must protect you from your fellow citizens.
Well, not really. The enemy, as demonstrated in the immediate past, has not been our fellow citizens but in most cases their governments. Considering that in the 20th Century governments killed more people than all the wars including WWI and WWII, one can gain an understanding of the issue. In the Soviet empire alone from 1919 to its end over 200 million were killed, in China during the “Great Leap Forward” (Cultural Revolution) over 100 million were killed, in Germany and Italy perhaps ten million were killed. Frankly and honestly ,I would much rather trust my neighbor or even a stranger with a gun than any government agent.
This proposal, and let’s hope that’s all it will ever be, is the most massive attempt to control humanity undertaken since the beginning of recorded history. We have been told by no less an expert than Hillary Clinton that this is a fight against terrorism, insurgency, and international crime syndicates. It is in fact none of those. The world is awash with small arms, 98% of which were provided by or sold by governments. The control and/or elimination of private ownership of firearms will have zero effect on any of the aforementioned issues.
Let’s make this abundantly clear. The Taliban, since the NATO incursion, facilitates the production of heroin, making Afghanistan the number one supplier of illicit drugs in the world. Before the NATO incursion into their country the Taliban had eliminated heroin production. They reinstated it to produce money to buy guns and munitions. Almost all guns of the Taliban are AK-47s and various versions of Kalashnikovs produced in China, Bulgaria, Russia and almost all of the old Soviet satellites. Other weapons used by the Taliban are American made, which they got from Afghan army deserters and theft. On our side of the pond the largest supplier of small arms in the past ten years to the Mexican drug cartels has been the BATF through operation Fast and Furious. France has supplied the Libyan rebels and when confronted by the gun-grabbers in Europe, the French government stated that they were not directly supplying the rebels but had no objection if other states in the Middle East supplied them with French arms.
On the Israel front, the Israelis have a long history of supplying their Lebanese Christian militias with arms and amendments and in fact using those militias as a surrogate captive army to destabilize Lebanon. The Israelis have also acted as intermediaries in small arms supplies to Central America, South America, various places in the Middle East, and in fact any place they can turn a shekel.
So the entire red herring of the proposed UN treaty on small arms is nothing but a veiled effort to establish world domination by removing the most obvious impediment to centralized control, the small arm.
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS- AMERICANS TOOK FROM THE 1689 ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS- WHERE WE TOO HAVE THE RIGHT!
B. Keeping and Bearing Arms Secures a Right to Individual Self-Defense
Many sources of international human rights support an individual right to self-defense. An individual right to keep and bear arms is partially designed to be the means to secure individual self-defense.
1. International Law Aimed at a Right to Individual Self-Defense
The preambles and text of multiple international human agreements provide support for an individual right to self-defense. The Charter of the United Nations allows for individual or collective self-defense of member nations.  The “freedom from fear” language of the preambles discussed above not only applies to preventing fear of government tyranny, but it also applies to individual freedom from fear of having one’s life jeopardized by private actors.
a. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter
Article 51 recognizes a right to self-defense for nations. It provides: “[n]othing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”  Article 51 does not recognize an individual person’s right to self-defense. There are, however, two principles in Article 51 that support the recognition of an individual’s right to self-defense.
*1002 First, Article 51 recognizes a member State has a right to self-defense regardless of who initiated the attack. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), however, concluded that Article 51 only “recognizes the existence of an inherent right [to] self-defense in the case of an armed attack by one State against another State.”  Some international law judges disagreed with this conclusion and concluded restricting the right to self-defense under Article 51 to attacks by member states is unwarranted on the basis of the text of Article 51 describes the ability to defend against “an armed attack” not “an armed attack by a Member State.”  Similarly, scholars have concluded that the text of Article 51 “does not link the right to self-defense to the particular legal personality of the attacker.”  State practice under Article 51 supports the “permissibility of responding in self-defense to an attack by a nonstate actor.”  The ICJ’s conclusion also seems “illogical . . . when the worldwide terrorist threats stem primarily from nonstate actors.”  The ICJ’s conclusion is, in fact, inconsistent with the United Nation Security Council’s endorsement of the United States’ right to self-defense against the terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.  Ultimately, “[it] would . . . be peculiar if states were legally unable to protect [themselves] against repeated acts of terrorism, when they can use force against conventional armies attacking conventional targets.” 
The ability of a State to defend itself against any attacks is a broad protection focused on the security of the nation attacked. We can draw from that principle the right to self-defense is not focused on whom commits the attack, but on providing the attacked with the ability to defend themselves. Consequently, international law allowing for self-defense of nations is analogous to an individual person’s right to self-defense: the individual person’s right to self-defense is similarly focused on the person’s right to defend himself, not on who attacked him. International law in this regard can therefore be viewed as supporting an international right to self-defense.
Second, Article 51 recognizes an “inherent right of . . . self-defence.”  In other words, the right to self-defense for member States is an essential characteristic of *1003 their existence. This rationale follows the natural law notion in the American Second Amendment that recognizes an individual’s natural right to self-defense; it does not create the right.
IT’S OUR HUUUUMAN RIGHT..
This supports preventing government tyranny since people should be free from fear of barbarous government acts. This interpretation is buttressed because the next paragraph is the paragraph discussed above that speaks to preventing government tyranny under law. Enacting human rights law that prevents government tyranny is the means to achieve the end of creating freedom from fear. Both the ICCPR and the ICESCR, each entered into force twenty-eight years after the UDHR’s inception in 1948, recognize the ideal of the UDHR that free human beings enjoy “freedom from fear.”  The “freedom from fear” is a core purpose of international human rights law, which can never be achieved if the chance for government tyranny exists.
TYRANICAL GOVs ALWAYS DISARM THE POPULATION…FIRST!